2003 House Bill 4227 (House Roll Call 128)
Passed in the House (73 to 34) on May 13, 2003, to substitute across-the-board per pupil cuts for the “pro-rated” cuts required by current law when tax revenue received by the School Aid Fund is not sufficient to cover previously appropriated state aid to school districts. Under Proposal A, the governor is required to make pro-rated cuts unless the legislature adopts a different formula. Pro-rated cut affect certain lower-funded districts more than higher-funded ones. These districts have received greater state aid increases since the passage of Proposal A, which was intended to equalize per-pupil spending. As a result of other factors, this means they also receive greater cuts under the pro-ration formula. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 73 in favor, 34 opposed, and 2 not voting
(House Roll Call 128 at House Journal 38)
[Comment on this vote | View others' comments]
|
|
|
Support
Oppose
Not Voting
Undecided
The following legislators supported 2003 House Bill 4227:
The following legislators opposed 2003 House Bill 4227:
The following legislators did not vote on 2003 House Bill 4227:
| Stallworth (D) | Zelenko (D) |
Most Recent Comments
1) Rep. Whitmer's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 14, 2003]Rep. Whitmer, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
While I acknowledge there are merits to this bill, I believe the time is ripe for a full comprehensive review of the benefits and unintended negative consequences of Proposal A. This new formula penalized every school district in the 69th district and virtually every district in Ingham County. Until we commit to giving those schools the tools they need to survive and thrive in post Prop A era. We should create a bipartisan, commission with community representatives, educators, and administrators to examine these issues. Further, the House should take up related legislation like my bill to expand the purposes for which schools can us their sinking funds. Until this legislature is committed to such a comprehensive review and is amenable to a package of legislation committed toward that end, I cannot support a new proration formula that hurts my schools when house leadership refuses to give them the tools they need to educate our kids."
Reply
Rep. Jamnick, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted against this bill today because of my 7 school districts, which includes our ISD, only one gains under this formula. I find it difficult to impossible to support such a loss."
Reply
Introduced in the House on February 13, 2003, to substitute across-the-board per pupil cuts for the “pro-rated” cuts required by current law when tax revenue received by the School Aid Fund is not sufficient to cover previously appropriated state aid to school districts. Under Proposal A, the governor is required to make pro-rated cuts unless the legislature adopts a different formula. Pro-rated cut affect certain lower-funded districts more than higher-funded ones. These districts have received greater state aid increases since the passage of Proposal A, which was intended to equalize per-pupil spending. As a result of other factors, this means they also receive greater cuts under the pro-ration formula
The vote was 73 in favor, 34 opposed and 2 not voting
(House Roll Call 128 at House Journal 38)
Click here to view bill details.
Reply
View Full Conversation
