Rebuttal Arguments on C-30

The Spring 1996 issue of "The Montana Professor" carried eight articles against C-30 (HB-229). There were several conflicting statements but they also, indicated a general lack of knowledge about what is constitutionally required for the educational system, kindergarten through higher education.

One must remember that C-30 replaces the State Board of Education, the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Higher Education with a State Education Commission and Department of Education.

The existing State Board of Education has the constitutional duty to provide the following, for kindergarten through higher education in its entirety:

• Long Range Planning
• Coordinating & Evaluating Policies & Planning
• Submitting a Unified Educational Budget

My concern is with the State Board of Education's inability to perform it's constitutional duty, which is detrimental to the educational system. The lack of performance is supported by several who are in opposition to C-30. Note the following quotes;

• Eric Feaver/Jim McGarvey Teacher's Associations "To our knowledge, the state board of education has never met to do anything. Never!"
• "Task Force to Renew Montana Government...concluded there is demonstrable dysfunction, lack of communication, and lack of coordination between K-12 and Higher Education."
• Jack Jelinski MSU-Bozeman "It is difficult to argue with Governor Racicot's assertion that the current system has been working imperfectly. The problems that obtain from the constitutional separation of legislative budget authority and the governance of higher education by the regents are undeniable."
• Eversman/Scarrah Faculty Council MSU-Bozeman "However, one Board (State) is probably not the best way to approach management of the state education." (But the constitution says one board).
• Jeff Baker Commissioner (1994 Task Force Letter) "At one meeting I have attended (State Board of Education), meaningful issues to long-range planning and the coordination and evaluation of policies and programs for the state's educational systems were not on the agenda." "But I believe that the board (state) has not realized the constitutional expectations for several reasons."
• Wayne Buchanan Bd of Public Ed ('94 T F Letter) "It is simply not practical under the present configuration to ask the board of Regents (Combined as The State Board of Education) to determine, for example, a joint education budget."
• Nancy Keenan Supt. of Public Inst. ('94 T F Letter) "My reading of the transcripts suggests that the State Board of Education was never intended to be much more than a gathering of two boards just in case they needed to communicate with each other." (That view does not agree with the Constitutional Language). The Governor's office does not and constitutionally can not exercise any authority over the long-range planning, preparation of an unified budget, and coordinating and evaluating policies of the K through Higher Education system. Many of The Montana Professor articles had conflicting views as to the Governor's participation in the education process. Note the following quotes;
• Jack Jelinski MSU-Bozeman "The most legitimate issue the governor raises, and it is an important one, is that of the role of his office in the governance of higher education."
• Eric Feaver/Jim McGarvey Teacher's Associations "In October, 1994, Governor Racicot issued an executive order creating a Joint Planning and Coordination Committee as a standing committee of the State Board of Education -- to fulfill the responsibilities of Article X, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution.--From our point of view, Governor Racicot was on the right track." (They want the Governor involved).
• Eversman/Scarrah Faculty Council MSU-BZN "However, all along in the process, questions arose about the constitutionality of the Governor's role in the direct manipulation of the University System. The business of the Montana University System is the function of the Board of Regents; the governor is an ex-officio member of the regents. If anyone should have been communicating with the Commissioner and our administrators about this document (UTU) it should have been the Regents."
• Richard Barrett Chair, Faculty Council MFT "In particular, the governor discarded the conventional structure and process of budget setting when he agreed to sit down with a group of employees to bargain over the pay rates, budgets and programs of the agency for which they worked."

The general thrust of those against C-30 seems to involve concerns about their profession with no expression about the students. For instance, Eric Feaver states that if C-30 seems to involve concerns about their profession with no expression about the students. For instance, Eric Feaver states that if C-30 passes, he feels the legislature might also change the laws that address K through 12, his primary concern.

But, he wants the Governor to be more involved in the operation of the State Board of Education through standing committees, while others on the University Faculty Council think the governor is participating too much and is in violation of the Constitution.

No argument was offered nor statements made that were based on the constitutional requirements of the State Board of Education and the Board of Regents. Several expressed the belief that the only legal concern of the Regents was Higher Education. Not true, and this can be verified by reading the Constitution.

As you can read in the quotes from those who are against C-30, the system doesn't work as constitutionally directed but appears to be acceptable because it is "our system."

That, I believe is wrong as all state agencies, including the University system, should be accountable to the Governor, Legislature and most importantly the public.