El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1920-10-15
CITY Is NOT
ASKING PART
OF NEW FUND


pecislIy after the schools had been
given an they asked
sefhe city council has no In
tention OF taking from the
schools any OF the money given
them by the Legislature. What y
intended O., 20 held schools to-
or nenrIy 10, their budget We
want them 70 have the 100000
originally asked. and the city viii
add TO the state appropriation an
amount sufficient TO bring the
total 90 that sum- IL means simply
that the city's appropriation for
schools will be as much less than
the $4,000 budget a. the state
characterization exceeds the amount
expected from that source.
when the school budget was pre-
pared. no one anticipated that the
state would make provision TO Inc
crease salaries OF teachers Rather
than permit standards Of FL Paso
schools 70 suffer, the council assured
that substantial increases should De
provided. when contracts were drawn
for the teachers. those increases were
included
Want Two Salary Increases.
what teachers here are asking is
that they be given two salary In
creases, instead Of the one that other
teachers throughout the state VIII
receive
ssHhether they decide to exercise
II or not, the city council OF course
has n whip hand IN this matter.
i feel. however that no contro-
Tersy viii arise Heretofore the
school board has striven for the gen
eral good. and we have cooperated
with them to the best Of our ability
Matters VIII be adjusted, feel GER
tain"
An understanding OF facts In the
school fund matter, according to s. J.
Lsaaczs. local attorney, would cllml-
nate possibility Of controversy.
Facts Misunderstood.
In the controversy between the
school board" he said "the city coun-
ell and the teachers in regard to the
state school per capita apportionmeut
there seems to be a general misunder-
standing OF the facts. Some Of the
statements that have been published.
II not incorrect, are certainly mis-
leading, and some OF the parties most
az interest apparently do not under
stand the exact situation
The city council some time be-
fore the beginning Of the term, agreed
20 appropriate for the maintenance OF
the city schools $4,000. OF this
amount Sll5,0oo 20 100000 would be
derived from the levy Of so cents on
possess Cif the assessed value Is S80,-
100000. &c viii be the latter figurel
leaving a balance Of from $4,000 TO
$4,000 20 be supplied from the gem
eraI fund OF other sources. At that
time both the city council and the
school boa-d believed that the school
fund from the state would be $3.50
per capita or a total Of S136-185s the
city scholastic population being IA
l5ss making q total estimated amount
OF $4,000 for the maintenance OF
the schools for the 1920-21 terms.
Mayor Davis claims that &c was
agreed that u the per capita from the
state exceeded $3.50. then the city
appropriation would be reduced pro-
portiouarelT. This IS denied BY some.
Nov when the state board Of edu-
cation met 70 make the per capita
apportionment. it was found that the
regular available school fund. that DE-
the money derived from the regular
tax levy. poll tax and interest on the
school lands. etc. would amount TO
$3.50 per capita OF S360 more than
the council and school board had es-
-imated. The city scholastic pouula-
ton being 1888. the city would re-
,eive from the state s69,000.40 more
Than had been estimated IL IS this
amount that mayor Davis contends
should be returned 90 the city.
The teachers are not making any
2lalm whatever 20 this amount
"Ihis a. where the uliEunder-
atundlnE occurs TIE legislature.
NJ ltu special session last June.
made an additionaI approprintlon
for the maintenance Of public
schools Of the state Of sho00.00o.
the uruWed purpose OF which was
TO enable the various school
boards to increase the tenchersf
salaries. Thls amount divided
among all the acho1aslfcE OF the
state f. $50 per capita, ana Fl
Fuao'a part O. S5s.I05.00, ana 81 s.
this amount that the teaeEerH are
contendinE should be used for the I
purpose for which it was uppro-
urilfed.
80 far as they are concerned. the I
eachers have no objection 90 the I
ichooi board returning 70 the city the 4
100000 which Is the difference be-
Ween the estimate Of $3.50 per capita I
md the actual amount Of the state 4
.pporuoument o. s1L3o. This IS what I
mayor Davis IS c0utendlnE for and
certainly not for the S58.105.60 an
lroprlated by the legislature es-
leoially to Increase the salaries OF El I
saso teachers.
when all or the facts are under I
TODD there VIII be no controversy. az ]
east &c 70 the disposition OF the 45g,- I