The people's voice., 1945-12-14

VII.
One of the most difficult of th'
problems was integration of our high
er educational system, with adequate
policy-making authority, and budget
ary control, in the hands of the stat'
board of education. The 1915 setbacl
in this campaign has cheered section
al interests who are Indifferent to the
overall educational welfare of the
state and the political elements which
find it advantageous to have the great
er university split into autonomous
units which can be used for geograph
ical bargaining. But l am confident
that this fight will not end while there
remain in Montana any of the thou
sands who were inspired by the vision
and leadership of DR.. Ernest Melby
as chancellor and president.
Another difficult" problem was
that of postwar public works, to pro
vide employment for returned service
men and to repair and enlarge our
institutions, especially university un'
it's, so that they could meet the new
demands to be made upon them. And
what did the legislature do about that?
Says the Montana Taxpayer, "The leg
islature refused to be stampeded into
definite commitments for postwar
projects but laid the groundwork for
future developments" Well, the fu-
ture is here, the needs. are urgent;
but the $4,500,000 postwar construc-
ton fund can't be spent because the
legislature refused to be stampeded!'
Might we not put it another way-that
the legislature shirked its response
bility to the people of Montana, and
to this states men and wom-
en- in military service?
VIII.
Only about 25 per cent of the pres
ent public school revenue comes from
state sources, according to the Mon
tana Taxpayer. County taxation pro-
vides 46 per cent and district taxation
29 per cent.
Now | think the Montana homeown-
er who is paying mill levy in his
and school district is entitled
to know why state aid does not bulk
larger in this picture; but the taxpay-
ers' bulletins which report mounting
and district levies don't dis
cuss this.
Why for instance, is it not explained
that House Bill 10, passed in 1941 un-
Ter the pressure of those who will do
anything to build up the state general
'und so that they can keep their taxes
lown, robbed the public school gener-
IL fund for time of a million and a
lalf dollars? This bill diverted num-
,er of special funds from the school
und to the state general fund, and
tut the schools share of the individ-
lal income tax from so per cent to rs
,er cent Education people who pro-
ested when it was introduced were
eported to have been won over by
he promise that the loss to the
chools would be repaid from general
und appropriations. If this is true,
think they were naive indeed, to
,elieve such a promise; and even If
uch repayment was made, the schools |
we're placed at a terrific disadvan- |
age because they were forced to go
nto each legislature and fight for
unds to which previously they had
cen entitled by established law. But
he real point, of course, is that sub
equent general fund appropriations
yere a million and half short of the
otal which the schools would have
eceived under the old system of ear
larked funds. Part of this was re-
aid, l believe, in the last session;
ut the fund is. still more than half
million short.
At least partly by means of this
,galized hijacking of the public
chools, the state was able to avoid
,vying a general fund tax after 1941
the year House Bill 10 was adopted
until this year. In these four years !