Oklahoma Supreme Court Throws Out 65% Solution Initiative

Oklahoma Supreme Court throws out 65 Percent Solution initiative
Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City), June 13, 2007 by Janice Francis-Smith

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out an initiative petition requiring schools to spend at least 65 percent of their funds on classroom expenditures.

Though the initiative successfully collected more than enough signatures to put the so-called 65 Percent Solution on the ballot in Oklahoma, the court ruled the petition signed by more than 165,000 Oklahomans did not adequately explain the proposal.

The 65 Percent Solution is the focus of a nationwide effort by a group called First Class Education, founded by the CEO of Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne. First Class Education has brought the 65 Percent concept to several states. Thus far, three states are following the plan or some derivation thereof, in Texas by executive order and by legislation passed in Kansas and in Louisiana.

The so-called 65 Percent Solution was introduced to many Oklahomans in early 2006, by First Class Education spokesman and gubernatorial candidate Bob Sullivan. U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook defeated Sullivan in the primary for the Republican nomination for governor in the November 2006 elections.

The plan would have required school districts in Oklahoma to devote 65 percent of their operational expenditures to classroom instructional expenditures.

"Instructional" as used in the petition was defined to include "activities dealing directly with interaction between students and teachers" and other classroom personnel, special education instruction, tutors, books, classroom computers, supplies, instructional aides, libraries and librarians, class field trips, athletics, arts, music, drama, sports, band and other extracurricular activities.

The initiative needed to collect 117,000 signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot in Oklahoma; petition circulators collected more than 165,000 signatures which were certified as valid by the secretary of state.

Keith Ballard, executive director of the Oklahoma State School Boards Association, and a group of others filed a lawsuit challenging the initiative petition. The group claimed the petition failed to meet constitutional muster because it addressed multiple subjects, because it would violate spending provisions for certain school funds, and because the description, or "gist" of the proposal at the top of each petition signature page was misleading.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court only dealt with the arguments regarding the sufficiency of the petition's gist, which petition signers would rely upon when choosing whether or not to sign the petition. The court rejected the protestants' argument that the gist also include a description of the possible effect on school funding mechanisms.

But the court agreed that the gist was insufficient because it did not adequately convey the scope of the proposal. The gist failed to mention that the state superintendent of public instruction would be given the power to grant waivers to certain school districts that could not meet the 65 percent requirement. The omission effectively "failed to alert potential signatories to the effect the proposed statute would have on the balance of power between local school boards and the state," the court found.

"(The gist) defines 'classroom instructional expenditures' in mind-numbing detail taken directly from the statute, but fails to define 'operational expenditures' or disclose provisions for stepped or phased-in compliance, the additional authority given to the Superintendent of Public Instruction to approve the school district budgets and waive noncompliance, and the possibility of legislative sanctions for noncomplying school districts," the court found. "As a result, a potential signatory, looking only at the gist, did not have sufficient information to make an informed decision about the true nature of the proposed legislation."

Tim Mooney with First Class Education said the ruling shows a "shocking, blatant disregard for the rights of the voters."

"I think it's just outrageous," said Mooney. "Clearly, this was purely a political decision. I fail to see any other reason. It's a sad day for the school kids in Oklahoma, which will continue to have the highest percentage of school funds spent on things other than the classroom."

Ballard was jubilant over the ruling, which he had termed the "65 Percent Deception." While the Oklahoma State School Boards Association supports the idea that as much money as possible should go to instruction, there isn't a "magic one-size-fits-all number for every school district," he said.

"The 65 -ercent issue was of serious concern to school boards across the state," said Ballard. "Had it been enacted, this bright line rule would have resulted in severe cuts in services and programs offered to Oklahoma students, such as transportation, food services and counselors." Heating and cooling costs, fuel costs were not included as classroom instructional expenditures by the initiative.

The Oklahoma Education Association did not join the lawsuit because it was fighting a lawsuit of its own, accusing the state of failing to meet its constitutional requirement to adequately fund education in - an argument the Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected.

"Obviously, we're excited," said Adrianne Covington, spokesperson for OEA. "This would have been bad for our state."

Mooney said he's not sure what the next step will be for First Class Education.

"We'll regroup," he said. "But the people of Oklahoma deserve a chance to vote on this."

From:
Email:
To:
Email:
Subject:
Message: