Too Rich to Pay

I reported earlier on the struggles Williamson County is facing in properly funding schools. As budget crunch time approaches, it seems the County Commission there is unlikely to approve a small property tax increase in  order to fund the school system’s budget request.

The Williamson Herald reports:

The Williamson County Board of Education participated in a tough discussion Thursday, regarding the necessity of cutting key new staff positions and services in order to fulfill the Williamson County Commission Budget Committee’s request to cut the school budget by $5 million.

The CCBC voted 4-1 earlier this spring to cut the school district’s budget in order to avoid a county property tax increase.

However, WCS Director of Schools Mike Looney said that in order to avoid a tax increase, an additional $1 million reduction is needed, totaling a $6 million decrease in the school board’s proposed operational budget, resulting in a reduction from $343 million to $337 million.

The story notes that the school system will cut nearly $2 million worth of new positions and services and make cuts to employee insurance to cover the rest of the shortfall.

Here’s what’s interesting: A property tax increase of 6 cents would basically cover the projected shortfall. Williamson County has the lowest property tax rate in Middle Tennessee. It’s 35 cents lower than the second-lowest, which is Sumner County. A 6 cent increase would mean Williamson’s tax rate would still be the lowest, and still be 29 cents lower than Sumner. It would cost a taxpayer with a home valued at $400,000 roughly $60 a year.

Williamson County is the wealthiest county in Tennessee. The school system there has always been a source of pride. Now, County Commissioners are quibbling over a few million dollars in order to avoid a tiny tax increase. The message: We can do great things for kids as long as we don’t have to pay more. Keeping taxes 35 cents lower than the next lowest county is more important than fully funding a budget request designed to improve services to a rapidly growing district.

Williamson County can afford to fully fund this proposed budget for schools. They can do it and still have the lowest tax rate in Middle Tennessee by nearly 30 cents. So far, it looks as if they aren’t willing to make that commitment.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Williamson Budget Woes

Apparently, Tennessee’s wealthiest county is having trouble figuring out how to properly fund schools. Here’s a story from the Tennessean on a proposed cut to the school system’s budget:

The county commission’s budget committee proposed a 1.46 percent cut Thursday to the operational budget.

The $5 million cut will impact dozens of employee positions as salaries comprise the majority of the district’s budget, said Leslie Holman, chief financial officer for Williamson County Schools.

Williamson County Director of Schools Mike Looney called the proposed cut tragic.

“It’s not like this budget hasn’t been vetted multiple times,” Looney said.

Principals submit requests to central office. Central office vets those requests, then the school board reviews the whole budget. Cuts are made at every level, Looney said.

“As a community, we have to decide what our priority is,” Looney said. “We can’t fund our school system with pennies.”

Parent advocacy group Williamson Strong notes there are several ways to generate revenue and also points out that Williamson County has the lowest property tax in middle Tennessee and the lowest among counties with a population greater than 100,000.

Here’s more from Williamson Strong on revenue options:

The Education Impact Fee

  • This is a fee on new construction. It is expected to raise a little less than $15 million annually when fully implemented next year.
  • This revenue will be allocated to the county’s debt service for WCS capital projects.
  • This fee was voted on by the County Commission. It can be changed by the County Commission.
  • This fee does not address turnover of existing homes in established communities like Brentwood. 7,641 homes are projected to be built in the Page zone while only 108 are projected in Brentwood.

Sales Tax

  • The state sales tax is 7%. The county sales tax rate is currently 2.25% (for a total Williamson County rate of 9.25%).
  • If the local rate were increased to 2.75% (maximum allowed), WCS could gain $11 million more in funding annually. Increasing the tax to 2.5% would yield approximately $8 million per year.
  • Increasing the county sales tax rate requires a two-thirds vote from the County Commission AND citizen approval from a county-wide voting referendum.
  • District 6 Commissioner Paul Webb plans to introduce a resolution for a referendum to be held asking voters to support a half-cent sales tax from 9.25% to the maximum 9.75%.
  • A local sales tax increase was considered in 2011 but withdrawn. We don’t know that a sales tax referendum has everbeen successfully passed in Williamson County. It requires voters to show up for a special election at an odd time of year, which drives down turnout, and it requires people to show up to specifically vote to raise their taxes. It also provides a more attractive focal point for anti-tax folks to organize around. Some may propose this option because they want it to pass and others because they think it will fail. Be thoughtful about motivations on this potential funding mechanism. Most experienced Williamson County political observers think it is unlikely to pass because turnout for a special election tends to be more anti-tax than the electorate as a whole.

Wheel Tax

  • The current wheel tax is $25.75. Increasing the wheel tax to $100 would mean approximately $18 million in revenue. In fiscal year 2015-16, the county sold approximately 180,000 stickers.
  • Like sales tax, an increase in the wheel tax would require a two-thirds vote from the County Commission and then citizen approval from a county-wide voting referendum.
  • Again, many longtime political observers believe a wheel tax has little likelihood of passage for the same reason as a sales tax. An increase in the wheel tax failed in 2000.

Property Tax

  • The current property tax rate is $2.15 (per $100 of a property’s assessed value). This rate represents the lowest tax rate in middle Tennessee and the lowest among Tennessee counties with populations greater than 100,000.

TaxRateMap

Property Appraisal = $400,000

Assessed Value (25%) = $100,000

Property Tax Rate = $2.15 per $100 of a property’s assessed value

Property Tax = $100,000/100 x $2.15 = $2,150

  • Each additional cent equates to roughly a million dollars so in order to increase revenue by $8 million, we’d need a rate of $2.23. On the sample $400K home, the annual tax bill increase would be $80.
  • Increasing the property tax would require a simple majority – 13 out of 24 County Commissioners.
  • County Commissioners, particularly the thirteen who voted for the property tax change last year, may be reluctant to vote for an increase especially with every seat up for election in May 2018 if they believe their constituents are against it.

District 2 Betsy Hester and Judy Herbert, District 3 Matt Milligan and David Pair, District 5 Tommy Little, District 6 Paul Webb, District 7 Bert Chalfant, District 8 Jack Walton, District 10 Matt Williams and David Landrum, and District 12 Dana Ausbrooks and Steve Smith voted yes. Another yes vote was Tom Bain (D7) who retired this year. Dwight Jones (D1), Lew Green (D5), and Brian Beathard (D11) were absent.

Most of the same commissioners who voted against the county budget also rejected the property tax change – District 4 Kathy Danner (voted for overall budget) and Gregg Lawrence, District 6 Jeff Ford, District 8 Barb Sturgeon, District 9 Todd Kaestner and Sherri Clark, District 11 Brandon Ryan, and District 1 Ricky Jones (abstained from voting on overall budget).

 

How about more money from the state?

Getting more money from the state would be excellent. Currently, the state only funds a portion its school funding formula, known as the BEP (Basic Education Program). A word of caution: state funding would still not solve our local school funding issues. If a local elected official tells you the money should come from the state, ask them to fill you in on their conversations with the legislative delegation. If they’re actually advocating for the state to fully fund the BEP, for example, that’s great. Otherwise, they’re just talking. The chance of getting more than our calculated share from the state is slim because Williamson County has the ability to generate more revenue than most counties in the state.

Williamson County is the wealthiest county in Tennessee. They have tremendous fiscal capacity (ability to generate revenue), and they have a very low tax rate. They could meet current and future needs with a relatively small increase in the property tax that would still leave them with the lowest rate in middle Tennessee. Instead, they are “struggling” to figure out how to pay for schools.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

That’s NOT a PAC

Melanie Balakit of the Tennessean reports that an Administrative Law Judge has ruled that Williamson Strong was not a political action committee (PAC) in the 2014 election cycle:

Williamson Strong was not a political action committee in a past school board election, according to an order released Thursday from an administrative law judge.

The order, written by Michael Begley, dissolves a fine that Williamson Strong had for failure to register as a PAC during a 2014 school board election.

The Tennessee Registry of Election Finance issued a $5000 fine, later reduced to $2,500, to Williamson Strong in 2015.

Williamson Strong posted this response on their Facebook page:

A former school board member filed a campaign finance against Williamson Strong in December 2014. 28 months later, we have been vindicated!

We’re still digesting the 19-page order from the Administrative Law Judge, but you can read it along with us.

“After consideration of this entire record in this matter, it is determined that the Respondents did not constitute a political campaign committee with respect to the 2014 election. It is therefore ORDERED that the Registry’s charges against the respondents are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

The order from the ALJ indicates the Registry failed to meet the burden of establishing Williamson Strong constituted a PAC for three reasons: The “express advocacy” standard, the functional equivalency test, and the media exception.

To summarize, the judge found that Williamson Strong did not engage in any “express advocacy” — they didn’t encourage the public to vote for or against any specific candidate or candidates. The judge also found that Williamson Strong did not act as the “functional equivalent” of a PAC. Finally, the judge found that Williamson Strong’s activity may have fallen under the “media exception.” That is, Williamson Strong was providing information to the public via a website and Facebook page just as a media outlet may do during an election cycle.

This order becomes final unless the Registry appeals within 15 days.

The ruling in this case is clear: Williamson Strong is not a PAC and certainly was NOT a PAC in 2014, despite claims by Susan Curlee and others to the contrary.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

What Makes a PAC a PAC?

The curious case of Williamson Strong (as told by Williamson Strong). A summary: The Tennessee Registry of Election Finance found that parent advocacy group Williamson Strong was a PAC and issued a fine. Williamson Strong is appealing that decision. Meanwhile, a group calling itself the Sumner Sentinel was determined NOT to be a PAC by the same Registry.

Here’s the story as Williamson Strong sees it:

Our appeal hearing with the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance is set for November 3-4.

As you know, Susan Curlee and subsequently the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance (TREF) have been prosecuting a case against the five of us since late 2014. It has been an eye-opening experience: what appears to be (or have been) a very close relationship between Curlee and the Registry, false and harassing charges from Curlee, demonstrably fabricated statements and charges from the state, multiple attempts by Curlee to get the DA to charge us with various crimes, deleted public records, “accidentally deleted” public audio recordings, and deposition testimony regarding the proper preparation of turnips.

This case isn’t technical. This case isn’t normal.

We are involved parties and you will and should read this—and our subsequent and previous updates—with that in mind. We will cover multiple aspects of the story and provide links to source materials when possible. Despite the Registry’s and Ms. Curlee’s efforts to seal and hide many of the records, most of the documents in this case are public records: the depositions, the motions, the responses, the transcriptions of the hearings themselves.

Through the Registry, Curlee and her powerful political allies have been effective in using state tax dollars and the power of the state government to investigate us and harass us, to transmit to the public lies about us, and to damage our reputations (as Curlee gleefully acknowledged the day of the ruling in an email to Jean Barwick, the paid executive director of the Williamson County Republican Party).

(Note: When Ms. Barwick familiarly refers to “Patricia,” she is referring to Registry member Patricia Heim, former Davidson County Election member and active Davidson County Republican Party and Nashville Republican Women member.)

The Registry jumped in with both feet in support of Susan Curlee. Lest you think we’re exaggerating when we point out that the Registry’s behavior in this case is different than their behavior and judgment throughout their history, let’s take it from the Registry itself. Drew Rawlins, long-time Executive Director of the TREF, has testified that, to the best of his knowledge, with the exception of the Williamson Strong case, TREF has NEVER in its existence:

1) Fined a group for failing to register as a PAC without evidence of cash contributions.

2) Found that a group supported or opposed a candidate without an express endorsement or opposition to any particular candidate for public office.

3) Found that presenting factual information regarding candidates for public office constituted support for or opposition to a candidate within the meaning of the PAC definitions.

4) Determined that a group reporting on another entity’s endorsement of candidates constituted support for or opposition to a candidate by the group sharing that information.

5) Determined that the act of meeting with candidates for public office constitutes PAC activity.

6) Found that a nonpartisan [and non-candidates specific] “get out the vote” effort constituted a contribution or expenditure under the campaign finance laws.

7) Held that the act of purchasing a voter list constituted an expenditure or a contribution in support of or in opposition to a candidate.

That’s pretty much the whole case against Williamson Strong.

So why? Why did the Registry act the way it did? We could compare this to lots of other cases (and we might), but let’s just pick a contemporary one for now. Let’s look at a case that happened just this year, one that was fully resolved within a couple of months. The Registry has the same members, but they reached a dramatically different decision.

The Sumner Sentinel

The Sumner Sentinel is a political website, Facebook page, and printed “newsletter” in Sumner County. The newsletter version of the Sentinel was printed and mailed a total of three times in two years. The mailed, printed version was linked to the website and the Facebook page; you could read the “newsletter” through the website and so forth.

The Sumner Sentinel team describes itself as:
“a group of citizens focused on bringing transparency and accountability to local government through publications, advocacy opportunities and online forums”

Some of their content in their “Election Issue” arguably advocated for the election of some candidates and for the defeat of others. Their election intent was clear.

The Sumner Sentinel had nice things to say about the incumbent Sumner County Assessor of Property John Isbell and disparaging things to say about his opponent. That shouldn’t be shocking, given that Isbell was the founding administrator of the Sumner Sentinel Facebook page and the owner of the Sumner Sentinel website domain. John Isbell also actively campaigned on the Sumner Sentinel’s Facebook page.

The Registry, however, found that the Sumner Sentinel, which had web hosting fees as well as over $11,000 in printing costs, was “the media” and thus was not a PAC.

The Registry did not comb through the content of the Sumner Sentinel website, Facebook page, and printed material (as they did with us) to determine if their content met the standards of advocating for or against the election of a candidate. Nor did the Registry ask (or demand, as in our case) that the Sumner Sentinel team defend themselves against the claim that they were expressly advocating for or against the election of certain candidates. Nope. The Registry concluded that the Sumner Sentinel was a media publication and was therefore covered by the First Amendment. Very simple. The Registry made it clear that editorial content – at least in this case – cannot be considered a contribution. It is a First Amendment issue, in the Sumner Sentinel’s case, according to the Registry.

Registry counsel explained that, according to the law, the only way the media could be considered a PAC is if it were “owned” (partly or wholly) or controlled (partly or wholly) by a candidate. Note that John Isbell was a candidate for office and the Sumner Sentinel promoted him. Though John Isbell administered the group’s Facebook page, owned the website domain, and was described as “on the team” on the newsletter itself, he didn’t “own” the newsletter part. That was owned by Dr. David Black (Congressman Diane Black’s husband). Dr. Black explained (in an affidavit) that when Isbell was described as “on the team,” all he really did was set up the website.

So candidate John Isbell wrote for the Sentinel, owned the website, and administered the Facebook page, but had “nothing to do” with the content? He was labeled “part of the team” but really wasn’t?

Apparently, a group of people can spend eleven grand to print a political newsletter and expressly promote the candidate “on the team” of their publication, but they are not a PAC.

Maybe what really matters is who your friends (and enemies) are?

For more on education politics and policy in Tennesse, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

Curlee to Resign

The Tennessean reports that controversial Williamson County School Board member Susan Curlee will resign:

“While it has been an honor to serve our community, I will be resigning from the Williamson County School Board effective August 1 for family & personal reasons,” Curlee, using her personal account, wrote in a post to The Westhaven/West Franklin Conservative Alliance Facebook group.

More on Williamson County Schools:

Just South of Nashville

What’s Going on in Williamson County?

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

Looney Turns Down MNPS

Today, Mike Looney turned down the contract from MNPS and will stay with Williamson County Schools. Here is the statement he put out:

My family and I are humbled by the support and prayers we have received over the past few weeks.

The support from the Williamson County community, including parents, former parents, students, Williamson Inc. and the business community, and Williamson County Schools employees has been overwhelming. I also appreciate the support of the Williamson County School Board members who have worked with County Mayor Rogers Anderson and Williamson County Commissioners.

I want to thank the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Board of Education for allowing me to get to know them and for allowing me to explore the opportunity of working for boys and girls in Nashville. I was impressed with the warm reception I received. It is evident the Board’s focus is on student success, and I am encouraged about the future of MNPS.

After careful consideration, I have made the decision to remain in Williamson County Schools in order to continue our journey to becoming a district recognized nationally in the academics, athletics, and the arts.

MNPS will most likely start the search process over. I would assume they would hire a new search firm and start the process after the upcoming elections. This will cost the district (and taxpayers) more money.

While MNPS will have to wait for to see what’s next, Mike Looney will sign his WCS contract and make more money than ever before.

Screen Shot 2015-07-24 at 9.12.53 AM

I think I speak for many when I say that it feels like our district was used and our time wasted.

It’s time to hit the reset button on this director search and hope that the next batch of candidates are stronger than the last. Let’s get to work!

A press conference by both WCS & MNPS will be held today. Updates will follow.

 

Strong Motion

Williamson Strong, a group of Williamson County parents focused on supporting excellent schools, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance for the fine the Registry levied against the group after finding it was operating as an unregistered political action committee (PAC).

In filing the suit, members of Williamson Strong said:

“The Registry’s primary conclusion, that any two people who spend even one penny to present political opinions can be deemed a political campaign committee, has very serious implications for everyone in the State of Tennessee. This decision is completely contrary to both the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution.”

The complaint further alleges that the Registry’s actions will have a chilling effect on parents in Tennessee who come together to express opinions about public schools. It notes that the Registry’s assertion that individuals with a union affiliation are subject to additional scrutiny places such individuals and others who affiliate with those individuals in a disadvantaged class.

That is: If you express political opinions in a group that includes union members, your political speech may be subject to penalties not applied to groups that do not include union members.

In fact, the Registry’s actions create just that impression: That parent groups will not be construed as true “volunteer groups” or “loose associations” if even one member happens to also be a union member.

As the complaint alleges, this special scrutiny violates the First Amendment’s protection of free association.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term and how the Registry handles future complaints regarding unregistered PACs while the lawsuit is in progress.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport