The People's Voice

MAKING A FOOTBALL OF THE
TEACHERS' RETIREMENT LAW

By JAMES D. GRAHAM

The representatives of the School Board Association came to Helena recently and presented to the house committee on education a batch of bills to be introduced as "committee bills". One of the bills called for an appropriation of one million five hundred thousand dollars from the General Fund of the state to the School General Fund, which later would be allocated to the various public schools throughout the state. Some of this money reached the state treasury from receipts of school land rentals, interest on invested money in the school fund and tax on inheritance. The amount asked for by the School Board Association was eight hundred thousand dollars per year more than they received from the legislature in 1943 and half a million more than was asked for two years ago.

The committee on education considered the bill and in due parliamentary order the bill reached the committee on appropriation.

On Saturday forenoon, January 27, the committee on appropriation reported to the house, recommending that an appropriation of eight hundred thousand dollars be made to the General School Fund for the year ending June 30th, 1946 and the same amount for the year ending June 30, 1947. This is one hundred thousand dollars more than was appropriated two years ago.

The advocates of levying a tax on schools equal to three and one-half per cent of the salaries paid teachers have spread the propaganda over the state, for nearly two years, that the legislature would this session appropriate a million and a half dollars to the general school fund and the school districts would receive more money from the state and therefore, they could pay a tax to the state treasury for the Teachers' Retirement without increasing their tax levy.

The action of the appropriation committee on the school fund bill would indicate that the advocates of a tax on schools to provide funds for Teachers' Retirement are false prophets. Bobby Burns used to say "The well laid plans of mice and men often go astray."

The proposition of having the legislature appropriate money from the State Treasury to be allocated to the school districts, and then have the school districts pay part of the money back to the State Treasury to meet the state's contribution to the Teachers' Retirement Fund is nonsense. Why go to all that trouble and waste of time in bookkeeping, when a straight appropriation from the General Fund to the Retirement Fund is all that is necessary?

The advocates of taxing public schools to take care of the state's obligations to meet the teachers' retirement pay, say that house bill No. 65, now before the legislature, makes it mandatory for the school trustees to levy a tax on the taxpayers in the district.

Nine prominent attorneys, located in different cities in the state, say that the legislature has no power to enact a law to tax school districts for any purpose, that the legislature can advise school trustees on the subject but cannot compel. This is in harmony with the American principle of local self government.

If the law is enacted to tax school districts for teachers' retirement pay, the school trustees can ignore the law with impunity. Therefore, if the tax cannot be collected, the law is inoperative.

Some of the propagandists of taxing school districts, say that the teachers unions are in favor of such a tax. This is misleading propaganda. The Butte Teachers' Union voted by secret ballot on the scheme and the result of the poll showed eight votes against it to every one for it. Some small teachers' unions favor it, one union is divided and in doubt, the other unions have not expressed a preference. However, it is obvious that many teachers have formed their opinions from stories told about the legislature going to appropriate one and a half million dollars to the school fund.

The organizations, including the School Board Association, that have endorsed the tax on schools have not sponsored the bill. The Teachers' Retirement Board is the sponsor of H. B. No. 65, and efforts were made for over a year to line up a majority of the members of the board to sponsor the bill.

The members of the Retirement board who voted in favor of sponsoring the bill are Attorney General Bottomly, Elizabeth Ireland and Mr. Dayliss of Billings, forming the majority of the board. Miss McNelis of Butte and Torrance MacDonald voted against the bill—the latter for constitutional reasons.

Twenty-one states having a teachers' retirement law provide for an appropriation from the state to the fund.