You are hereBlogs / Brian Altenhofel's blog / My Take on OETA's State Question 744 Feature

My Take on OETA's State Question 744 Feature

By Brian Altenhofel - Posted on 31 August 2010

On Sunday, August 29, OETA featured State Question 744 on the Oklahoma Forum. Peter J. Rudy represented OFRG and others who are against it, while Joel Robison represented OEA and those who are for it.

Robison starts off explaining that while all of the campaign rhetoric of politicians purports that education is a priority in Oklahoma, the statistics tell a different story. He says that Oklahoma is last in our region (and 49th in the country) in per pupil expenditures and 48th in teacher pay. However, he and other supporters of SQ 744 fail to acknowledge that Oklahoma is one of the lowest ranked states on cost of living. While you might make more money teaching in other states, you'll also be spending more.

Later at 6:35, Robison is asked how we will be guaranteed that the money provided from SQ 744 will go toward the students' education. He directly admits that there is no guarantee; they only hope that the money will go toward education. The local districts are free to spend the money however they want, including further inflating the salaries of already-overpaid administrators. Just look at Skiatook for an example of the mismanagement that goes on in public schools.

At 9:00, Robison is asked to address where the money will come from since SQ 744 provides no funding mechanism. First, he states that the legislature will have to make sure that education is a priority. Actually, this measure will force education to be the only priority. He goes on about the current widespread pork from the legislature and plethora of tax credits that OTC can't even seem to be able to keep track of. I agree that the pork and tax credits need to be cut completely.

However, Robison then gets into projections of future revenue for the state. Once again, we hear the keyword: hope. That is the foundation of SQ 744. They just hope that funding will fall into place. They just hope that the money will be spent wisely. They just hope that the money will improve the education of our students. They just hope.

Now, check out 18:05. Robison correctly states that SQ 744 requires that education funding remain static in the event that the regional average drops. This would be in the Oklahoma Constitution. This means that our legislators' hands would be tied in the event of a catastrophic drop in revenue such as what we experienced during the last two years.

Then, at 18:40, Robison contradicts himself and SQ 744 and states that education funding would receive cuts just like other state agencies in the event of such a revenue failure. Wow. Let's see here: the state constitution requires a balanced budget, SQ 744 requires that education spending be at the regional average (or remain static if the average drops), and somehow we're supposed to unconstitutionally (assuming that SQ 744 passes) cut education spending in the event of a drop in revenue. I had missed a very important keyword in my reading of Article X § 23(10): "notwithstanding". Thank you, Peter J. Rudy, for bringing that to my attention.

It's pretty clear why the NEA has dropped $3.5 million into the campaign for SQ 744. Think about what the NEA and OEA are: unions for teachers. If the teachers' unions can convince the teachers and others that the money will be going toward higher salary, then it's obvious that the unions are doing just what unions do: look out for their own without regard to who they negatively affect in the process.

If you're on the fence on this issue, I encourage you to spend the 25 minutes watching the video. See for yourself what both sides have to say. If you want an honest, plain English version, see what else I have to say about SQ 744.

A "yes" vote on State Question 744 is one of the worst choices you can make on the ballot this November.

By the way, the show re-airs on OETA at the following times: