When new legislation passes, PSBA is seen as the leader in analyzing it and helping members make sense of it.

Testimony on House Bills 63 (P.N. 88) and 289 (P.N 331), Primary Date Move

Presented to the House State Government Committee
Mr. Timothy M. Allwein,
PSBA Assistant Executive Director for Governmental and Member Relations
June 14, 2007

Good morning, my name is Tim Allwein and I am the Assistant Executive Director for Governmental and Member Relations for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA). I'd like to thank Chairwoman Josephs and Chairman Baker for holding this hearing to examine the important issue of shifting Pennsylvania 's primary to an earlier date. As you begin deliberations about altering Pennsylvania 's primary date to possibly increase its role in federal election politics, we ask that you be sensitive to the negative impact on 501 school districts that now operate under an Act 1 environment.

Act 1 of the Special Session of 2006 unintentionally creates a major obstacle to accelerating Pennsylvania 's primary date for school districts. As you know, under the provisions of Act 1, school districts, unless they resolve not to raise their taxes above the index, are required to follow a prescriptive timeline regarding the adoption of a preliminary budget. This budget has to be made available to the public 110 days before the primary election, school boards must give a public notice of intent to adopt the preliminary budget 100 days before the date of the primary budget, and its adoption must come no later than 90 days before the primary election. That means that boards must begin their discussions 60-90 days or a total of 170-200 days, or more than 6 months before the primary election date.

This early preliminary budget causes several problems for school districts, the most important being the difficulty in getting the district's vendors, such as its health insurance provider, to give them estimates on cost increases so far in advance of the start of the fiscal year. Other vital information is missing as well because of the time of year the preliminary budget is required. This information includes the governor's budget proposal, enrollment data for the upcoming school year, personnel needs and other information that are key factors in the school district budget. The earlier the date for preliminary budget adoption, the greater the amount of crucial data that will be unavailable for districts to use in fashioning a responsible preliminary budget.

It also seems to PSBA that releasing the preliminary budget at a date so far in advance of the final adoption of the school budget defeats the purpose of providing accurate information to residents at a relevant time. Releasing preliminary budgets just before the holiday season seems at cross-purposes of engaging the public in school district budgeting. To better demonstrate the deadlines under a February or March primary date scenario (as specified in House Bill 63 and House Bill 289), I have attached a timeline that demonstrates our concerns. Please review it at your convenience.

Some policymakers have told us that the timing of the preliminary budget should not matter, since it is subject to change before the final budget is adopted sometime in June. While that is true, it is also true that Act 1 forces districts to make decisions on its prospective tax rates and whether or not they will need to utilize a back-end referendum based on the preliminary budget. Therefore, the numbers that are used in that budget are important. Too much over or under estimating on prospective costs could result in unnecessary referendum question being filed or no referendum question being filed where one was actually needed.

In our discussions with policymakers over the last few months, when moving the primary election has grown as a possibility, we have discussed a few solutions to this issue - in other words, how can the goal of moving the primary election to an earlier date be accomplished without placing an additional burden on school districts. The first, bifurcating the federal and state primaries, would allow school boards a more reasonable time period in which to enact their preliminary budget. Most importantly, the additional time could potentially decrease the amount of important information that districts could not access when developing their preliminary budgets. The downside of this approach is the added expense of having two separate primary elections rather than just one.

The second option, eliminating or suspending the back-end referendum for 2008, would disenfranchise voters and rob them of the opportunity to approve school district tax increases above the index in certain situations. Similarly it would be unfair to school districts since it takes away the one opportunity they have, in some cases, to enact tax increases that are above the index. Just last month, three school districts offered backend referendum questions to their voters: Aliquippa , Fannett-Metal and West Perry. PSBA anticipates that the number of school districts seeking this type of referendum will increase with each passing year. Additionally, by taking away this option from school boards, districts may find themselves reducing or eliminating programs and course offerings that are popular with parents and students.

The third option, establishing a waiver process at PDE to grant school district tax rates established above the index that normally would go to voter referendum is, like the first option, a disenfranchisement of voters and would no doubt be extremely unpopular among taxpayers.

When Governor Rendell released his report from the Task Force on Election Reform, PSBA was the only association raising a concern about the consequences of changing the primary date during the property tax reform debate. At that time, spring of 2005, a change in the primary date was thought to have an effect on only those school districts that opted in Act 72. With the passage of Act 1, such a move affects 498 of the 501 school districts.

I want to emphasize that PSBA is willing to listen to all proposed solutions, but we are not interested in any proposals that make it more difficult for districts to develop responsible preliminary budgets in an appropriate time frame. I want to thank you for allowing PSBA to raise our concerns during your deliberations. I hope that you will continue to include us in your discussions and that PSBA can continue to work with you and your staff on this issue. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.