OCR Text |
Show THi.'ftsriAV. Attn. Tqih THURSDAY, NOVsn I THE LEHI SUN, LEHI. UTAH 3,U THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1938 Why Amend The State Constitution . Among the many Important Issues facing the voters of Utah at Constitution relating to school finances directly and taxation and public policy indirectly. The electorate must determine on November 8 whether these two proposals shall become part of our fundamental law. This short article is intended to aid those voters who may not have clearly In mind the Issues involved in these suggested changes. Section 1 of Article X of the Constitution of Utah requires that the Legislature provide for the establishment and maintenance of a uniform system of public education to be free to all children. This wise and broad provision embodies the Ideal of American Democracy. The Constitution gives the objective and leaves largely to the Legislature the task of setting up the machinery necessary to achieve it. The Federal Constitution and Congress, in accordance with this American Ideal of education for all the children of all the people, have set aside certain lands for the state, the proceeds from the sale and rent of which must make a Permanent School Fund, and the interest on this permanent fund must be among the revenues spent for educational educa-tional purposes. This permanent fund is being increased from year to year. THE PRESENT SETUP The money spent on public education in Utah is expended through five funds, one Federal, which is not involved here, three state, and one local. 1. State Funds: A. The District School Fund: The first and most important of the three state funds as to the amount of money Involved is the District School Fund. It is composed of revenues equal to $25.00 for each census child in the state. It is raised mainly by taxation of tangible nroDertv within the state. Part of this fund is also supplied by revenue from our individual and corpor ation income taxes and by the interest on the Permanent School Fund already mentioned. B. The Equalization Fund: A few years ago the Equalization Fund was established. It provides an amount eaual to $5.00 for each census child. Besides the difference in amount, it differs from the District School Fund in that It is distributed more to the poorer districts than to the ricner ones. As its name susreests. it is intended to equalize educational opportunity throughout the state, thereby approaching the Constitutional ideal of a uniiorm system of education. If the amount of the Equalization Fund were large enough, if It could place the poor districts on a financial level with the rich dis tricts, there would perhaps be no need for amendments or other funds now or hereafter. But the amount is set by law at $5.00 per census child. It would require many times this to equalize opportunity in the Local Items Wednesday Mrs. LeRoy Lott spent the day Visiting in Salt Lake City. Reed Adams of Salt Lake City spent Sunday in Lehi with his par ents, Mr. and Mrs. Alfred F. Adams. Eva Chris tofferson left Tuesday for Colorado, where she will be engaged en-gaged in nursing service. Mr. and Mrs. E. H. McAffee and daughter, Mava, of Provo, were guests of Lehi relatives, Sunday. Sunday Mr. and Mrs. Lester Col-ledge Col-ledge were visiting with their chil dren in Salt Lake City. Mr. and Mrs. Rulon Russon and children of Vineyard visited here Sunday with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Clark. Mrs. Morris Trane and son, Paul, of Salt Lake City spent last week in Lehi with her parents, Mr. and Mrs. M. S. Loii. Mr. and.' Mrs. Alma Peterson of Fairfield were guests of Mr. ana Mrs. David Peterson here Monday evening. Mr. and Mrs. Vern Curtis of Rivprtn r. Thl visitors Sunday, guests of Mr. and Mrs. J- L- Bam hart. Mrs. James A. Powell. Mrs. Leslie Larsen, Miss Clara Earl, Mrs. Jesse Fox and Mrs. Dean Powell spent last Thursday visiting in Salt Lake City. Mr. and Mrs. Ford Roberts of American Falls. Idaho, spent last Thnrsrfaw in Thl with Mr. Roberts mother, Mrs. Emma Jane T. Roberts. Mrs. Ellen Thomas returned to Morgan last Wednesday, following a two weeks' visit here with her .i a. Wanlass. Mrs. Wanlass accompanied her to Salt, Lake City, where she visited wiui her sister, Mrs. U. A. Jones. A Thomas Caravan wul be inLehl Friday, November 4 at 9:45 a. m. to meet the Lehi citizens. Mrs J. L. Barnnart Is now able to be up and around her home, after being laid up for six weeks with blood poisoning in her foot. r W Bradshaw of Alberta, Canada,' Can-ada,' came Sunday night for a visit here with Mr. and Mrs. J. F. Bradshaw. Brad-shaw. Mr. and Mrs. Leslie Bateman of Salt Lake City were guests of Mr. and Mrs. John Zimmerman on Monday. Mrs. Elwin Beck returned to Los Angeles California, Friday evening, following a short visit here with her mother, Mrs. Jennie Nostrom, with Mr. and Mrs. Alma Beck and other relatives and friends. l : i Mr. and Mrs. Vernal Lott of Oleum, Ol-eum, California, were week-end guests of Mr. and Mrs. J. C. Wanlass. Wan-lass. - ' A. J. Evans and Mrs. Booth Sor-enson Sor-enson and children were visiting in Provo on Saturday. ' Monday guests of Mrs. Christie Wllles were Mrs. Bruce Willes and Mrs. Art Hansen of Benjamin and Mrs. Oliver Hansen of Palmyra. Monday afternoon Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Willes of Salt Lake City came to visit with their mother, Mrs. Christie Willes. Mrs. Peter Hansen entertained a number of friends at her home Saturday Sat-urday evening, complimentary to her husband, who left this week for the mission field. The guests enjoyed social chat during the evening and were served a delicious luncheon. Mr. and Mrs Arm t Monday In Salt fT14 a nn mg business and wTf8 Monday Mr. and vr I Smith spent th. f City. Salt i Mrs. her daughters, MrsT ) son and Miss Mario I Saturday in Salt Uke'l blned business ; at?f Mr. and Mrs. Rrn. ... tained members of Z7?J and partners at their hoS evening. Th 0ff. mel sive party and J'H tained here the gueste " au "5 nome of Mr Sherman T?nWn. . ' Fork and at the home oft Mrs. Robert Marrott in and! from six to 18 and the small amount that can be raised by a levy of two-tenths of a mill on tangible property, as stipulated in the restrictions restric-tions governing the three funds. . . When these three funds were established, it was thought tnai they were very liberal, and, indeed, they were. But this is no longer true, owing to conditions to which attention will shortly be called. THE LEGISLATURE NOT OTHERWISE LIMITED The Legislature is not limited by law In its expenditures lor purposes other than public education. It may appropriate lor roaas, old-age assistance, blind assistance, the Mental hospital, uie school, the Industrial school, the departments of State Government, and so forth, as much as the members deem necessary or advisable. The Legislature may appropriate at will money for the operation of the State Prison, so long as there Is money available, but for public education it may not exceed those limitations prescribed by law. The State Highway Commission gets the bulk or tne income The State Jisn ana uaiue . . I , .. .. . , , . .... . . , , , I llUlli LUC KaOUiiHC, bOA, UC lt illUVll Ui AAlL7. HIC state. Yet even if the state naa ail uie money it coma use. it coma rnmmlsslnn rnntrois the -v-nditure of the monev received from hunt- not pay Into either school fund another penny without a change in the , ,, f,shlnB. Tf thft commission finds Itself short, it has legal limitations, I It "Is' very important that it be understood that the revenue making up this Equalization Fund Is raised by direct taxation of tangi ble property C. The High School Fund: ' The third source of state school finances is the High School the right to raise the priceof licenses. No such resource is open to uie State Board of Education. ' At first thought this appears unfair, yet It is not so much unfair as it is unfortunate. Nor is the reason far to seek. The real explanation for this state of affairs lies, not in the fear that the Legislature would give too much money to education, nor, Fund. It is composed of money provided by a levy of two-tenths of lndeed to tne unwillingness of the Legislature to provide for education, one mill on the tangible property of the state and is so small as to be comparatively unimportant, amounting to only about $2.00 annually for each high school child under 18. 2. The Local Fund The local school boards are empowered by law to levy a tax on property within the districts which they represent, the proceeds from such tax to be used for school purposes within those districts. In some ' districts this levy is very high, causing a heavy burden on the taxpayers. Apparently the only hope for Immediate relief Is to make it possible to obtain more aid from the state so as to cut this levy. TANGIBLE PROPERTY SUPPORTS EDUCATION From even such a meager discussion as the foregoing an ex ' tremely important fact becomes clear. A very high percentage of school - money Is derived from taxes on tangibble property, farms, homes, live stock, and the like. The High School Fund and the Equalization Fund come entirely from this source, and from three-fourths to nine-tenths of the District School Fund likewise is raised in this manner. All owners of tangible property will at once realize the significance of this fact that tangible property practically supports the schools. Aside from the excessive burden it has placed upon property owners, In many cases those who are least able to' bear it, the situation has given rise to a number of very challenging problems hot the ''least of which is the inequality In tax rates and school funds as between given districts In the state. THE RESULTS OF INEQUALITY In districts that have vast amounts of valuable property, such as railroads and manufacturing plants, the levies though sometimes are relatively low but return large amounts of school revenue. On the other hand, other districts, Alpine among them, have high mill levies and still re celve very little money. For instance, Alpine with a levy of 12 Mi mills very little money. . For instance, Alpine District with a levy of 12 Mi for education obtains less per child than a neighboring district with a levy of 7 mills. This arises from the fact that Alpine District has only about $3000 of assessed valuation per chlld whereas the other has nearly $14,000. This is a strange state of affairs in a state whose fund amental law provides for a system of uniform standards open to all. SCHOOL FUNDS CAPPED Another interesting fact is at once apparent. The amount of money that can be spent for public schools In Utah is strictly limited, not by the amount of money in the treasury, but by law. Under the Constitution as it. stands today if Utah had money to spare, we could not spend ror education more than the $25.00 and $5.00 for each child I Free Moving; Picture Show at ROYAL THEATRE Monday Night, November 7 at 7:30 P. M Short Talks Between Features by Senator Thomas and Congressman Robinson Everyone eighteen years of age and over invited. NO CHILDREN ADMITTED fejBKawgjg 3M but, as has already been shown, to the fact that school money comes from taxes on tangible property. Nearly everyone is convinced .tnai tangible property has reached its limit.. To tax it further would be disastrous in the minds of many. How shall further taxation or tnis property be prohibited? How better than by limiting the uses to wmcn such revenue may be put? And so we have the strange paraaox oi education, because it has been considered of first importance, oemg deprived of sufficient funds for keeping pace with the needs of the time because of its deoendence uoon the earlier form of taxation. Only by changing the law can education benefit from the newer forms of taxation to any great extent. THE PROBLEM PRESENTED It has been indicated earlier in this article that there is good reason for the present agitation in favor of the amendments. It is due to two things, declining valuations and rising school costs. 1. Declining Valuations: : It is well known that the tendency is for property valuations to decrease at present. There is even considerable likelihood that homes may be entirely exempted from taxation. Suchcdevelopments are di rectly reflected in lowered revenues for schools and. other activities. The ten-year" average mill" levy:. of r 11. , mills brought $i05,5W less m iajt) than m 1926. This Indicates the rate of decline in valuations. Tne Equalization Fund in 1936-7 produced only $728,000. On this basis the schools of Utah were more than a million dollars worse off In 1936 than in 1926 even after the Equalization Fund was put into operation. Another important aspect of this matter Is seen in the tend ency to raise levies as valuations decrease. Some districts have their levies near the legal limit, and yet the schools are facing Insufficient resources. 2. Rising Costs: Only two or three other states in the Union have gone farther than Utah in the direction of economics in education. Some states have Introduced vocational studies and activities that we should be glad to get. But our finances will not permit our introducing them. And not only are there new demands all the time, the actual necessities are multiplying. During the ten-year period in which the revenue fell away so markedly the school population increased in Utah more than 9000. Obviously, If even present standards are to be maintained in our schools, new sources of revenue must be supplied. That is the reason for the amendments. WHAT THE AMENDMENTS WILL DO j Briefly stated, the proposed Amendments, If passed, will do, j among others, two things: 1. They will make possible the establishment of a school fund, to be known as the Uniform School Fund, to which there will be no legal limitation. It will come as a surprise to many to know that the state sometimes has money that was raised for education which cannot be used for that purpose because the amount called for by the three funds has already been allotted. This money, belonging to the schools, must go back into the State General Fund to be used for other purposes. If the legal limitation is removed, such money can go to the schools This should do away for all time with further need for legislation of this kind. It is hoped that eventually, under the operation of such a fund, the poor districts would be brought up to the happy state of the richer ones. 2. They will almost certainly result in lower levies on tangible property in those districts where the levies are very high. This will be brought about by the substitution of other specified revenues for those now required from such levies. The Constitution makes it im possible for the Legislature to use for the additional money necessary under tne new program the tangible property tax, the personal income tax, the corporate franchise tax-, and any tax that the Legislature may impose on lntangioie property. Are boys and girls In Alpine District as worthy as those in other parts of the state? Are they entitled to the same privileges as those elsewhere 7 The only way to have them provided with equal omxr tunlties without excessive local taxes Is by giving the Legislature the power to use a oroaaer base man it now can do for the school income me Amenoments will make this possible. N. WASHBURN. vV " V - " RE-ELECT ii liJ 11 U S." SENATE TO THE Senator Thomas' record speaks for itself. Jt is sufficient justification justifica-tion for his reelection. It is a credit to Utah and has brought to Utah numerous benefits which only a man with his standing with the Roosevelt Administration could obtain. '. As Chairman of the most important New Deal committee in the Senate he is in a position posi-tion to render continued invaluable service to Utah. UTAH NEEDS ELBERT D. THOMAS IN THE U. S. SENATE! FIGHT FOR YOUR FRIEND WHO IS FIGHTINQ FOR YOU Vote Democratic Straight Hi Mi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi Hi O Hi PRESENTS EXPERIENCED CANDIDATES WHO ARE FRIENDLY TO THE GREAT PROGRAM OF Franklin D. Roosevelt 1 . FOR . Action - Progress -Peace For United States Senator ELBERT D. THOMAS For Representative in Congress J. W. ROBINSON For Justice of the Supreme Court For State Senator ROGER I. McDONOUGH ARTHUR O. ELLETT For State Representative GLEN E. DAVIS FRANCIS S. LUNDELL For County Commissioner, 4-year Term SYLVAN W. CLARK For County Clerk C. A. GRANT For County Treasurer ANDREW JENSEN For County Attorney For County Commissioner, 2-year Term ROYAL J. MURDOCH For County Auditor MARCELLUS NIELSOX For County Sheriff JOHN S. EVANS For County Recorder ARNOLD C. ROYLANCE ELOISE P. FILLMORE For County Assessor For County Surveyor LAWRENCE M.ATWOOD A. R. SHELTON ON NOVEMBER 8th ELECT EXPERIENCED PUBLIC SERVANTS Vote Democratic traight! Hi |