Committee OKs plan to remove BOE from charter schools
The House Education Policy Committee approved a bill on Tuesday that would remove the Alabama State Board of Education from confirming a new charter school commission. Republicans who sponsored Alabama’s newly passed charter school legislation expressed frustration at the state school board’s refusal to confirm a list of nominees for the commission. The charter school commission is responsible for hearing appeals of charter school applications rejected on the local level. Bill sponsor Republican Rep. Terri Collins of Decatur said the bill is needed to ensure the commission is in place by the June 1 deadline. “The bill has to go through so many steps in order to pass,” she said. “Getting that simply done by June 1 will be an effort. If they were to actually pass the state commission at any point during that, then the bill could just stop, but I’m probably not going to postpone the bill until they do something.” Republicans have passed charter school legislation this session after making it a priority for several years. Board members have said they wanted more time to interview and research candidates nominated by the governor, lieutenant governor, House speaker and Senate president pro tem. Several state board members have said they agree with being removed from the process. “I think they deserve the entire decision making process on this,” board member Ella Bell said last week. “They created the charter schools. This was not the decision of the people of this state.” Democratic Rep. Patricia Todd of Birmingham voted against the bill. She said it’s too soon to cut the school board out of the process. Todd said it seems reasonable to allow for the board to have more time talk with the candidates, even if it means extending the June 1 deadline. “They have had one round to look at people,” she said. “I don’t think just one round and all of a sudden boom they’re going to appoint them and take their authority away is good policy.” Other bills this session already have taken away major responsibilities from the state school board. Gov. Robert Bentley signed a bill removing the state’s two-year college system from BOE oversight. Another bill, which died in a Senate committee, would have created term limits for the board’s elected members but would have raised their pay. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Jim Zeigler to unveil lawsuit to stop schools using tax money for political campaigns
State auditor Jim Zeigler plans a Monday news conference to unveil a lawsuit he’s preparing to stop school boards from using taxpayer money to fund campaigns that promote new tax increases to pay for education programs. The move comes in the wake of the “Build Baldwin Now” campaign launched by the Baldwin County Board of Education — complete with its own website — that sought to inform voters about what they claimed was a pressing need for increased funding for the district. Private and public money was spent in the effort. Zeigler says the latter constitutes an inappropriate allocation of public money. Zeigler’s lawsuit will name four members of the Baldwin County school board as well as Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange as co-defendants. A news release from Zeigler’s office states: As a result of the Defendant Members’ vote, the Baldwin County School Board and the Superintendent of the Baldwin County Public Schools spent in excess of $250,000 of public funds on a political campaign for a “yes” vote. State Auditor Jim Zeigler objected to the Board’s spending of taxpayer funds for the political campaign. Plaintiff Zeigler requested Defendant Strange to investigate the violation and take the matter to the Baldwin County, Alabama grand jury. Instead, Defendant Strange made a news announcement on March 30, 2015, the day before the vote, in which Defendant Strange told Plaintiff Zeigler, the Defendant Board Members, and the news media that the Board’s spending of public funds on a political campaign was legal. Defendant Strange relies on an outdated Attorney General’s Opinion issued in 2003 that said this type spending is legal. Accordingly, Defendant Strange has made himself a necessary party to this legal proceeding. The law which Plaintiffs cite and allege herein and that Plaintiffs aver was violated by the Defendants was not passed until 2010. Defendant Strange and the Defendant Board are using a 2003 Attorney General Opinion to interpret a 2010 law. Plaintiffs aver that this use is clearly improper, since the 2010 law was not in existence when the 2003 Attorney General’s Opinion was issued.
