With the
California State budget still being negotiated and the 2006 Tribal Compacts
awaiting approval by California voters in a slugfest characterized by claims
from proponents that the compacts will guarantee additional funding for the
state’s schools, a new study claims there is no direct connection between
compact approvals and funding for public schools.
Strategic
Education Services, a Sacramento based lobbying, consulting and advocacy firm,
issued an Analysis of the 2006 Tribal Compact and Their Impact on Education Funding. Contrary to various pro-compact campaign
advertisements that assert that compact approval will provide billions of
dollars to California schools, the study not only claims there is no guarantee
that money distributed by tribes from gambling operations will directly benefit
California’s public education system, but also that even with extra money
coming from Indian tribes as a result of compact approvals, the Governor and
State Legislature will most likely distribute the extra money to other
programs.
“If approved
by voters under the false impression they are voting to ‘provide billions to
California schools,’ these gambling compacts could further the misperception
that schools are receiving adequate funding from gambling measures -- a measure that already plagues efforts to
provide genuine revenue increases to California schools,” reads a statement in
the analysis.
Because
public school funding is issued and managed through Proposition 98, a school
funding formula that derives money for schools through proceeds of taxes, such
as property tax, the study further claims that since tribes are sovereign
nations, the state cannot levee taxes on their economic ventures. Therefore,
compact payments cannot be considered proceeds of taxes and would not be
included in a public education funding calculations.
“All revenues
from past compacts have been allocated to non-Proposition 98 expenditures,” the
analysis states. “There is nothing in these compacts to suggest that such
practices will be any different than current policy.”
Roger
Salazar, media representative for Yes on 94, 95, 96 and 97, refutes the
report’s findings, stating that since 40 percent of California’s general fund
is required to go towards public education, an increase in money to the general
fund would also increase the amount of money distributed to public education
and other programs.
“Any time you
put additional resources in the general fund it relieves all areas. I don’t see
how adding more money into the general fund wouldn’t benefit schools,” he said.
“It benefits all state programs including schools. It’s a technical argument
that Strategic Education Services are trying to make.
“We are not
in a position to make the promise, but what we have said is that these
agreements will allow $9 Billion over two decades to be applied to the
California budget. We’re facing some very tough budget times, and what these
tribes are trying to do is contribute to part of the solution.”
Though the
Legislature can decide to apply extra money the state receives to education, it
has a track record for only applying the minimum 40 percent to schools.
In May 2007,
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger added an additional $427 million to the public education
fund, which was more than the minimum 40 percent, and the Legislature reduced
the funding by that exact amount -- applying only the minimum 40 percent.
The analysis
questions how funds from compact agreements would be guaranteed to benefit
public education since the legislature historically has applied the minimum 40
percent to schools, regardless of budget revenues.
While Salazar
acknowledges this fact, he remains optimistic that the additional money from compacts
would be applied toward public education and other vital programs.
“The folks on
the other side are trying to do everything they can to mislead the voters to
make them think that the compacts will not help the budget,” he said. “While
nothing in life is guaranteed, what is guaranteed is that the state will
receive hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year to help with its
budget problems and fund vital services such as education, and that’s a good
thing.”
The Governors
Office could not be reached for comment.
To view a copy
of the report, click
here.