SDDP Blogs about Shall. Although, the thoughts are a little Shall-low
Republican sponsored legislation is littered with intent with nary a shred of shall. Their intent when writing legislation is to pay lip service to their constituents while hoping to protect the status quo. Democrat bills are designed to forge creative solutions to ever evolving challenges.(You SHALL read it all here)
A glaring example of this practice can be found by comparing the two major education bills of the 2006 session.
SB 170, the Republican’s attempt to fund education..... Look at Section 3 - It is the intent of the Legislature to appropriate additional funds to the twenty-first century education fund in future years as follows. Check out SB 170’s amendment - Section 3. It is the intent of the Legislature to appropriate additional funds to the twenty-first century education fund in future years.
SB170CI the amended version, demonstrates Democratic influence by including several shalls.
With SB 120, Democrats wielded shall to fully fund education without raising taxes and by reigning in the growth of state government. The only shall on the Republican side is their commitment to bigger government that does not address challenges facing South Dakotans.
As I'm told, the State Budget currently has about 50- 51% of the state's budget dedicated to education. In response to the Democratic plan, I'd have to say that the $64,000 question is "how much money is enough?"
If Republicans in the legislature passed the Democrats' measure, do you think Superintendents would come to the legislature next year and say "Thanks. We're good now." Would SDEA jump up and down in glee and say "You've finally done it, and we'll never come and ask you for money again." No. And to imagine it would be so is much more pollyannish than even I could be accused of being.
Republicans at least have enough fiscal restraint to understand the well is not bottomless. Yes, Republicans have kids too, and we would like them to have the best education possible. With six kids, and a wife involved in education, I'm included in that group more than many people.
But I also recognize the tax well is not bottomless. And those tax dollars are not monopoly currency. Tax dollars come out of the pockets of people,.
Should the courts decide how much is enough for education? It's doubtful that they can. They've tried it before. US News and World Report touched on the very topic about a year ago -
...critics argue that courts are usurping the role of lawmakers with arbitrary cost estimates that may prove impossible for cash-strapped states and cities to fund. Moreover, they say, money alone will do little to ensure quality schooling. "It makes logical sense that more money would improve the education, but there is no empirical evidence that says putting in more money, without changing the accountability structures, gets better results," says University of Washington education expert Paul Hill.So, this year the buzz and criticism is about trying to find ways to spend more money, and questions on "How do we fully fund?" And in reality, that's not the tough question. The difficult one is "what is full funding?"
A favorite example among school-finance skeptics is Kansas City, Mo., where a court-mandated funding boost in a 1985 desegregation case led to famously lavish school facilities but did little to improve test results. "The real disaster is that legislatures will now be focused on finding the money to pay when they should be looking to spend the money in a better way," says Eric Hanushek, an education economist at Stanford University's Hoover Institution who testified for the state in the New York case.
"Shall" is better than "Intent" when legislating about education funding? Until we know what "fully funding" is, "Shall" is meaningless.
I'll take good intentions anyday over meaningless buzzwords. Until "fully funding" is definitively answered, I'll depend on my legislators to continue to use restraint when spending my tax dollars.