Woodstock CT Café

@Numbers
Why can’t local school districts propose to their voters a local fee, identical to the one Gov Malloy wants to eliminate? It won’t make any additional impact on people’s pocket books because it won’t be a “new” tax, just a replacement.

I lived for two years in Washington State where every school district had the freedom to propose to the voters additions to the property tax and/or individually levied fees which would help fund public schools. I lived in a community that valued its children’s education very highly. While I was there a proposal was presented to the district’s voters. A great deal of information was made available, including exactly what the money was for, why the new program would be valuable, as well as the views of those who supported the new plans but did not feel they warranted more revenues. The turnout vote was amazing and the measure passed with over 70% “Yes.” Never before, or since, have I lived in a place where people so put their money where their mouths were when it came to public education. They are the top school district in the state (1/216).

If CT public school districts can do the same thing, why not try? The keys to getting additional taxes/fees passed are 1) the schools must already have the support of the community and 2) the district must build a record of responsible and effective TARGETED programs. “We want more money” and the funds disappear down a rat hole won’t work but if a district says, “Here’s why we want the money and what we will do with it” and then follows through with good results, local voters might surprise you with the degree of their support. This replacement car tax would be a perfect opportunity to start such an approach. If it specifically targeted one or two current programs and then the district did a good job with the money, that could form the base for going to the voters in the future to ask for more, targeted funds.

Diane,
Suffice it to say it is unclear if prop 46 would even allow it, much less the political will of the local electorate.

(From Tulsa) This is an article that proposed changes but it was defeated in a referendum.

http://www.woodstockctcafe.com/2006/04/01/explanation-of-proposed-changes-to-proposition-46-in-plain-english/

@John
Thank you for the link to the Woodstock Café article but it doesn’t contain the text of Prop 46. Do you have a link to that document?

Thank you, John. I read the article but missed that those words were the entirety of Prop 46. With all the grief it has caused, I erroneously presumed the act must have been a lengthy rope indeed to have so thoroughly hogtied the Town of Woodstock.