By FITSNews || In an effort to direct more money into classrooms and trim unnecessary bureaucratic spending, S.C. Rep. Boyd Brown (D-Fairfield) is introducing an amendment to the South Carolina budget that would prevent school districts from hiring lobbyists – or paying taxpayer-funded dues to groups which hire lobbyists.
According to The Voice, Brown’s amendment would prevent groups like the S.C. Association of School Administrators (SCASA) and the S.C. School Boards Association (SCSBA) from sucking up hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from local school districts that should be going toward educating our children.
From The Voice:
The School Administrators, a group of non-teaching bureaucrats, paid one of their salaried employees $64,000 in 2009 just to lobby for the group’s agenda. The School Boards Association, a group of elected local politicians, paid a staffer $52,000 to lobby for them. Another SCSBA employee received a further $5,000 to do the same. In addition to the school boards’ and the school administrators’ money, another $62,000 was spent by the state’s Education Association (SCEA) and $34,000 by individual school districts.
This money, $217,000 in 2009 alone, is a deceptively low figure because state ethic laws only require disclosure for funding of person-to-person lobbying activities, not the related money spent on research, coordination, strategizing, and logistics of their lobbying and public relations campaigns.
Both SCASA and SCSBA are funded through the collection of employee and professional dues; money often budgeted directly from local school districts’ revenues. The groups also receive money through lucrative consulting and service contracts with local school districts and the state department of education.
According to documents obtained by The Voice from South Carolina’s spending transparency website, just one of South Carolina’s forty-six counties spent $106,000 last year on dues to SCASA and SCSBA. Brown’s amendment would obviously stop such waste – and route this money back into the classroom, which is currently receiving less than half of every dollar spent on public “education” in South Carolina.
Both SCASA and SCSBA rely on public funding – and SCASA even provides its employees government benefits. In addition to lobbying against real reform, these educrats also waste thousands of dollars each year billing taxpayers for lavish vacations along the S.C. coast.
We congratulate Brown on his proposal, and look forward to bringing you a report on which lawmakers voted in favor of this common sense reform …
WEB EXTRA
Lawmakers Look To Curb Lobbying By Schools (The Voice)
By ed rollins March 17, 2010 at 10:09 am
each school district pays thousands of dollars each year
to the sc school board association based on the number of
students in the district. the district pays the dues not the
board members
By Alf March 17, 2010 at 10:31 am
About time Brown brought forth some common-sense legislation, his Fairfield school bill was a good idea but not very practical
By Scott March 17, 2010 at 10:33 am
Good idea….no, it’s a great idea. Boyd Brown should be commended by all taxpayers in South Carolina. Hopefully, fiscally conservative Republicans and Democrats can unite on this one.
By Home Rule March 17, 2010 at 10:35 am
These people make me sick. What the hell is the “budget process” with all its hearing, testimonies, and debates for if these people use my taxes to go ask for more of my money…
..oh wait, nevermind, everything IS decided in the smoke filled back rooms and the booze fueled legislative receptions and parties!
The thing that really gets me is how these people always get up on their crosses talking about “the kids” like the rest of society would leave them for dead. I know of several private schools in Charleston area that take in the kids that the public school system has spit out or left behind, and they don’t send lobbyists up to Columbia to demand anything!
By Mike at the beach March 17, 2010 at 10:59 am
Now we’re talkin’! Are they finally starting to get a feel for the problem with our bloated, broken down ed system in this state (most states, for that matter)? In addition to the social / parental advantages of private schools, take a look at any of the studies out there in regard to the percentage of their budget that makes it to the classroom. It’s NOT less than half, and they seldom hire lobbyists…
My educrat friends scream when we discuss this- “They don’t have a district office or Department of Education to fund like the state does,” to which I always reply, “Precisely.”
By really???? March 17, 2010 at 11:02 am
So what you are saying is that you are happy that no one will be lobbying for the schools??? So when lawmakers start talking about cutting funding, there will be no one to object (and by object I mean grease their pockets so they change their mind).
By Image over Substance March 17, 2010 at 11:16 am
No lobbying for the schools?!
First there is the state department of education and they have a whole section full of legislative affairs and policy people, not to mention the Sup himself, who work with lawmakers and their staffs.
Then there are the relationships that local school officials already have with their local legislative delegations.
And of course, there is the committee and subcommittee process, which is designed to rely on testimony of those who are impacted by the legislation being considered.
Lobbysts, on the other hand, are mercenanies (in this case paid by you and me) who try to persuade lawmakers to vote a certain way through meetings held behind closed doors.
By No Name March 17, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The Educrats are the ultimate State Gov Circle jerk.
By No Way! March 17, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Clemson, USC, and MUSC should also be banned from this practice.
By . March 17, 2010 at 5:22 pm
How about including the universities in this amendment and saving several million dollars spent on lobbying by CU, USC and MUSC?
By baker March 17, 2010 at 9:02 pm
I have mixed feelings about this one. I can see the obvious controversy. And, especially in the case school boards, I can see how it would be best for the members to individually pay their own membership fees. for school administrators, it might be a bit different — many, many groups have their own professional associations, paid for — at least in part — by employers, and they serve a variety of purposes….including, sure, pushing for legislative policies that benefit members.
There’s a Sheriffs’ Association. A Police Chiefs’ Association. A Jail Administrators’ Association. A Municipal Association. All sorts of things.
Do they all get dues paid by the taxpayers? Not sure. Do they all carry on lobbying operations in Columbia? Not sure, but I’d guess they each do, in some form or other.
So, this stuff isn’t quite the blatant outrage I think some folks think,
Moreover, these groups aren’t always marching to the exact same beat. The agenda of the School Boards Association may not always be in line with the SC Association of School Administrators. And both may be at odds, from time to time, with the DOE. And across the country, school administrators and teachers unions (of which we have none in SC in terms of actual bargaining power with employers) have locked horns. So, the presentation of all these groups as simply “educrats” — especially school board members, who are ELECTED — doesn’t really make the discussion any clearer.
By No Way! March 18, 2010 at 8:24 am
I think it depends on the source of funding. In other words, state and federal dollars should not be used to lobby for more state and federal dollars. Many of the lobby agencies you list above are privately supported through personal dollars and not state or federal dollars.