Last year, the legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment, changing one word of the state constitution.\u00a0 Its purpose is to make it easier for voters to vote in local elections and considerably less expensive for local jurisdictions to hold those elections.\u00a0 The amendment will be on the ballot this coming November.<\/p>\n
The amendment removes the obsolete restriction, written a century ago, that requires school elections to be held at different times from other elections.\u00a0 It changes the word \u201cother\u201d to \u201cpartisan.\u201d\u00a0 If it passes, as I fervently hope it does, it will enable local jurisdictions to discuss the possibility of holding school and municipal elections together.\u00a0 It will also offer that option to special districts (such as water and sanitation districts), which get minimal voter participation because most voters don\u2019t know enough about them and they can\u2019t afford to advertise much.<\/p>\n
I am a huge supporter of this change. I wrote about it last July. I mention it now as an example of an appropriate use for a constitutional amendment.<\/p>\n
The only way to change something that is locked in the state constitution is to amend the constitution.<\/p>\n
This year, a proposed amendment has been introduced (SJR 2, sponsored by Sen. Michael Padilla, D-Albuquerque) to re-reform the state education bureaucracy.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0 amendment proposes to eliminate the Secretary of Education and re-create the education superintendent hired by the State Board of Education.<\/p>\n
Regardless of what you think of this proposal, it\u2019s framed correctly.\u00a0 \u00a0A constitutional amendment is required to reverse a previous amendment that some New Mexicans now don\u2019t like. That\u2019s one reason we should be cautious in enacting amendments.<\/p>\n
In this context, I\u2019m concerned about the proposal on funding new programs for early childhood \u2013 SJR 12, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen.<\/p>\n
The proposal diverts money from the Land Grant Permanent Fund and earmarks it for early childhood programs. \u00a0The programs are a worthy experiment \u2013 and, heaven knows, New Mexico needs new solutions for our perennially lagging education system.\u00a0 But I do not trust the possible results of permanent diversion from the fund.<\/p>\n
Regrettably, any social need can be turned into somebody’s profit center.\u00a0 We are living in a brave new world where corporations make profits from \u201cbusinesses\u201d such as prisons.<\/p>\n
Consider this hypothetical: The amendment is passed.\u00a0 There is now $100 million-plus per year in play. A number of well-intentioned groups step forward, form community-based nonprofits and hire hundreds of workers with kind hearts and the right qualifications.\u00a0 Perhaps some of them are social workers who were displaced in the recent behavioral health debacle.<\/p>\n
In our scenario, that $100-million honey pot attracts national attention.\u00a0 Along come influential companies from out of state with a clever strategy. Bang! \u00a0Ethically or otherwise, the rug is pulled out from under those sweet little community organizations. \u00a0\u00a0There goes the money, and we have no idea what level of service is being provided to the children.<\/p>\n
Speculation?\u00a0 Nonsense?\u00a0 That scenario is roughly what happened last year to our behavioral health system. With $100 million waving in the wind, we’d be naive to assume it couldn\u2019t happen again.<\/p>\n
The early childhood advocates say in order for the program to work, they need assurance the money will continue for several years.\u00a0 Good point. \u00a0But\u00a0 assurance is not possible.<\/p>\n
I used to work for a state agency with a guaranteed non-political source of revenue based on an earmarked tax, the Workers’ Compensation Administration Fund \u2013 until legislators started taking little bites out of it.\u00a0 They still do, and nobody stops them. \u00a0Hardly anybody even notices. \u00a0That\u2019s just one example.<\/p>\n
A constitutional amendment is not the assurance the advocates would like it to be.\u00a0 Agreed:\u00a0 New Mexico should do much more to prepare little children for school and in some cases to prepare their parents for parenthood.\u00a0\u00a0 I\u2019d feel a lot less nervous if we find another way to fund it.<\/p>\n
Triple Spaced Again, \u00a9 New Mexico News Services 2014<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Last year, the legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment, changing one word of the state constitution.\u00a0 Its purpose is to make it easier for voters to vote in local elections and considerably less expensive for local jurisdictions to hold those … Continue reading