CALIFORNIA, Md. — The following letter was sent to us by Vernon Gray of California, Maryland.
“By my recollection, the St. Mary’s County Board of Education supported the state’s adoption of the “The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future” law enacted in 2021. They had the luxury of doing so because they are not responsible for the foreseeable fiscal consequences to the county. Now, they act like they are the Blueprint’s victims when state funding is not increasing.
Superintendent of Fiscal Services Tammy McCourt said, “We all believed there would be an increase in Blueprint funding to St. Mary’s County public schools to support the statutory mandates.” Really?
In January 2020, before the Blueprint, Superintendent of Schools Scott Smith said the state gave the school system less because of a wealth index. “As wealth goes up [in the county], state aid goes down,” Smith said. “As the county does better and better, the state provides less and less.” So, knowing this reality four years ago, why did they expect an increase in state funds? Could it be with the expectation of merely passing decreased state funding off to the county?
Is the board of education ignorant of the Department of Legislative Services, Office of Policy Analysis, January 2022, study report “Local Fiscal Impact of Implementing the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future”?
Smith now claims, “the Blueprint is deeply and fundamentally flawed,” which is to say do not blame me. The Blueprint is essentially a redistribution of the costs of public schools from the state to the counties based on the respective “wealth” of each county – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” – or a county’s “capacity” to pay.
The board of education is requesting the county provide an additional $9.6 million in recurring funds over the amount provided in FY2024. Smith said, “There is no way for us to increase revenues. None. We can’t do a bake sale. We can’t increase revenues. It all falls on the county commissioners, and they are under no obligation whatsoever to increase our funding for next year.”
In a February 1 letter to the county commissioners, Smith proposes the addition of a $0.056 “Blueprint Tax” to the county’s property tax rates. If the county commissioners foolishly do so, they will create the precedent of giving the board of education a de facto taxing authority.
I suspect the Blueprint will ultimately result in the General Assembly granting a separate taxing authority for school boards when the state determines counties are not supposedly funding the public schools to their “capacity” to do so. I can foresee Smith in Annapolis eagerly urging the General Assembly to give school boards separate taxing authority, so he no longer must go begging to the county commissioners or suffer their oversight.
This year there are three seats on the board of education open for election. Incumbents Mary Washington elected in 1996 and Cathy Allen elected in 2000, both registered Democrats, are seeking reelection. I suggest it is time to impose term limits at the ballot box on the school board. “
-Vernon Gray
Of course,,, we need more taxes,,
That’s what Maryland is good at,,
Making sure we plenty of tax to pay.
Please stop writing here or any place else. Every time I see your name I skip it. You have no positive thoughts to add.. EVER.
You will just have to learn to live with it! I am not concerned about the opinions of people with closed minds.
“The board of education is requesting the county provide an additional $9.6 million in recurring funds over the amount provided in FY2024.”
No.
The $9.6 million is not “additional” to the recurring funds over the amount provided in FY2024.
The $9.6 million is the amount the State no longer provides to the County to fund public schools.
Fund the public schools or don’t. That’s up to the County Commissioners, not the School Board.
The School Board will work with whatever funds are allocated. However, please no feigned consternation Mr Grey, when they start closing schools.