Show me where I said we had a right to any money we pay into the coffers.
All I told you is that we pay more in taxes than we get back for schools. Your statement made it seem like we don't pay for our schools, that we freeload to some extent. What you're saying is that we might (in your hypothetical) have to pay more than 100% for our schools.
I understand the whole denial of Federal funds thing, but I will believe there is a case when I see it. No one is standing at a municipal border keeping people out who are a certain color. You can move here if you want, and anyone who does will have the right to our school district no questions asked.
Again, I will worry about that if and when something tangible happens on that front.
Can't cure stupidity. Memphis was not allowed to vote on the county school board when THEY sued SCS because it was demonstrated that they had no financial interest in SCS since, they would dilute the vote, and there were not enough cross over students or programs to show Memphis had any interest in the school district. Nope. None. The former MCS took more of the county dollars than the citizens of Memphis placed into the property tax pool at least $3M.
In fact if you read the link provided by Drift Boat, you would see this is exactly what happened in Coffee County. In Coffee County, the entire county votes on the county school board even though there are three school districts within the county. The rural voters sued claiming that allowing the residents of the city of Tullahoma and Manchester (both cities having MSDs) was dilution of the vote. In the ruling, they found that residents of both cities had a significant financial interest (7% of operating budget) and that dilution was not possible since they could at max have one member of the school board.
When Memphis argued that the state constitution required that all citizens of the county had a vote, they were told state constitutions must give way to the requirements of the Supremacy Clause when there is a conflict with the federal Constitution. It said that by allowing Memphis residents to vote, it would unconstitutionally dilute the votes of residents of the Shelby County School District by placing the overwhelming majority of ballots in the hands of out-of-district voters.
And yes, that is why I expect to see an SSD between Arlington and Lakeland and down the road, Gtown and Collierville. It's not shared services, it's programs. Paying for a service is not sharing a service, which is exactly what cooperative service agreements are. This is why they did not list the former agreement between SCS and MCS for the service of educating SPED students like the deaf children. SCS paid MCS to do this, so it was not a shared program.
So as usual you are wrong.
Keep up that wishful, hateful thinking. Maybe Santa will reward you with a well deserved lump of coal.
You are still focusing on Federal Court Lawsuit, in which a judge can fashion remedies to fix something. I am specifically talking about a federal claim (administrative) for the muni's being out of compliance to receive federal funds. If found to be in violation, there is but one remedy, either drop the msd or forego the federal funding. Even though you refuse to admit, the operation of a msd is voluntary, not an order from the state to do so. The state would be complicit, however, because they knew ahead of passage of the msd law that it would have a disparate impact on minorities.
As far as tax money, it is yours and mine, until it goes into the government coffers. Once that happens, it is no ones but, the federal governments. Tax money is fungible, there was never a guarantee that if I pay so much in taxes, I will be guaranteed to get so much out. Hell, even when Federal dollars are doled out, they don't necessarily have to be proportional. Where do you get this idea that just because you pay federal taxes, you have a right to get any of it back? It is nowhere in law> It is another one of those myths that people make up. There is no revenue sharing law that the federal government must adhere to. If so, name it!
Grove, again I stress that we are not talking about another Federal Court trial. We are just asking that federal funding be denied to your msds because they faiedl to live up to the agreement on non-discrimination that they signed in order to receive the federal money.
Do you get it now!
Btw, this is why a federal administrative claim going after your federal funds is more dangerous to the muni's than a federal lawsuit in court.
Homersimpson et al
Poor Homersimpson, you are steadily reaching for straws that are not there.
No, you will not get to vote for the SCS BOE. When you opted for a msd, you lawfully separated yourself from the SCS. You have no compelling interest in the SCS. As a matter of fact, once you become a msd, you put yourself in the same position as Memphis when it came to wanting to vote of the old SCS BOE. Yes, the situation will be reversed, yes you will pay into the county system, the same as Memphis did.
If you pay close attention to the court ruling, it says that even though state law says everyone will vote for the county BOE, the judge reminded Memphis that the supremency clause of the U. S. Constitution has the ruling authority over state law.
Byt the same unintended consequences, you will open up a can of worms. If you share in too many services, especially one supt for multiple msds, then shouldn't those citizens of the other msds be allowed to sit on the board of the other muni? If thousands of students from one muni attend school, under an agreement, to another msd, should those parents not be able to vote in the elections for BOE of the msd that they are attending? I don't think that your muni leaders want to open up that can of worms because of the fact that they have already possibly violated the voting rights act by having all at large districts, thus diluting the votes of the minorities that live in those muni's.
Btw, I don't think the state will put forth any legislation dealing with the buildings in Germantown. If they do, there will be another round of lawsuits that will hold up Germantown actually operating a msd for many years.
homersimpson: Thanks. I understand it better now....
There are some very subtle comments that have been totally ignored that explain a lot.
The Cordova residents were more than clear in the fact they want out of MCS 2.0. They want to be in GMSD and they are willing to forgo representation and many were willing to pay a small tuition and provide transportation.
The lines lost in translation were from Speakman herself. She told the Cordova residents that there were legal issues to GMSD educating unincorporated residents in perpetuity. This is a woman that can play chess. In the spirit of cooperation, down the road there is a possibility that Gtown and Collierville could form an SSD. If Gtown is educating unincorporated kids, the state could easily include those kids in an SSD. That would be a HUGE problem for SCS with the potential growth out that way. THAT is what Jones was afraid of. Those two cities would already possess taxing authority. I imagine this will happen between Lakeland and Arlington first.
The other point missed is the language of the Millington agreement. It is very different from the other four since there is a school being retained by SCS. But the language is obvious enough that should Millington MSD need Lucy Elementary, it will take not much more than another quit claim to transfer the building. I'm pretty sure she anticipated Lucy being empty next year and at least one Millington school being overcrowded enough to need that school. In addition, she is anticipating potential changes in the laws from Nashville bills that will allow that school to be transferred at no additional cost to Millington.
The last item of importance is that fact that each school gets to retain everything - every single item within the walls of the school. Desks, smart boards, projectors, lab equipment, computers, all stay. I think the only other question is books. SCS knows that Title I stays with the school. SCS knows that PTA stays with the school. They knew better than to try to fight the parents.
There is a school board member that admitted that the suburban parents were a formidable force.
We all pay federal taxes. The rich have even more tax breaks. Everyone living Memphis is not poor. Some have 6 figure incomes. We all pay property taxes. Your property taxes may be high but so is it for someone living on Shady Grove. Taxes are like tithes, you don't receive more because you paid more. Thinking so would be discriminatory.
Memphians aren't the only ones watching this fold out.
I didn't say they would receive the pension now. But there are many capable effective teachers that are more than ready to shed the MCS 2.0 with a pension and work for a MSD until they want to leave the profession entirely.
What I said is that legacy MCS teachers merged with the same years of service. So a teacher that left legacy MCS at 29 years, began at SCS with 29 years and is eligible for retirement from SCS at the end of this year. That means they can leave SCS at the end of this year and be guaranteed retirement benefits (both medical and insurance) from SCS not the old MCS. That is completely serarate from the state run pension program.
That is the lawsuit. I believe the municipal districts will have to be in operation for at least a year before any figures could be calculated for a lawsuit. If the figures are close it might have to be longer since one year might be an aberration that might not be truly reflective of the situation. I believe the County Commission has already voted to expand the school board to 13 members. If that's the situation, another vote would have to be taken to keep it at 7 members. Under state law, it should remain a seven-member board. It is going to 13 members only because Judge Mays ruled it could. His decision in effect overruled state law on that issue. Here is something I don't know that perhaps someone could provide some information on. Since teachers are covered by the state pension system, are there any local OPEB costs for pensions for Shelby County teachers? I know there are OPEB costs for insurance. I believe any teachers who leave the Shelby school system and go to one of the muniicipal districts would simply continue in the state pension system. I don't think a teacher could retire from the Shelby system and receive a pension while teaching in one of the municipal districts.
I think this is the case you are referring to.
I guess you folks will have to wait to see what the actual numbers turn out to be, but I suspect you are correct about the board being elected county wide.
An article or maybe a series of articles or news stories explaining how schools are funded in Tennessee is long overdue, especially with the advent of the six new districts in Shelby County. There are a lot of voters that flat don't understand how it's done.
the monies owed by the municipalities will be earmarked for offsetting the costs of post-employment benefits accrued by the SCS system
In fact the checks will be written to the SCS OBEP. This I appreciate. I for one will directly benefit from this agreement now that the SCS retirement benefit and insurance fund will be adequately funded. There are a number of SCS teachers/staff that will immediately take advantage of this windfall as they put in their retirement papers with SCS and go on to greener pastures in an MSD school. As we understand it, all teachers right now would be paid retirement from SCS, so that county debt got very big very fast when they went from 3000 teachers to 7000 teachers. When the MSDs for they will go down about 2500, but in an sense, they had to build that fund up fast because in reality, the teaching force from legacy MCS is on average close to 20 years time served.
Gtown deal WON'T be done till Jan. When the legislature convenes and that first bill is proposed you will finally see compromise!
I can't wait till they redistrict and cut me out of voting for an SCS member. THEN you will see a lawsuit. You are not getting my tax dollars without my vote.
My guess is that the county school board will countinue to be a countywide school board including representatives from the municipalities. Tennessee state law requires countywide school boards. The old Shelby County board did not include any Memphis representation as result of a 1997 federal court ruling which found that Memphis taxpayers were not subsidizing schools in the county outside the city. The court in fact found that taxpayers in the county outside Memphis were subsizing Memphis City Schools, I believe that when the new school districts are set up, the taxation figures will show that residents of the municipalities combined will be paying more in county taxes for schools than the municipal districts will be receiving back in school revenue from the county. The County Commission can't just decide it is going to draw school board districts that do not include the municipalities. A federal lawsuit would have to be filed and proof would have to be submitted that taxpayers in the municipalities were not subsidizing the county system.
I absolutely don't want to see any more lawsuits, because I don't think they do anyone any good in this case except for the lawyers. I believe we should all get back to focusing on education, not fighting battles that only the lawyers win, so I certainly don't want to see more lawsuits.
There is no guarantee we get our federal tax money back, but who pays that money? The people, right? The amount of money that Germantown residents pay into tax pots that are used for schools is MORE than we take back in return. That's a fact. The conduits that the money goes through may be different and come with different requirements, but you can't say we don't pay 100% today, because we do. Your argument is that we may have to pay 130% or something of that nature for our schools if we want them, not that we'll have to pay 100%. We already do that.
To flip the question, if we aren't paying, then who is? The money originates in someone's pocket.
As far as the possibility of a further lawsuit, yes it's still just a possibility. It hasn't happened yet, and if it does, we will get to dissect exactly what kind of case is being made and how strong of a case is being made.
I do know that it isn't just our leaders that are hoping we won't see another lawsuit. SCS also doesn't want to see that happen, because 1) they want some certainty which they are close to achieving, and 2) there is a very real possibilty that a further challenge could shift some students from SCS to the MSDs in an attempt to help with racial balancing, a shift that would reduce the size of SCS's budget, just as was the case in the Vestavia Hills example I provided the other day.
The SCC's argument OTP was that the board of 7 wasn't adequate representation for the entire county, even though everyone in the county had the opportunity to vote for one of the 7 members. At the time, I called it out as complete BS, which it was.
We all know the reason they wanted to stack the school board. They wanted to make the court battles last longer, and they knew that the 7 member elected board was going to be fairly reasonable in dealing with the split off of the suburban districts (which has been the case). The SCC didn't want reasonable negotiations to happen.
That motive is evident now since they are no longer concerned about expanding the school board until they can figure out redistricting post-MSD formation. That's what I was saying would've been the smart move all along, to wait until they knew exactly who was going to be in SCS and who wasn't, but they weren't looking to be fair and/or logical. They had political motivations for their plan. They wanted to hand-pick 6 members that they knew would toe the line for them no matter what the 7 elected members wanted. Now that hand-picking 6 members to try to torpedo the negotiating process is no longer an option, they aren't in the same rush to add members to the school board.
I just like to point that out, and it is a great illustration that suburbanites have been right in having concerns with whether we could trust Memphis elected politicians. That said, kudos should go to the 4 Memphis-elected school board members for being reasonable, but the SCC shows us how a possible future school board may have acted had we elected to stay within a merged county district.
Stop being so sure of something that you have no control over.
A civil rights complaint wasn't meant for discussion, the possibility of one is a fact.
No, you don't actually pay 100% for your schools. You can't count federal taxes because there is and never has been a law that it will be returned to you.
That 30 percent or more is not a part of your local budget for msds.
If you were willing to pay that extra 30%, then you would have had your children in private school.
You can talk shit and bark at the moon all you want, but, you know and I know, your leaders are on pins and needles that no-one comes forth with, either a new lawsuit in
Federal Court or an administrative claim with the U. S. Office of Civil Rights. Actually, I would fear the complaint with the Civil Rights off more than I would fear an individual filing a new lawsuit in Federal Court.
No, you don't want to discuss it because you have looked it up and know that if filed, you would be defenseless under the looser standards of proof and intent than you would be in Federal Court. This type of complaint would not keep you from operating your own msd, however, you would have to make up the 30% of your school budget to cover the cuts.
So, cut the bluster and admit that you don't want this to happen.
They will go to 13 members. They have to re-district anyway. Everyone in the SCS will have representation with the seven for now, just larger districts, unlike the unincorporated kids, they would have none.
Driftboat, no, dropping this lawsuit by the SCS and CC does not mean that the formation of msds would not resegregate the schools. It just means that it is up to individuals or other civic organizations to file, either, a lawsuit in Federal Court or to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights under titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deny funding.
Either scenario is possible, however, I don't know if it will happen. Btw, the filing of a claim under the civil rights act doesn't cost anything.
Any word on the details homer?
Grown deal done
By Joe Boone
download this issue
click here to see more »