Florence District 1 opposes school bus privatization legislation

Proposed legislation in the South Carolina Statehouse was the hot focus of two unanimous resolutions passed at the monthly Florence School District 1 meeting Thursday evening.

FSD1 Chief Financial Officer Luther Rabon presented the board with budget information and several bills before the legislature, including House bill 4610. That bill proposes the privatization of the state’s school bus fleet, shifting bus responsibilities from the State Department of Education to the district level. That would require districts to either take on those responsibilities or outsource them.

A major stipulation of the bill would require the district to replace buses older than 15 years. Rabon said if the bill were to pass it initially would cost the district $10 million to replace all buses, a number chairman Porter Stewart calls outrageous.

“We worked hard at this table to be financially responsible,” Stewart said, audibly agitated in comparison to his normal calm demeanor. “We’ve done what we’re supposed to do and now we’re getting our pockets picked — yeah, I’m upset.”

The bill has support from area legislators. Bus fleet privatization efforts have broad support from State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais and Gov. Nikki Haley, who mentioned it in her State of the State address in January.

“We’re not interested in mandating bus choices down on our locals — what we are interested in is giving them options and getting the State of South Carolina out of the school bus maintenance business,” she said.

FSD1 superintendent Dr. Allie E. Brooks Jr. says the bill would be devastating not only to his fiscally sound district, but those smaller ones that are squeaking by.

“The bill that’s introduced to shift bus operations from state to school districts is going to adversely impact the school districts,” Brooks said. “Depending on the financial status of the district, it can run anywhere from severe to devastating.”

After discussion, Stewart passed a resolution, with full board support, to oppose the bill. Board member Willard Dorriety Jr., a stated proponent of privatization in general, said the bill doesn’t make sense.

“Privatization works if it does two things: improves services and cut costs,” Dorriety said. “But this means we’ve got to pick up the costs, in a way, to save their (the state’s) budget.”

The money, Stewart said, would have to come from the district’s building fund.

Other bills on which the board passed a resolution of opposition were House bills 4547, regarding tuition tax deductions, and bill 4576, regarding a tuition tax credit. Both bills would severely cut general fund revenues.

In terms of the 2012-13 budget year, Rabon says the state economic outlook is stable.

“The last three years have been awful. We’ve lost about $10 million in revenue,” Rabon said. “I think 2012-2013 will be stable, we didn’t receive an official budget cut this year or last year.”

Although, one major area concern for Rabon and other district officials is the base student cost (BSC) staying at the same rate as last year, or possibly lower, according to Haley’s executive budget.

The BSC for the current year is $1,880 — which is what it was in 1989. The current BSC should be at $2,790, a number that Rabon and others know is not attainable, especially since Zais asked for the same BSC in the 2012-13 budget, a move he defended on Wednesday.

“We asked for the same budget as last year, as a minimum,” Zais said to the state board. “And we had that in bold and underlined.”

Maintaining that level will cost an additional $15 million, Zais said, because of student population increases.

“We’re presently around the 1989 level and our expenditures are at the 2012 level. We need to get the BSC around $2,100 to get it at a level it should be,” Rabon said.

Brooks echoes Rabon’s feelings on the BSC, saying it’s hard to be progressive with such outdated funding.

“The sad thing about it is the state is responsible for educating its citizenry,” Brooks said. “Those of us in public education are not getting encouraging signs for advancing the opportunities for our students in the 21st century.”