Measure No. 13

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Education Community Urges You To
Vote No on Measure 13
It's A Short-Sighted Idea For Solving A Bigger Problem


  • Measure 13 is the wrong answer for Oregon's school funding problem.

    • Our opposition to a ballot measure that purports to solve Oregon's school funding problem probably surprises you since we are the staff and school board members of Oregon's public schools. The education community wants a school stabilization fund that helps solve Oregon's serious, long-term, school funding problem. But, Measure 13 doesn't do that. It doesn't protect schools from more budget cuts. And, it doesn't provide adequate and stable funding for public education. Measure 13 is the wrong answer to Oregon's school funding problem.
     
  • Voting No on Measure 13 is not a vote against public education.

    • Public education has suffered deep cuts in the last decade. Measure 13 does not prevent cuts to public education now and it won't prevent cuts in the future. Measure 13 is another short-sighted, band-aid approach when what is needed is a long-term funding solution.
     
  • Measure 13 exhausts a long-term funding source to partially fill a shortfall.

    • Measure 13 converts Oregon's Education Endowment Fund into a "rainy day" fund and then spends most of the money. This use of one-time money sets up schools for an even larger shortfall in the near future. Raiding this trust fund is not a sound way to balance the budget or set a stable course for the future.
     
  • Measure 13 is an ill-conceived Constitutional Amendment.

    • Oregon's Constitution should be amended with great thought and care. Measure 13 locks into Oregon's Constitution an ill-conceived measure that is the wrong answer to Oregon's school funding problem.

    Vote for Real Solutions to Public Education Funding Cuts
    Vote NO on Measure 13

    Oregon Education Association
    Oregon School Boards Association

    (This information furnished by Kris Kain, President, Oregon Education Association and Tom Bennett, President, Oregon School Boards Association.)

    Argument in Opposition

    THE OREGON CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY URGES
    A "NO" VOTE ON MEASURE 13

    Measure 13 Violates Majority Rule.
    Measure 13 requires a super-majority of the Legislature to authorize spending money for education during a recession. The super-majority requirement empowers a minority to override the majority who want to fund education.

    Measure 13 Takes Before It Provides.
    Measure 13 requires the automatic stockpiling of funds even as the Legislature is cutting education and safety net budgets in a recession. Would you keep making automatic payments into a holiday gift fund if you lost your job?

    Measure 13 Is Half An Umbrella For A Rainy Day.
    Measure 13 is not a "rainy day fund." When Oregon has an economic downturn, the Measure 13 fund cannot be spent on the economic safety net. Measure 13 ignores those state services with increased needs during a downturn, such as assistance to families with children who don't have or run out of unemployment insurance, help for laid-off families to purchase food, health insurance for families losing employer-provided coverage, and job retention and training assistance. Education spending is important to maintain during an economic downturn, but children made hungry, homeless, or sick cannot learn.

    Measure 13 Seeds Additional Rain Clouds Over Oregon.
    The pool of money created by Measure 13 is not big enough to prevent budget cuts or tax increases during, or immediately after, a recession. The next Legislature faces a budget shortfall, and Measure 13 will not help them meet it. Measure 13 depletes the fund so heavily that the fund will not help Oregon pull out of this or another recession in the foreseeable future.

    While well intentioned, Measure 13 is seriously flawed.

    PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE 13.

    (This information furnished by A. Charles Sheketoff, Oregon Center for Public Policy.)

    ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

    The Oregon Legislature has asked you to approve using $220 million of the existing Education Endowment Fund and turning the remainder into a stability fund for schools.

    I am asking you to VOTE NO on this measure.

    While I support creating a stability fund to help finance schools during economic downturns, creating one and then immediately tapping it for $220 million is irresponsible. First, it will virtually deplete the fund, leaving such a small principle that it will take years to rebuild. Second, and much more serious, is the fact that using $220 million of one-time revenue will create a huge financial cliff for our schools in the next budget which will be developed over the next six months.

    The House Speaker has said that Ballot Measure 13 will tell us "what kind of priority voters place on education." The Medford Mail Tribune didn't mince words in its assessment of this measure in a March 5, 2002 editorial: "Asking voters to rob one education fund to pay for another will tell us what kind of priority voters place on education? That is just rubbish."

    The fact is that we need new PERMANENT revenue to fund our schools -- because educating our children is not a one-year enterprise. We expect our third graders to become fourth graders, and then fifth-graders and so on until they graduate. Ballot Measure 13 focuses only on the next few months, not on the next few years. We deserve better.

    If you care about the quality of our schools, VOTE NO on Ballot Measure 13. Let the legislature know that our children deserve permanent funding for their education ­ not short term "fixes" which simply create a bigger problem in the future.

    VOTE NO ON BALLOT MEASURE 13

    (This information furnished by John A. Kitzhaber, Governor, State of Oregon.)
    Arguments in Favor

    Explanatory Statement

    Legislative Argument in Support

    Statewide Measures

    Table of Contents