Interim studies are taking place at the Capitol on issues of education and public health. One was conducted by the Budget and Appropriations Committee to assess the possible results of State Question 744, which will be on the general election ballot in 2010. 

If citizens vote in the affirmative on this question, the Legislature will be obligated to fund Oklahoma education per student at the “regional average.” While I was not on that study, I did follow it and was disappointed that the committee focused primarily on talking points to be used in opposition. 

They failed to address the question as to why these neighboring states such as Arkansas can fund their students’ education at a higher level than Oklahoma. The members of this study were told that our other state agencies would have to take a major cut in their funding if this measure passed. 

Why did they not do research that would show that these neighboring states fund their other agencies at higher levels than we do? Perhaps those answers would not be part of their political agenda. 

Why did leadership authorize the spending of several thousand dollars to do something that was merely political posturing?  This could have been done during the session with House or joint resolutions. 

Where are all the fiscal conservatives when you need them? 

On a positive note, the Education Budget and Appropriations Committee conducted a study on assessing a means of assisting schools whose district citizens have passed bonds for building purposes at 85 percent of their capacity but are still unable to provide the facilities needed for their students’ education. 

This could be achieved if we could provide a revenue stream to fund the State Public Common School Building Equalization Fund provided for in the state’s Constitution.

It was explained that a total of 357 Oklahoma schools have a bonding capacity below the state average. This inequity results in some schools having the very latest facilities, often including Olympic-sized swimming pools, while others struggle to provide the basic building needs for their students. 

An attempt to find a solution to this problem is traditionally sidetracked by the Legislature’s determination to continue and expand the tax-cut style of revenue reduction in the hope that a miracle will occur by this being stimulation for economic growth. 

Sorry, it hasn’t worked yet.

The House Public Health Committee, on which I serve, met to consider an interim study on emergency medical services. Its purpose was to revisit and promote the consideration of HB1888, which would help establish oversight and create revenue streams for our rural emergency medical services. There have been attempts to place these under county commissioners. 

While some counties have taken this approach, the problem lies in the possibility of a wide and inequitable variety of funding approaches from property or sales tax or fee-for-services. 

One presenter, Dr. John Sacha, MD, made the critical point that EMS is health care with two critical demands involving different funding requirements.

These are response or performance and readiness and infrastructure.  And third, he pointed out that the solution must involve a regional cooperative approach with a unified state-wide funding system.