No sympathy for Weiner, homeschoolers.

Turrell, Delight and Weiner — these are some of the school districts in danger of elimination after the Senate Education Committee rejected a bill that would change the formula the state uses to calculate sufficient attendance.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Buddy Lovell, Democrat of Marked Tree, in an effort to save the Weiner district. The state forces consolidation of any district that has attendance of less than 350 for two consecutive years, but it only counts attendance during the first three quarters of the year. Rep. Lovell wants the fourth quarter counted as well; Weiner’s population increases during that period due to temporary agricultural employment, and including the fourth quarter might have stalled imminent consolidation of the district. Supporters testified that closing the district will turn Weiner into a ghost town.

Rep. Lovell fought hard for the bill, and even went so far as to hold up the statewide education budget for several days. But the Governor and the Attorney General remained staunchly opposed to tinkering with the attendance formula, which was established after a long court fight over school funding.

Homeschool advocates fared little better this morning, as the committee declined to approve the so-called Tim Tebow bill, Sen. Gilbert Baker’s effort to allow homeschooled children to participate in extracurricular activities and competitive sports teams run by their local districts.

The committee seemed open to Sen. Baker’s proposal, but it was introduced too late in the session for passage by the full legislature. A voice vote did not garner enough ayes. The bill was sent to interim study.

Some committee members wondered if the bill’s academic standards were too low. Public school students must maintain a certain GPA to participate in activites; homeschoolers would have to achieve above the 35th percentile on a standardized test.

Bill to tighten restrictions on poor-school spending fails.

An attempt to make poor school districts stop stockpiling National School Lunch Act (NSLA) money failed in the House Education Committee today. The bill would require the approval of the Department of Education if a district wished to carry over to the next year more than 20 percent of the money. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Joyce Elliott, had previously secured its passage in the Senate.

Despite its name, the NSLA is used to pay for several specifically approved programs, including after-school activities, tutoring and salary increases for teachers. The NSLA fund is one of several so-called categorical education funds, which the state earmarks for express purposes.

There has been some dispute over whether NSLA funds should be spent on teacher salaries and bonuses. It was suggested today that districts were saving the funds to pay for bonuses at a later date.

Rep. David Rainey, who sponsored the bill in the House, said there needs to be greater Department of Education supervision of the amount districts carry over. The bill would require the Department to establish rules determining when a district could keep an excess of the money. Rep. Rainey said those rules should not let a district exceed the 20 percent limit unless it shows an improvement in student performance.

Rep. Rainey argued that the NSLA money was not being used properly. “From my perspective, it’s unacceptable for these districts to receive the money and not spend it on its intended purpose,” he told the committee.

According to Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, which testified for the bill, 15 districts carried over more than 60 percent of their NSLA funding in the 2007-2008 school year.

Ron Harder of the Arkansas School Boards Association spoke against the bill.  He argued that the amount of money being carried over has flattened in recent years. He also said that a district the Education Department found to be in breach of the 20-percent threshold would be put in a budget bind due to the likely timing of such a ruling.

The bill, which failed on a voice vote, suffered due to its breadth. Though misuse of NSLA funding was the main issue, the bill would require the 20 percent cap for all categorical funds, a provision to which Harder objected. Though the sponsors were willing to tighten the bill’s scope, there is not enough time left in the session for an amendment.

No tax break for you!

Arkansans don’t like to be taxed, and they really like to get tax breaks. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. The Senate Taxation Committee drew it by rejecting every single tax exemption that came before it today. There was a flood of them after the House went on a tax-break binge last week, much to the consternation of Gov. Beebe.

Here’s a breakdown of the bad breaks:

-An exemption for single-parents who have two or more dependents and make less than $17,200 a year. The best of the tax bills, the sponsors said it corrected an oversight from previous sessions. Sort of baffling this one didn’t get through considering how much support it had. Revenue loss was said to be $3.6 million.

-A credit for someone who sells a motor home to the person who is renting the motor home. Supporters of this one said it would encourage home ownership. We know what sort of trouble that attitude has gotten the country into recently. Besides which, living in a trailer isn’t exactly what I’d call the American Dream.

-A back-to-school sales-tax holiday. $1.6 million revenue loss was too much for DFA. This one inspired a lecture from Sen. Denny Altes on the Laffer Curve.

-A tax credit for the development of central business improvement districts. Rep. Tracy Pennartz, the sponsor, said the credit would pay off five-t0-one, though she did not say where her numbers came from. This bill was long in development and had a certain amount of support. But, though Rep. Pennartz offered a last-minute amendment that would eliminate the credit if funding couldn’t be found outside general revenues, DFA objected. It said the credit would create an expectation from business districts that the state might not be able to meet. Still, the bill got a sympathetic hearing and will go to interim study.

A capital-gains tax exemption. Sponsor Rep. Ed Garner and DFA sparred over how much the impact would be, but it looks to be huge. Garner said the break was necessary to enlarge the economy; DFA said it would help mainly individuals, not businesses, and take $42.8 million from the state in 2011. Seems to me that exempting people from stock and real estate profits isn’t the best economic catalyst.

Week in review.

A flood of tax cuts passed the House, including a break for development in urban business districts, an exemption from capital-gains levies and a back-to-school tax holiday. Gov. Beebe expressed reservations about the cuts. The Joint Budget Committee continued to have epic meetings as it tried to wrap up the state’s finances. The committee voted to raise the salary of Director of Higher Education Jim Purcell by $50,000 despite vocal opposition by some members.

Lawmakers rushed to pass bills through committee as the session approached its final week. A Senate committee rejected a bill that would restrict the sale of toy guns in Arkansas. The bill is named after a child who was shot by police in 2007 while reportedly carrying a toy gun. Lawyers for the child’s family have said the bill title hurts their case, since they are arguing that the child was not actually carrying a toy gun when he was shot. Another Senate committee oversaw a compromise between weapons groups and FOI advocates that will allow open access to the names and zip codes of concealed-carry holders. A House committee rejected two energy efficiency bills in the face of opposition from energy companies. Another House committee told acupuncturists they cannot call themselves doctors.

The Senate asked voters to decide, in 2010, whether the people of Arkansas should have a constitutional right to hunt and fish. The Senate said immigrant children who have had three years at an Arkansas high school cannot go to college at in-state rates if they do not have proper documentation. The House rejected a resolution informing the federal government that Arkansas has states’ rights.

The House passed a bill to ban lobbyists from giving lawmakers their credit cards to pay for stuff, but only after House Republicans used a procedural move to delay the measure. Members of the House Rules Committee were forced to rehear the bill on the spot after Rep. Ed Garner objected to a provision that would prevent lobbyists from being paid based on legislative action. Of his objection, Rep. Garner said, “I’ve opened up a whole can of Pandoras.”

The death of Freedom to Farm.

Bill titles come in many forms. Some tell you exactly what the bill is going to do. (Example: “To require publications produced or distributed by state government to be provided in all languages, including Braille and Sign Language, if the publication is provided in Spanish.” Yes, this is a real bill.) Some touch on what the bill will do but make you read the whole thing if you want the full story. (Example: “Concerning entries into the judgment book.”) And some are so suggestive, so provocative, yet so incredibly vague that you can’t wait to hear about the entire thing. Such is the case with Rep. Roy Ragland’s “Freedom to Farm Act.”

Is some nefarious force on the verge of destroying the tools and tractors of Arkansas farmers? Has someone suggested that the countryside be totally evacuated?

Alas, nothing so exciting inspired Rep. Ragland’s bill. The bill is instead a reaction to a brewing squabble between small farmers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Seems the federal government has been discussing plans that would make it mandatory for all farmers to tag their animals. Seems also that small farmers don’t want to be forced to do this, be it because of cost or limitation on their personal freedom. Rep. Ragland’s bill would allay their concerns by forbidding state agencies from making farmers register their animals in the federal system.

Opponents raised constitutional issues — if the federal government made tagging mandatory, farmers would have to comply regardless of state law — as well as the concern that the bill would hurt the marketability of Arkansas cattle. Thus died the Freedom to Farm for lack of a second.

Clean energy? More efficient energy? Not for Arkansas.

The House Insurance Committee voted today not to recommend two bills that would improve energy efficiency and expand renewable energy in Arkansas. Though the bills had the support of the governor, the attorney general and the public service commission, and though the sponsors watered down the original versions of the bills to suit energy companies, energy companies remained opposed and had the muscle to kill the measures.

Coming into the committee meeting, supporters had little hope for Rep. Joan Cash’s bill to make utilities submit energy efficiency plans to the Public Service Commission. Under the terms of the bill, electric utilities would have  to make a good faith effort to reduce their customers’ energy bills by one percent per year starting in 2013. The utilities would not have to meet the one percent threshold, and there would not be any penalties if they fail to do so.

Sensing that the bill did not have the committee’s support, Rep. Cash pulled it down for interim study before opponents could testify.

A second bill, sponsored by Rep. Kathy Webb, would require electric companies to purchase a certain amount of its electricity supply from renewable energy sources based in Arkansas. Under the bill, a utility would buy from a private producer of solar energy, for example.  The utility would be able to recoup its costs through higher rates on the consumer. Opponents appeared spooked by the possibility that utilities would charge higher rates, though supporters said there would be savings in the long run.

Eddy Moore, a supporter from the Arkansas Citizens First Congress, said opposition to Rep. Webb’s bill came from both large industrial consumers and energy companies. Large industries do not want to pay increased energy bills, he said, while utilities are afraid of future competition from alternative energy sources.

Lawmakers want hunting to be a constitutional right.

Over the course of this legislative session, there have been more than a few wrongheaded, irrational and just-plain-dumb policies proposed by our public servants. None has been more jaw-dropping in its absurdity than a committee’s decision today to refer to voters an amendment creating a constitutional right to hunt and fish.

There are two very major problems with this amendment. One is that, since the legislature can only refer three amendments to voters, it bumps from consideration more serious proposals that might actually help the people of Arkansas. The second is that the idea of a right to hunt and fish is dubious on its face.

To deal with the first problem first. This is a bill that will not benefit regular Arkansans.  The sponsors’ argument for the amendment is that PETA is struggling to ban hunting across the U.S.  Yet the only actual ban they could cite was a Michigan prohibition on dove hunting. That dearth of evidence offers proof, as if any were needed, that the idea of a left-wing interest group getting hunting prohibited in Arkansas is ludicrous.

Like so much culturally charged legislation, the amendment changes absolutely nothing. It does, however, benefit lawmakers who could use the support of the NRA in their next campaign. The NRA is in full support of the amendment and testified in its favor.

Two legislators deserve particular opprobrium for their actions today. One is Sen. Gilbert Baker, who grandstanded his support for the amendment in the course of a condescending speech to Rep. Butch Wilkins, who had asked some very reasonable questions  about lawsuits that could result from the amendment. (“This is for the Baker boys!” the senator said in reference to his seven hunting sons.)

The worst performance, however, was that of Sen. Steve Faris, who as chair of the committee was able to push through the amendment — which he is the lead sponsor of — before the nine other proposals on the table were even considered. Those proposals included three finance amendments that would allow the state to attract investment to Arkansas — a more important priority, I would submit, than promising the state’s hunters that no one will take their sport away. As a chairman, Sen. Faris should know better than to ram through legislation that prioritizes himself and the interests of the NRA over the people of Arkansas. Shame on him.

Then there’s the second issue: should anyone really have a right to hunt and fish? A right? Rights should be a bit more exclusive than that. Free speech, free exercise of religion, due process — these are rights. But if you’re going to insert a ‘right’ for one special interest into the constitution you might as well crumple the document and wipe your bum with it.

Maybe if the legislature is running around giving out rights they’ll decide to pass the ERA, too. Anyone want to lay the odds?

PS. The committee did manage to pass one real amendment proposal — voters will have to decide whether to lower the requirements an economic development project must meet before Arkansas can issue bonds to support it.

That leaves the committee with one more amendment to refer next week. Talks are currently in the works to combine two amendments into one. The Frankenstein amendment would allow the state to issue bonds for energy conservation projects and would also allow the state to pay higher yields on bond issues.