What Happens If Amendment 4 Is Passed in November?

By David Gladkosky

Contributing Writer

Executive Director of West Virginia Professional Educators

September 2022

In March of this year, our legislators approved House Joint Resolution 102, the proposal of a constitutional amendment that the rules and policies created by the West Virginia Department of Education be subject to legislative review, approval, amendment, or rejection. This would overturn the 1958 amendment by West Virginia voters that granted general supervisory authority over the schools of our state to the State Board of Education. At that time, it was recognized by a legislatively commissioned study that this was a necessary step to provide responsible governance over the educational process, managed by a diverse group of experts, immune from the influence of politics.

Why was this resolution introduced?

Most, but not all state agencies answer to the West Virginia State Legislature. It was reasoned by some legislators that the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) should fall in line with this thinking. Educational bills may be introduced and approved by legislators and signed by the Governor, but education-related policies and policy waiver requests from county districts are handled independently by the State Board of Education and the WVDE. Our legislature wants this power of decisions placed back in their hands.

How does this process currently work?

The West Virginia State Board of Education meets on a monthly basis to discuss and review, approve or reject policy updates, amendments or waivers. Any proposed changes are placed on public comment for thirty days to receive input from West Virginia citizens and stakeholders. After quick review, all comments are presented to the state board by the WVDE for approval on a monthly basis. This provides for a quick turnaround in implementation of rules and policies, effectively meeting the needs of our county districts. As a part of the process, the state superintendent and WVDE staff are in constant contact with county superintendents and their districts so that urgent needs may be quickly evaluated and resolved through these policy updates and waiver requests. These decisions are made by an appointed board serving up to nine years who are focused on education and have the time to consider all stakeholder input when addressing issues. The State Board and the WVDE frequently seeks input from many stakeholders, including teacher associations, who meet monthly with the state superintendent and WVDE staff. We know that the WVDE spends a considerable amount of time reviewing and revising outdated policies, and their partnership with the State Board of Education makes for a well-oiled machine that responds effectively to our students and teachers changing needs without subjectivity to any political agenda.

If approved by voters in November, what changes?

The fate of educational concerns would then be put into the hands of a body that changes every 2 years in the general election. There is concern that this will create much inconsistency in the progression of needed education policy. This could also hinder the ability to act with expediency on solving concerns, issues, and potential crises that our educators and county districts are experiencing. If passed, this resolution could hinder this efficiency, and potentially create delays in responding to our ever-changing educational landscape.

So, What Happens if it passes?

State Board policies will be subject to partisan politics, and will require the legislature to approve, reject or amend them. If the legislature uses the current rules in place as they are used with other state agencies, these policies would then have to become a bill, which the governor would have to either sign or veto. This means that it will likely take a year or more to enact or amend a State Board policy. It will be unlikely that the State Board will be able to directly grant policy waivers requested by county districts.

How would this affect our students, teachers, or our classroom instruction?

This has the potential to create a multitude of setbacks for our students, and teachers. It will likely affect the stability and content of classroom instruction, and unreasonable lesson plan requirements. These standards could then be affected every two years by shifting partisan politics. It also has the potential to create delays in delivering classroom supplies that our students depend on including technology items such as laptops, iPads, etc., impeding our students’ growth opportunities. New and innovative programs designed to keep our students in step with their career pathways could also experience delays in implementation, waiting as long as a year for a special or regular session to be processed and approved.

What will this amendment be called on the November ballot?

It will be labeled as Amendment No. 4: The Education Accountability Amendment. Here is the summary which will be stated on the ballot; The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that the rules and policies promulgated by the State Board of Education, are subject to legislative review, approval, amendment, or rejection.

How can educators make the public aware of the implications of this Constitutional Amendment?

The best approach is a local approach. To be effective, the message needs to be conveyed at the local level; educators talking to neighbors, parents, family, local businesses, etc., relating just how it could affect YOUR school and YOUR community.

We know that West Virginians want the best for our students, our classrooms, and our community. Many are questioning the wisdom of this constitutional amendment and are concerned with the possible political implications. Our students deserve a free public education without the threat of compromises, delays, or political bargaining.

David Gladkosky is Executive Director of West Virginia Professional Educators, Inc, a statewide independent teachers association. David can be reached at David@wvprofed.org or 304-550-1598

The Battle Over Amendment 2

By Guy Ward

Contributing Writer

West Virginia House Delegate

September 2022

Who would have thought that an amendment to our state constitution would bring so much controversy? Who would’ve thought that the legislative and executive branches would be at odds over one? But this is where we’re at. The legislature along with manufacturers are on one side and the Governor along with county and municipal governments are on the other side. So, why is this on the ballot and where did it come from? Let’s look at how an amendment to the constitution comes about and the origin of Amendment 2.

The way an amendment is added to our constitution is first by introducing a joint resolution in one of the houses. In this case it was HJR3, which generated Amendment 2, was introduced in the House on February 11, 2021. When it was first introduced, it originally covered just the inventory and equipment taxes. The personal property tax on motor vehicles was added in the House Judiciary committee. It then moved out of committee and onto the House floor where it passed by the required two-thirds vote on March 31, 2021. After passing the House, it then went to the Senate and was approved by a two-thirds vote on April 10, 2021. Being that it was a resolution, which the constitution calls for, it didn’t go to the Governor for approval but to the people of West Virginia to vote on to either ratify or reject it. That’s why it’s on the ballot this general election.

The idea behind Amendment 2, which seems to be the biggest statewide controversy this election, is nothing new. It has its origins going back several years. My research shows that a resolution calling for the elimination of inventory and equipment tax was introduced at least as far back as 2014 when both Delegates Charlotte Lane and Bill Anderson introduced separate resolutions (HJR1 and HJR7).

Eliminating the tax on motor vehicles goes back to at least 1999 when Delegates Angotti, Perdue, Warner, L. Smith, and Modesitt introduced HJR25. However, it only eliminated the tax on vehicles owned by car dealerships.

The present form was first introduced in 2016 during my first term in the House by Delegate Geoffrey Foster (HJR30) and then again in 2018 (HJR3). However, these two joint resolutions simply stated that manufacturing inventory and manufacturing equipment would be exempt from ad valorem taxation but didn’t include the vehicle tax that was added in committee. You see, the original idea behind this amendment is to help manufacturers, which I don’t have a problem with if it brings more jobs.

Then in 2021, the concept became part of what was known as the 2021 Legislative Priorities of the House Republican Caucus and was discussed during the House Republicans’ retreat at Glade Springs on November 12th and 13th, 2020. Even though it lists sponsors on the resolution, it’s really a caucus resolution.

I voted on the current resolution, which was HJR3, and I still support the idea. However, I think the legislature, especially the Senate, has muddled this one all up. During special session called by the Governor this past July to reduce income tax, the Senate showed their hand by refusing to take up the Governor’s bill (HR301) after the House passed it, which would’ve cut the personal income tax by ten percent, and instead passed Senate Resolution 303, which details the Senate Republican majority’s plan for eliminating tangible personal property taxes if voters should approve amendment 2. However, the Senate’s plan is flawed. For one thing it failed to take into account the municipalities. In their resolution, the Senate commits to adding obligations in statute, which would base budget backfill to all counties for revenue replacement in perpetuity that is above and beyond the personal property taxes to be eliminated.

There’s no way the legislature can keep a promise like this. Also, please note that it was put in a Resolution and not a Bill, which doesn’t obligate them at all even though they promise to do so. It also is just a Senate resolution and not a joint resolution. So, the House hasn’t agreed to this. You see, this promise is all based upon having surpluses each year, referred to as budget backfills, to cover the losses that the counties will experience, which no one can guarantee.

Governor Justice is correct when he said, “It puts control over county budgets in the hands of the Legislature, with no guarantee that the money will continue to flow if West Virginia sees an economic decline. Do we really want to play a game of chance when it comes to our schools and our police, fire, and EMS services? It’s a big spend with big risks.”

Also, to add what the Governor said, Republicans in state government will complain about the federal government encroaching on state autonomy and here we are wanting to do the same to the counties and municipalities.

I would like to see the elimination of these taxes. However, before we do, I feel the legislature should first come up with the best way to do it without enacting harm on the counties, boards of education, and the municipalities. As the old saying goes, we got the cart before the horse.

There would be nothing wrong with first creating and passing legislation to show everyone what will happen after the constitution is amended. Of course, the legislation couldn’t go into effect until after an amendment to the constitution was approved. Right now, however, voters have no idea of what will happen.

If the amendment should pass and these taxes are eliminated next session. Then both houses will have to agree on a solid plan to help fund the counties, boards of education, and municipalities. If they do eliminate the taxes without agreeing on a plan, it will mean that the counties, boards of education, and municipalities will have to come up with a plan themselves, and there wouldn’t be one size fits all. Where counties and municipalities aren’t at their maximum limits in property taxation or levies, these entities may feel forced to increase real property taxes, introduce new levies, and possibly add additional fees to make up the difference to maintain services such as fire, emergency management, and police. Where then is the savings to the taxpayers if this should happen?

There are several plans being suggested from adding a county sales tax to offering a rebate. In my opinion, none of these are good plans. My suggestion is this, if the Senate is so sure that these surpluses will continue for years to come, they need to put their money where their mouth is. Do something like cutting the current state sales tax from 6% down to at least 4% and allow the counties to implement a 2% sales tax but only after inventory and equipment tax, and personal property tax are eliminated. This would be a real decrease in taxes overall with the State bearing the risk. Not the local governments. Also, in counties that the 2% sales tax wouldn’t make up the total loss, counties and municipalities would probably only have to increase real property tax slightly, but the elimination of the vehicle tax would probably be more than enough to offset the increase and still be a decrease overall.

Another solution would be to leave it up to the counties to eliminate this tax. Some counties may find that it’s to their advantage. Decreasing taxes have proved in many cases to increase revenue to the government by putting more money back into the local economy and, with the elimination of a tax like the inventory and equipment tax, could bring more business to your community. More money going into our state economy is what is causing our budget surpluses right now. During the Trump administration the economy was growing by leaps and bounds. During that period, we didn’t increase taxes here in West Virginia except for gas tax and motor vehicle fees to pay for the Roads to Prosperity bonds, which aren’t reflected in the general revenue budget. So, just with the boost in our economy with no tax increases, this produced last fiscal year’s 1.3-billion-dollar surplus. However, my fear is, with changes in Washington these past two years, this may not last because inflation is our worst enemy. So again, the Senate’s plan in my opinion isn’t a good one.

As far as Amendment 2 goes, I don’t blame anyone for voting against it and sending a message to Charleston to come up with a plan first. Nobody likes paying taxes but most everyone realizes that in order to provide the services that counties and municipalities provide, and in order to provide a good education system for our children, they’re willing to pay them.