Serious questions surround constitutional amendment SQ 744
Print This Article
OKLAHOMA CITY – While the vote may be not be until November, State Question 744, which will be facing Oklahoma voters on their ballots, is already being scrutinized by government watchdog organizations, like Oklahomans for Responsible Government, based here in Oklahoma City.
Brian Downs, executive director of OFRG spoke to Oklahoma Watchdog recently about the impact SQ 744 would have if it is approved by voters.
“State Question 744 is about increasing the amount of money we spend per student in Oklahoma,” Downs said, adding that it would bring us to the regional average. Specifically, states bordering Oklahoma. “It would increase our spending up to that average.”
Downs said that the Oklahoma Education Association, the teacher’s union that is pushing for this initiative, says SQ 744 would cost “$850 million more in education spending.”
“They have no idea on how to fund it, no revenue stream and no idea on how to distribute it if it passes,” Downs said, noting that there are more than 530 school districts in the state.
Downs said that House Fiscal staff have studied the effects of SQ 744 and what it would mean for the state budget. He said they found that with it costing upwards of $850 million would mean a 20 percent across the board cut for each state agency. This, for instance, would mean everything from 8,400 criminals let loose from prisons to higher tuition for Higher Education to $395 million being cut from the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
And that’s just scratching the surface, he said.
“Our concern is that the money will not go to the classroom,” Downs said.
Downs said that in 2004, during the push for the Oklahoma lottery, that this would be “end all be all for education in Oklahoma,” paraphrasing what pro-lottery proponents like Gov. Henry said at the time.
Unimpressed with the money raised for education, Downs said the lottery has not been all that impressive in getting money for education.
“Four full years later the average is $50 per student,” he said. “That’s half the cost of one textbook.”
Comparing Kansas to Oklahoma, Downs pulls out some information compiled by the group Americans for Prosperity, and shows how spending on education in Kansas for the past decade has gone up 40 percent but reading and math scores have remained the same.
Pushing SQ 744 is the Oklahoma Education Association, Downs said.
Becky Felts, OEA’s president, explained to Oklahoma Watchdog that if passed, this constitutional amendment would require the legislature to “follow the will of the people.”
“If the people say that education is a priority, we are hoping it will lead to a call for raising the per-pupil expenditure, which is the lowest in the region, to the regional average,” Felts said, adding, “We are standing up for the needs of public schools.”
Asked about the cuts that would occur if SQ 744 became law, Felts replied, “The belief of the members of OEA is that if we make education a priority, we will improve the economy of Oklahoma. That will be a long term solution to all thee economic difficulties.”
Felts said there would be “transparency and accountability,” since the language in SQ 744 requires it.
“You will hear the people say education is a priority,” Felts said. “But when push comes to shove that’s not happening. People need to stand up and say, yes, education truly is a priority.”
Added Felts: “The boys and girls in Oklahoma deserve as much of an opportunity for a good education as kids in Arkansas and Texas and other states in our region.”
“It won’t be easy to defeat,” Downs said, adding, “It’s not about going against education, it’s about the process of getting money.”
And while the OEA is in support, everyone from Gov. Brad Henry to Attorney General Drew Edmondson – both education-supporting Democrats – are on the record not in favor of SQ 744.
In fact, when contacted, Sen. Andrew Rice (D-Oklahoma City), told Oklahoma Watchdog that he is coming out against SQ 744 because “it ties the hands of the legislature with a statistical mandate.”
And Rice isn’t alone in the legislature on this issue, Downs said, noting other strong, pro-education legislators who have expressed concern about SQ 744.
“When people learn that, their reaction is one of shock,” Downs said when people learn some heavy-hitters have real concerns about SQ 744.
“It’s because they know the effects of it,” added Downs. “And the legislators don’t like having the power taken from out of the hands of the legislature, which is what this would do.”
Downs and his team at OFRG will continue to spread the word before groups and via their website www.ofrg.org
“We think it’s important to get out and educate people out across Oklahoma,” Downs said. “We know this will be the most important vote they will cast in November.”
For more information go to www.stop744.com.
By Andrew W. Griffin
Oklahoma Watchdog, editor
Posted: March 3, 2010
Copyright 2010 Oklahoma Watchdog
Posted under Featured, News.
Tags: amendment, Becky Felts, Brian Downs, education, Oklahoma Education Association, Oklahomans For Responsible Governmnet, Sen. Andrew Rice, State Question 744
6 Comments For This Post So Far
Trackbacks
-
Serious questions surround constitutional amendment SQ 744
[...] Read More [...]
-
Edmondson addresses Oklahoma’s current economic status and the hurdles that await the state
[...] about SQ 744, which we’ve addressed here at Oklahoma Watchdog, Edmondson said he is “concerned that it has no funding [...]
2:00 pm on March 3rd, 2010
Send a letter to evey paper in the state. This needs to get highlighted ever where
10:52 am on March 5th, 2010
spend…spend…spend…more…more…more…now…now…now. I guess is all the government knows how to do at the federal and state level. this legislation doesn’t make any sence. no matter what the fiscal situation of the state we would be required to raise spending on education just because states around us raise their spending. I don’t think you can get much more fiscally irresponsible than that.
5:43 pm on October 23rd, 2010
Check out SQ 754. If it passes, it will effectively cancel out SQ 744. Read the last 3 or 4 sentences carefully. The measure is posted at http://www.ok.gov.
12:50 am on November 29th, 2010
A matter that needs investigated
On case#VA107160
People Vs buddy lee George
Norwalk superior court norwalk California division S
Judge the Honorable Roger Ito
Los Angeles county district attorney Kang.
A case that can be proved as unconstitutional due to the following
1.) I was denied my due process rights.
2.) the district attorney had me charged with prison priors and strikes that I did not have and it was not until after the verdict did she admit her mistakes.
3.) I was denied to confront witnesses I supoened 5 officers and only one showed up.
4.) the only witness that showed up was detective hakala from Whittier police department he was the lead detective and expert witness.
5.) the was bias with the processing of evidence he used his own lab.
6.) he lied under oath by saying he removed the drugs before the pre search video because he had a dog.
7.) the evidence in the case had been destroyed before the trial
Evidence was destroyed 5-29-09
The verdict was read on 8-15-09
8.) the attorney that represented me right before the trial caused a conflict of interest by violating attorney client privilege by having a meeting with the city of la mirada without my permission nor knowledge were he discussed my case were he was convinced by the city saying I should take a deal under the condition I move out of la mirada when I get out of prison.
9.) Henry salcido also told me at one point he didn’t care If I was innocent or guilty I should take a deal.
10.) he also told me at one point he was best friends with steve Cooley and if I gave him $180.000 and sign over the deed to our home he could make the case disappear.
11.) their was two retired district attorneys that were working for Henry salcidos law firm that were also over familiar with sheriffs and narcotics department that were involved in my case.
12.) through the whole case the la mirada mayor and council members had law enforcement harassing me their was about 300 or more calls made to law enforcement with the intent to have me harassed
13.) I can also prove false imprisonment.
14.) I was charged with possession for sales when no drugs were ever found to be in my possessing neither was any money ever recovered and according to the detective he found 13 dollars worth of drugs in our home all together in separate bags.
15.) it was unconstitutional for detective hakala to target me when their was 5 occupants living in our home at the time.
16.) the search warrant he used to get in our home the day he supposedly found the drugs was stamped denied.
17.) the second search warrant had a type -o- error and the name on the search warrant was Walter Eugene Farris a guy that I don’t know and neither did any one els that lived in our home and he had never been in our home.
18.)The attorney that represented me during the trial had not been given enough to to familiarize her self with my case the judge refused to give her time to overlook the case.
19.) after we picked the jurors one of the jurors was prejudice he said no matter what he would find me guilty because he hates drug dealers the judge still allowed juror # 19 to hang out with all the other jurors until he was replaced.
The following needs to be investigated
1.) violation of due process rights
2.) my state and federal rights were violated.
3.) false imprisonment
4.) harassment
5.) negligent
6.) malpractice
7.) wrongful conviction
8.) officer misconduct
9.) judicial misconduct
10.) cruel and unusual punishment. Email below evidence when the evidence had been destroyed a email from detective hakala to district attorney kang.
11.) the city of la mirada offered to buy our home at cost saying under the condition I couldn’t live in la mirada nor Whittier.
12.)la mirada law enforcement was raiding our home practically daily.
13.) before this case started detective jerry Reyes told me as he handed me his card with his hand writing on it that if I dident help him he would fuck me.
14.) detective hakala and district attorney kang kept inflicting lies on the jury.
15.) I was not on probation or parole when this case started.
16.) our car had also been impounded 3 to 4 times every time officers said just tell us were the drugs are we won’t impound the vehicle and every time I was honest by saying I don’t have any drugs they impounded it any way.
Buddy George – VA107160From: joanne alberry
View Contact To: LAURIE YTARTE —————–
————————————————————-
– Laurie,here is the email from the Detective
telling the court that all the property was
destroyed. Sorry about all of it. Feel free to mail
me any payments you can at my office address
4229 Main St Suite 4 Riverside CA 92501 I will
let you know when I find an attorney who will
take on a governemtn entity. good luck to you
and Buddy,Joanne ———- Forwarded message
———-From: Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:23
AMSubject: Fw: Buddy George – VA107160To:
joannealberry@gmail.com Hi Joanne, Per our
conversation, here is the email from Detective
Hakala confirming that the evidence was
destroyed. I will request that our matter be taken
off calendar today. Thanks. ———————-
Forwarded by Miriam Kang/DAUsers/NLADA on
09/25/2009 07:22 AM ————————— To:
cc: Subject: RE: Buddy George – VA107160 I
contacted our central property and the items
seized in the Buddy George case (408-15814-
0460-184) were dispoed on 05-29-09. Any other
questions just let me know. Eric ———————
———————————————————–
From: MKang@da.lacounty.gov
[mailto:MKang@da.lacounty.gov]Sent: Thu
9/24/2009 2:49 PMTo: Hakala, Eric J.Subject:
Buddy George – VA107160 Hi Detective Hakala,
Just as a reminder, please email me a letter
confirming that the the property booked into
evidence for this case has been disposed of and
the date of disposal. Thanks so much!
Sincerely,Miriam KangDeputy District
AttorneyTel: 562-807-7211