Transcripts of meetings, 1977-1981, v. 13. Article VIII

STATE OF GEORGIA SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
Transcripts of Meetings 1977-1981

MMITTEE MEMBERS:
ORGE BUSBEE ;OVERNOR :HAIRMAN
_L MILLER .IEUTENANT GOVERNOR
OMAS B. MURPHY ;PEAKER. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
'BERT H. JOROAN :HIEF JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
(ELLEY QUILLIAN :HIEF JUDGE. COURT OF APPEALS
:HAEL J. BOWERS \TTORNEY GENERAL
,RCUS B. CALHOUN SENIOR JUDGE. SUPERIOR COURTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
ROOM 23H 47 TRINITY AVENUE ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30334
404/6567158

COMMITTEES MEMBERS:
AL HOLLOWAY SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
JACK CONNEL.L. SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
ROY E. BARNES CHAIRMAN. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
WAYNE SNOW. JR. CHAIRMAN. HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
FRANK H. EDWARDS SPECIAL COUNSEL
J. ROBIN HARRIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MELVIN B. HILL., JR. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MEETINGS HELD ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VIII

COMMITTEE
Full Committee Subcommittee Full Committee Full Committee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Full Committee Ad Hoc Committee Full Committee

DATE
October 24, 1979 November 8, 1979 November 13, 1979 May 22, 1980 May 22, 1980 May 22, 1980 May 22, 1980 June 10, 1980 June 19, 1980 June 24, 1980 July 10, 1980 July 16, 1980 July 17, 1980 July 28, 1980 July 31, 1980 August 12, 1980 August 18, 1980 August 21, 1980 september 4, 1980 September 9, 1980 September 23, 1980 October 16, 1980 October 21, 1980

11 OF PAGES
113 85 98 45 17 49 23 94 93 93 97 70 78
175 95 69
101 60 84 60
120 106 143

PAGE 1

2

STATE OF GEORGIA

3

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VIII

4

OF THE

5

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

6

7

8

9

10
Czl 11 l-
oe<
Q.
12 ~
~~ r~ ~ ! 14 I':<"zl:: 15 .:> Cl e< ::> 16 ~ Q z
17 :

SUBCOMMITTEE 2 ON LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS

18

19

20

21 Room 401-A State Capitol
22 Atlanta, Georgia
23 Thursday, July 10, 1980 10:00 a.m.
24

25

PRESENT:

2

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

3

CHAIRMAN DONALD THORNHILL

DOLORES COOK

4

JOSEPH GREENE

5
6
7
8
9
10
"z
11 ;:::
.'o.."...
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 ... ':"r 15 .:> "'::"> 16 ~... cz 17 ::;

ALSO PRESENT:
MELVIN B. HILL, JR. VICKIE GREENBERG MICHAEL HENRY JERRY GRIFFIN CLARK STEVENS JENNYE GUY PETE HACKNEY JIM MULLINS CHARLES PYLES CAL ADAMSON ROBERT WOODARD

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

PRO C E E DIN G S

2

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: We will go on and get started,

3 we are running a little bit late.

4

We have some of our committee members who have not

5 arrived yet.

6

Those members of the committee that are here, I am

7 Don Thornhill, I am the Chairman of this subcommittee, and

8 Mr. Joe Greene from McDuffie County, and Mrs. Dolores Cook

9 are here, and the rest of the members of our committee have

10 not arrived or have complications that are not going to be

11

"z
I-

here.

.'o."....

~ 12 ~

We have been following a format with a decision

~F~ agenda, and each member of the committee has gotten one for

! 14 today I believe, and today we're going to be lookingat items

I-

'"

::I:

15 ~ that deal with the financing of school systems primarily,

"'":::I

16 ~... and the staff has very graciously been able to obtain some

Q

Z

17 = speakers for us today to talk about some of these issues,

18 and I would like to say that maybe if we would just follow

19 the procedure that we did last time, we will let our speakers

20 speak to the various points, and I believe they have kind of

21 keyed their remarks to the decision agenda. Is that right,

22 Vickie?

23

MS. GREENBERG: Yes, that's right.

24

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Then after we have our

25 speakers, we will take just a short break and then the

PAGE 4

committee can get back and go down the decision agenda and

2 express our feelings that way, and then let the staff take

3 what we do today and and work that into a proposed draft.

4

We have received in the mail a copy of a propos~d

5 draft of the school districts, the makeup of the boards of

6 education, the superintendents and changes in the school

7 boards and the superintendency in independent scnool systems,

8 powers of the boards to contract with each other. You have

9 received that in the mail already.

10
III Z
11 I-
o..0..<..
~ 12 ~
~ri ! 14 IU'l <:zl:: 15 01) III 0< ;;;) 16 ~... o Z 17 l<lli:

What I thought we would do is rather than to get into the proposed draft today would be that let's look at what we have scheduled for today, go through the decision agenda, let the staff agairi work up a proposed draft on that one.
We have one other section that we want to take a look at, and that is special schools; we'll do that at our next meeting and follow pretty much the same format with a

18 decision agenda and have someone to come and speak concerning

19 that, and let the staff fix up a proposed draft.

20

Then we can look at the total proposed draft at that

21 time, and that will pretty well wind up our task, we'll be

22 ready to go and make our report to the total committee.

23

Maand I were discussing some tentative meeting

24 dates and, as you know, we are looking down the barrell of

25 a deadline to be finished, our total committee to be finished

PAGE 5

by September -- is that right, Mel?

2

MR. HILL: Yes.

3

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: So what we're looking at in

4 terms of dates, possible dates, would be to meet again on

5 the 31st, Thursday the 31st, and to look at the special

6 school section; and then on August the 21st to look at, to

7 review the total proposed draft of what we're looking at OIl

8 the various sections; and then on Thursdsay September the itth

9 to kind of wrap up our subcommittee's work, Is that right,

10 Mel?

"z
11 ~

MR. HILL: Yes.

e ,- io

Go

12 ~

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Joe, do you and Mrs. Cook see

anything, any complications with that schedule?

14 ~~
ell
<il
:I:
15 ~
":":>"
16 ~ Q z <il
17:

MRS. COOK: I don , t, MR. GREENE: Not with the tentative date of August 21st and September the 4th, those dates are fine with me. I do have a possible conflict with the July 31st, but I can't

18 say for sure this morning.

19

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: What other date? How about the

20 30th? That's on a Wednesday.

21

MR. GREENE: I am tentatively scheduled to be in

22 Tampa on business from the 30th through the 1st, tentatively

23 now, and I can't -- P1eaee go on with your meeting because

24 I can't even be -- I can't even confirm that at this point.

25

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Okay.

PAGE 6

Well, I might even have a possible conflict myself

-',i;

2 which I hope I won't on the 21st, and since you are the vice

3 chairman of this committee why don't we go on and schedule it

4 the way that I have just suggested -- I know I can be here on

5 the 31st, and if you can't, we'll swap off and I'll let you

6 be in charge on the 21st if I don't make it. How about that?

7

MR. GREENE: Fine. Very good.

8

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think I'm going to be there,

9 though ..

10
"z
.11 i= 0...
12
@rl 14 ! lo-n <l ::t 15 ~ " :::l 16 .lzZ..l 0 Z 17 <l lZl

Okay. Why don't we get right on into our business at hand today and, Mel, do you want to introduce our guests, or Vickie, would you introduce our guests and take it from this point?
MS. GREENBERG: We have today Mr. Pete Hackney who is the legislative budget analyst, and Mr. Clark Stevens who is the director of the state office of Planning and Budget, and they have been gracious enough to study our decision

18 agenda, and they're going to address the issues,

19

Should we read the issue and then have them res~ond

20 to it?

21

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think that would be good.

22

Before we do that, we have some other people

23 visiting with us. I see Dr. Jim Mullins over here who is

24 with the Educational Improvement Council, and you were with

25 us last time, and please forgive me .-

PAGE 7

MS. GUY: I am J ennye Guy wi th the Urban Study

2 Institute.

3

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: All right.

4

MR. GRIFFIN: I am Jerry Griffin, Georgia Municipal

5

Assol~iation.

6

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: We are very happy to have

7 these folks with us.

8

MS. GREENBERG: Then later Dr. Cal Adamson will be

9 coming in to speak to the decison agenda also.

10

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Do you want to go down that?

MS. GREENBERG: Okay. Question 1, "Should the

state be required to assume a greater responsibility for the

financing of public education?" and "If yes, in what manner?"

Who would like to address that question first?

MR. HACKNEY: I'll be glad to take first pass at

this one if you WQuld like,

I honestly don't see how our office can have an

18 opinion on this. I have my own personal opinion on it as a

19 private citizen, but our office has no opinion on it.

20

I feel that to avoid a chaotic situation such as

21 California faced with the Serrano decision, Texas faced with

22 St. Regis and so forth the state is going to have to do

23 something to ensure that the quality of education provided

24 statewide i.s more uniform than apparently it is based on all

25 reports that our office received and you read in the news-

PAGE 8

papers and so forth, and property tax which-is about the

2 only source available to local government doesn't seem to be

3 the place that additional funding can come from to achieve

4 this uniformity.

5

That being the case, I assume that over a period of

6 time the state is going to have to assume a greater responsi-

7 bility. I don't think that this is contrary to the recent

8 actions of the Georgia General Assembly nor those of

9 Governor Busbee.

10

It apparently was contrary to the thoughts of the

former Governor of Georgia before Mr, Busbee tock office

who was a big believer in boosting the required local effort

and was quoted correctly on several occasions in the Atlanta

newspapers and other places as being an advocate of a larger

required local effort, but then with the locals having nothing

but a property tax base primarily to fund the cost of local

education and with obviously more money required to bring

18 about these requirements, yes, I think yes, they must assume

19 a larger responsibility.

20

Where the money comes from, that's a matter for the

21 General Assembly to address, obviously.

22

MR. HILL: Would you be in favor of a provision in

23 the constitution that stated that something to that effect,

24 that the state shall assure that uniformity in quality of

25 education for the citizens is provided or some such language

PAGE 9

to encourage a greater attention to this?

2

MR. HACKNEY: The constitution already I think gees

3 in this direction where it speaks in two different areas

4 within this article to the effect that the state will provide

5 an adequate program of education. What's adequate?

6

Either fortunately or unfortunately the constitution

7 doesn't tend to define that, depending on where you're coming

8 from.

9

I would like to see something -- I am not sure

10 that the constitution itself should attempt to spell out a

" 11 ~z formula or a percentage or even the specific fund sources

o......

~ ~ ~ 1~2. ~~

for is

the educational program better left to statute.

in Georgia. I really believe Perhaps, though, it could

this

! 14 recognize what you're speaking of that the state will ensure I':"r
15 ~ that it will be done. that it will be adequate.

"~
;:)

16 ~

I think it would be a mistake for the state to pay

zQ
17:

the whole tab.

I think perhaps we would want the constitution

18 to reflect the thought that there will be local involvement

19 through participation from local sources, but beyond that.

20 no, sir. I don't think I would want to see -- I've got nn

21 awful lot of formulas that I like, I've seen some other folks,

22 and I guess we all do that. Mel. but I just don't feel it

23 would be the thing to do to put it in the constitution.

24 There's toomany things already in the constitution which are

25 outdated such as the acquisition. for example. on unrelated

PAGE 10

subjects of motor vehicles for state use. You know, the

2 thing about the Governor is entitled to one automobile which

3 is provided by -- I believe it says the Georgia State Patrol.

4

You see, we didn't have Department of Public Safety

5 then, it still says Georgia State Patrol, and it says and

6 such motorcycles as he shall require. When that was put ih

7 motorcycles were the means of traffic enforcement, traffic

8 control. Now I guess if my kids looked at it they would

9 think it had something to do with Hondas, what's the

10
zCI 11 j:
a.oa..:..
~ 12 ~
~r~! 14 ... ':"z: 15 ~ aC:I ;;;) 16 ~... Q Z 17 :;

Governor going to do with Hondas? I'm not sure we need a formula in the constitution.
CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: You know, the very first paragraph in Article VIII says, you know, the provision of an adequate education for the citizens shall be the primary, be a primary obligation of the state of Georgia, the expense of which shall be provided by taxation .
MR. HACKNEY: It doesn't say whose tax, whether

18 it's local tax or state~

19

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: That's right.

20

MR. HACKNEY: But when you whizz on over to a

21 couple of pages later let me see if I can find it -- yeah,

22 here it is, it's over in my little book on page 69, it would

23 be Section VIII -- I have to put my specs on to see, does

24 that look like three I's or one? yes, Section VIII where

25 it says the General Assembly shall by taxation provide

PAGE 11

funds for an adequate education for the citizens of Georgia,

2 so the General Assembly doesn't provide property tax now

3 I know there is a property tax, you know, they allow the

4 counties and municipalities to levy, and there is of course a

5 one-quarter of a mill maximum property tax that the state

6 levies, but that's a drop in the bucket toward providing

7 education.

8

Now, it doesn't say all. I penciled in on here, it

9 doesn't say shall provide by taxation all funds. Now, did

10 they mean all funds? Lord only knows; I don't.

MR. HILL: I guess I was thinking whether that

statement, whether you feel that statement about an adequate

education should be broadened to address the equal educa-

tional opportunity question, the language itself, or would we

be better off

MR. HACKNEY: If the state provides an adequate

education, I assume adequate would be equal allover the

18 state. Now, if somebody wants to provide something beyond

19 adequate, I suppose that should be left up to local discre-

20 tion, but without a definition of what's adequate you all

21 have got a hell of a problem here, you know.

22

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Jim, do you have anything you

23 want to say about that?

24

MR. MULLINS: No, sir. I'll be quiet.

25

MS. GREENBERG: Is there any other input from the

PAGE 12

committee?

2
l:;

Mr. Stevens, do you have any comments?

3

MR. STEVENS: We have done quite a bit of work in

4 this area over the last two or three years working with both

5 tax changes and with the local school systems, and I would

6 like to give you a few points, make a few points about this

7 whole area.

8

First of all, there is one statistic that permeates

9 all these questions that you're going over, and it's quite

10 staggering, and it's simply this, that based on rankings

1:1 Z

11

j:
'0.."....

of the states on the latest information we have expenditures

@ r l12 '" per pupil for public education in Georgia out of the fifty states and the District of Columbia we rank 51st; we are

! 14 I-

spending the least per pupil of any state in these United

':"r

15 ~
1:1

States in elementary and secondary educatlon, that is in total

'";;;)

16 I.z.I.I funds, local funds, state funds and federal funds .

Q

Z

'" 17 III

As long as we '.re at that low base, you know, it's

18 difficult to tak about shares and some of these other

19 questions listed in this paper for public education, e1e-

20 mentary and secondary in Georgia, per pupil expenditure is

21 phenominal1y low even compared to, you know, say some mid-

22 range states which are spending some forty to fifty percent

23 more per pupil than we're spending in Georgia.

24

That's not the state, but it's state, local and

25 federal.

PAGE 13

Now, historically if you're interested in the

2 question about state versus local expenditures we can go back,

3 I went back and researched certain areas of that in the '58-

4 '59 school year, the percentage breakout of expenditures

5 worked like this: Federal, 4.8 percent; state, 66,2 percent;

6 local, 29 percent.

7

Now, that's saying that the state provided about

8 two-thirds, the localabout one-third, and the federal only

9 4,8 percent, and if you look in the '58-'59 at the percentage

10 of local versus state by taking the federal out of it local

CzI
11 ~ government was financing about 30,S percent of the cost for

o

lL

~ ~ ~ _12. ~~

public education, Now. carrying that

forward to

this

year or

to

the

14 ~ school year for which we have the latest complete data which
'"
:I:
15 ~ is '79, the federal share has risen from 4.8 percent to 13.8 CI D/ :::J
16 ~ percent, the state's share has decreased as a percentage from 17 az~ 66.2 percent in '58-'59 to 51,7 percent -- in other words,

18 from about two-thirds to about half of the total cost.

19

The local share conversely has gone up from 29

20 percent to 34.5 percent, such that if you pullout the federal

21 money and look at the local cost, not local cost but local

22 expenditures including enrichment, including all factors,

23 local school systems in the school year '58_'59 was 30.5

24 percent, last year was 40 percent, so they've gone from 30

25 percent to 40 percent over that some IS-year or some 20-yeaR

PAGE 14

period.

'(

2

-;

So what this shows is that the local governments as

3 a percentage of total expenditures, their cost is rising

4 in comparison to the state's local cost in percentage. I

5 think that's an important factor.

6

Now, property taxes, or at least our per pupil

7 expenditure to show you where we're coming from has risen

8 472 percent from 1958 to 1979, and our -- the relativity of

9 personal income to, per pupil expenditures has remained about

10 the same, it hasn't changed that much. In other words, as

..zc.:l
11 j: our income as risen our per pupil expenditure has risen in

..0....
.12 the state, but they have maintained about the same overall
@ r l ratio over a 20-year period.

! 14 ...

Now, the question is should the state be required

':"z:

.15 ~ to assume a greater responsibility for financing public c.:l

;;;)

16 .IzI.>. education, and like Mr. Hackney was saying this is a subject

..Q
Z
17 II> you have to be very, very careful with.

18

Let's assume that we pick up the cost, let's pick

19 up the cost. Okay. The state right now is spending about

20 a billion dollars, about 53 or 54 percent of our budget goes

21 to education which will include elementary, secondary and

22 higher education as well.

23

We spend about a billion dollars on elementary and

24 secondary; local school systems on a 60-40 ratio here are

25 spending about, say we'll round it off and say about $600

1

PAGE 15

million. Okay.

2

So if you want to pick up the local school systems'

3 cost and write that into the constitution the price tag

4 financially is $600 million, right? Wrong, it's much more,

5

If you pick up the expenditures of all local school

6 sytems as they currently exist, the pure ticket is $600

7 millio~, but the ethical or moral or court-required pickup

8 would be at least another 400 million, at least another 400

9 million for this reason:

10
z~ 11 ~
~
0 w~
12 ~
@rl ! 14 ~ ~ ~ 4 15 ~ ~ ~ 16 mz~ w 0 Z ~ 17 m~

DeKalb County is about say the 94th or 95th percentile, they raise more money per mill, when the/raise the mill they generally raise much more money than Richmond County or some of the others, they have tremendous enrichments in some of these counties.
If the state assumes those responsibilities for education the courts, and rightly so, would not let the state give this disparity in funds out among the state, we would

18 have to equalize, so when you start writing in the words

19 equalization the state should assume a greater responsibility,

20 and I'm assuming you mean to carry our percentage of the

21 cost more and more. and the percentage of the cost to the

22 counties less and less.

23

If that's the case, you carry it on out to fulfill

24 the constitutional requirement. your'ticket is a billion

25 dollars, so we're collecting at the state level now around

PAGE 16

$3 billion, we have around a $3 billion budget let's say,

:~

2 so you're looking at a 33 percent increase in some source of

3 state taxation whether it be income tax, sales tax or some

4 other tax in order to foot the bill for what your goal is.

5

In other words, your goal is -- you can say words

6 like more nearly equalized, but if you use the words should

7 equalize what you're saying is the state should spend in

8 today's monetary terms a billion dollars at some point down

9 in the future.

10
"z
11 j:
e ; ;oa~ .... ! 14 ~ '<:"zl: 15 ~ "~ ~ 16 .~.. az <l 17 ~

Mr. Hackney made the statement that we're probably at some point going to have to equalize or approach equalization, and I think he's right. I think in the long term scheme of things we're going to have to probably do that because disparity is becoming gravely worse by the minute.
The statistics show back earlier and to date show that counties like Appling, DeKalb can raise a mill and generate X amount, and a county like Troup or some small

18 county can raise a mill, and the disparity based on the wealth

19 of the county used to be tremendous, but now it's absolutely

20 staggering the difference between what one mill will raise

21 in one county and what it will raise in another county, and

22 this will continue to become more complicated and grave

23 time goes by.

24

So in thelong run you're probably going to have to,

25 I think as a minimum to try to approach equalizatton in some

PAGE 17

manner, keeping in mind that if you do you really kill two

2 birds with one stone, that is our per pupil expenditures if

3 the locals continue to increase will put in much more money,

4 our per pupil expenditures will go up, and at the same time we

5 can do something toward equalization, but the price tag on

6 that will be very, very expensive to the public in the way

7 of additional taxation necessary to carry the billion dollars

8 in today's terms.

9

I would like to make a few more points relative to

.;c,

10

Czl 11 j:
'0."".". 12 '"
.@-IJ,I 14 >IUI :r 15 ~ Cl 16 :..'z>."... 17 .'cz.".

this. The constitution, you shouldn't specify a mechanism
in the constitution -- I heard Mr. Hackney, but I think you could speak to some broad goals, some broad general goals about individual rights, governmental responsibilities, but not about any kind of funding formula.
I am real concerned that if we do that, if we write this into the constitution that our state courts may come back

18 on us with this equalization that we really can't afford

19 right now unless the people are willing to pay, and any kind

20 of constitutional amendment has that broad goal of equa1iza-

21 tion in it, I think what goes with that, what would go with

22 that would be a tremendous statewide education on letting

23 them know what they're voting on.

24

You know, fine, if people want to vote on

25 equalization, you know, the price tag is a 33 percent increase

PAGE 18

in your taxes carried to its extreme in today's terms, and

2 the education process will take place with that, but just to

3 put it in as a statement, just to slip it in as a statement,

4 have it voted on without much impetus behind it from the

5 legislature, the Governor, the legislators, the educators,

6 a complete almost revolution of the state would be a travesty

7 on the people in my opirlDn, and I think that -- I agree with

8 Pete, you've got a problem here.

9

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Excuse me. When you sayan

10 increase in the people's taxes you're talking about an increas

11

"z
:;;

in

the income

taxes

or some

other

taxation

that's

channeled

..o....

e--~12 ~ into the state government? That's what you're saying? MR. STEVENS,: I'm not even saying that. I'm saying

14 ~ from somewhere.

I-:I<rI

15 ~

The money could be generated locally, you know, to

"<It

;:)

16 ~ put equity into it. One county can go to 25 mills overnight

z -<
17 : or whatever if they have a constitutional referendum paste

18 20 and, be equal in per student expenditure as they are in

19 DeKalb County or Fulton County or some of these other places;

20 it can be accomplished that way, but, you know, politically --

21

MR. HACKNEY: You're saying something like expand

22 the state program for education, and then also enlarle the

23 required local effort, something of that nature that comes

24 into the state for distribution in some form?

25

Mr ..STEVENS: The only states that don't use property

PAGE 19

tax for taxation would be, weI!, like Lousiana, they just

2 passed a couple of years ago a $50,000 homestead exemption

3 which because they have the oil and gas severance tax they

4 virtually eliminated property taxes in Louisiana as a funding

5 source, and we don't have that, but there are a few states --

6 by and large the states depend on the property tax to finance

7 education in the country.

8

The cost on this is what the st~ggering part is

9 in the education process, and are the people in Georgia

10 willing to pay for equalized education. That's your real

z~

11 ~ ~

question here.

0

~ w

@r l12 ~

If they are, they're willing to vote on that, ~hey'r~

Willing to pay for it through the constitution, you know,

! 14 ~

that's your issue at hand.

I feel like it's really a

~

~

%

15 ~ programmatic issue, granted, but it's also because of the

~

~

16

=~
z
w

magnitude

in

dollars

a

financial

issue

for

the

people.

Q

Z

~

= 17 ~

MR. HILL: The only goal statement that we would

18 have at the present time I think is the adequate education

19 statement, the provision of an adequate education shall be

20 required.

21

Do you feel any changing in that wording would open

22 the door to some kind of a court case or judicial mandate of

23 equalization such as happened in California, New Jersey and

24 some of these other places so that you really would, you

25 would really be somewhat worried about a change in the

PAGE 20

language, a broadening of that provision, that goal?

<,

2

MR. STEVENS: Yes.

3

MR. HENRY: Based on your statements, could you say

4 that in order to adequately fund the District Power Equaliza-

5 tion law would take around $400 million?

6

MR. STEVENS: DPE, which is not in the constitution,

7 it's under the statutes, is set up at ninety percentile, so 8 you're looking at --

9

You see, you wouldn't want --

,

10

v'

ezl
11 i=
0.'0"... 12 '"
@rl ! 14 ... ':"z: 15 oll el '";;;) 16 .zlD.. 0z 17 '"lD

Well, let me explain to you how that works. The district power equalization is under statutes authorized as part of APEG. What it allows is that if the county raises a mill, the taxation because of the wealth of the county digest doesn't generate the same dollars per mill as say DeKalb County, then the proposition is the state would come in and give the county, say to the county "Here's a check because you're poor, here's a check to get you up to the

18 same per mill rate that DeKalb would generate," for

19 example.

20

DPE is based around ninety percentile, which is

21 supposed to be sort of a -- you don't want to go to Appling

22 because they've got a big power plant in Appling, you

23 see, and you wouldn't want to really compare them, but

24 the ninety percentile, the price tag on that now is around

25 $300 million, and as currently authorized under law it's

PAGE 21

been funded, the ticket on that is about 300 million.

2

MR. HENRY: Do you think that's a better way to go

3 than to mandate equalization in the constitution?

4

MR. STEVENS: Yes. I think any kind of financing

5 of education ought to be left entirely to the General

6 Assembly working, you know, with the Governor obviously and

7 within the framework of the laws. I don't think the

8 financing of public education ought to be spelled out in the

9 constitution. That's my personal opinion.

..

10

"z
11 l-
..I0..Z..
12 IZ
@rl 14 ! l'" :r 15 ~ "IZ ;:) 16 z.I.I.I 0z 17 IZ III

Here again, it may not reflect the views of the legislature or the Governor or anybody else.
MR. HENRY: What tax source, would you want to earmark a tax source to fund that, or would you just rather see it come out of general state funds if it's available?
MR. STEVENS: It's really not for me to say. I wouldn't want to offer an opinion on behalf of the Office of Planning and Budget on that, whether we should earmark a tax.

18

Generally I'm opposed to earmarking taxes to

19 individual purposes, and that would include motor fuel taxes.

20

That's all the information I had to offer on that

21 particular subject.

22

MS. GREENBERG: If there are no more questions or

23 comment on Question 1, let's go to question 2.

24

"Should the local property tax continue to be the

25 primary source of revenue for local school systems", and,

PAGE 22

"If not, what source of revenue should be utilized?"

~;~

2

MR. HACKNEY: As I think you've inferred from what

3 Mr. Stevens said earlier, it's not the primary source of

4 revenue for most local school systems in the state. Perhaps

5 it is for some. The state is the primary source of revenue

6 for most local school systems within the state. In the

7 metropolitan districts local funds or local pzoperty taxes

8 are the primary source.

9

So perhaps with that in mind we could modify the

,:~.

10 question slightly to say should the local property tax

1:1 Z
11 l- continue to be a major source or a significant source of '0.."....

@ r l12 '" revenue for local school systems. Once again, as Mr. Stevens observed, that's a

! 14 difficult thing to answer. I'm sure there are some people l-

':"r

15 ~ in the General Assembly who feel very strongly to the

1:1
'~"
16 .'z".. contrary, and I work for the General Assembly.

0z

17 ''""

Certainly if there be such a thing, a reasonable

18 property tax is as reasonable as any other reasonable tax.

19 Property taxes have been around an awfully long time, they

20 work well in some regards. I suppose one of the biggest

21 shortcomings of the property tax is that it requires that

22 a value be placed on property, and when it's necessary to

23 place a value on property some judgment must be exercised by

24 someone, however professional he may be, and no one ever

25 agrees on what the value of property might be.

PAGE 23

We don't have this problem with the income tax

2 and a lot of those taxes as to what the value is. The

3 whiskey tax, there's no question about what the value is

4 because you're selling it every day, it's fixed,

5

In the instance of the sales tax, in the instance

6 of the whiskey tax itself, of course. that's fixed per gallon.

7 there is no question about~at the volume is, but such is not

8 the case with property tax. It not only is a difficult thing

9 to arrive at what the value is in a fashion that's satis-

."..~ ~

10 factory to even most parties. let alone all. but it's

"z
11 ia0..=..:..
~Fi @)~12 a: 14 ~ Iut <:rl: 15 ~ "..a: ;;;)
16 z...
.az
17 a<l::

expensive to arrive at what the value is. Of course, speaking of our other taxes. the sales
tax used to be our largest producer, it isn't quite any more, but it's still around third. It's a simple mathematical calculation in the instance of sales tax; such is not the case with property tax.
So granted that it has those shortcomings. the

18 mechanisms are set up as a practical matter for collecting

19 property tax and the people apparently are accustomed to it,

20 so I see nothing wrong with continuing to use it provided

21 it's set At a reasonable level.

22

I pay a fair amount of property taxes every year.

23 Some of them are unreasonable, some of them are very

24 reasonable. it sort of depends on the local government

25 sitU3.tion.

PAGE 24

MS. GREENBERG: Dr. Cal Adamson just came in the

2 room, he's the Associate State School Superintendent.

3

Would you like to respond to this question?

4

MR. ADAMSON: I presume you're on

5

MS. GREENBERG: This is Question 2,

6

MR. HACKNEY: I voted yes for you on Number 1.

7

MR. ADAMSON: Did you vote yes for me? I appreciate

8 that because that was the answer I was going to give, Pete.

9

I'm really not familiar with what's gone on prior

\~,

10

.."z
11 i=
@r~..0".". 12

to my being here, so I thank you for the privilege of coming and I'll try to keep my remarks regarding this brief, I'm probably going to duplicate what somebody has already had to say anyway.

14 >-

Let me say to you that my response to the second

I-

VI

:I:

.15 ~ question is yes, that it should continue to be a primary
":::l

16 .lzD.. source of revenue for local school systems, but I added

..Q

Z 17 lD

"But not the sole source."

I think that's important because

18 as I understand what you were saying when I walked in it

19 can become in some school districts with the need for

20 revenues to operate the school a burden, and, let's face it,

21 most local boards of education have become the black-hatters, 22 they're the bad guys, they're the ones who -- the only source

23 they have to go to to raise revenue is the property tax, 24 and they have not had the opportunity to have other sources

25 of revenue such as county and city commissioners have with

PAGE 25

their local option sales tax or revenue sharing funds

,'."
,~~

2 funneled to them to help offset some of the increased costs

3 and consequently they have taken the brunt of it.

4

But the property tax has some characteristics which

5 are good when used in a proper balance, and I think that word

6 to me is quite important.

7

Generally let me say to you the property tax

8 this may have already been said, but it's a tax that's stable,

9 it doesn't fluctutate a great deal with the rise and fall of

10
CzI 11 j:::
".oQ...
~ 12 ~
~F~14 ! !:;r; 15 ~ CI ";;;) 16 ~... oz 17 :

the economy. To use a school finance term, it's highly
inelastic as compared to the elasticity that is put onto your sales tax. The sales tax varies considerably, and that makes it a quality that is good for the financing of education because local boards of education are faced with some mandates that are becoming even greater as the years go by that they have obligations to carry out a program of

18 education, and if the economy happens to slip in a six-month

19 period and the revenue falls, if they were dependent solely

20 upon a tax such as the sales tax they can't go safely to the

21 school teachers they've got a contract with and say "Well,

22 we're just not going to pay you for the rest of this year,"

23 so that's a problem they have.

24

Another feature that I call the committee's

25 attention to is the fact that compared to other states

PAGE 26

generally -- this is a general statement, but compared to

t."

2 other states the property tax that is paid in Georgia is low

3 when you compare the property tax paid by homeowners, property

4 owners in other states.

5

Generally I would say to you that I think one of

6 the things that I've already mentioned is that boards of

7 education have not been afforded the opportunity to share in

8 revenues from other taxes as have county and city commissions

9 such as the local option sales tax or grants from revenue

10 sharing, and those are beginning to get in trouble, and I

can understand why, but I would say to you yes, in my opinion

the property tax should continue to be a source of revenue

for local school systems, but shouldn't be the sole, there

needs to be a broadening of the base somewhere or another.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Mr. Stevens?

MR, STEVENS: The problem is all of us want to keep

property taxes low and at the same time find funds for

18 education. That forces you to go to another tax. What that

19 tax is and how it may, how much it may be is what's at issue

20 here.

21

There's been a lot of talk about raising a penny

22 sales tax at the state level and earmarking that for

23 education as a secondary source, That would generate S0me

24 J50 to $400 million for local school systems.

25

The problem you run into when you start looking for

PAGE 27

public tax for school systems is distribution of that tax

2 once you collect it. That is where you run amok of

3 accomplishing what you want.

4

I'll give you an example of that. You take maybe

5 a small community like Richmond. You know, where do people

6 in Richmond shop? They shop in Savannah primarily, so if

7 you raise the penny sales tax at the local level, say for

8 example as an alternative source and earmark it for education

9 at the local level then the school kids in Richmond are

10
CzI 11 I-
@;;.'oa".... ! 14 I'" :J: 15 ~ l:J '";;;) 16 .~.. 1:1 Z 17 :

certainly going to receive a windfall from the people in the city of Richmond outside of Savannah, so collection and distribution is a particular problem in the sales tax area.
However a penny statewide comes in to Georgia, to our coffers up here. How do you distribute that? Do you go back to the county and say, do you go back on enrollment, do you go back to the point of collection of the penny? The distribution of a different tax may be a different

18 problem both programmatically and politically than the

19 collection of the tax, so that's an additional point you

20 need to consider.

21

There has also secondly been some discussions of

22 people paying, have families to pay a tuition to help

23 provide additional funds for local school systems, but I 24 think the Governor's position, and I think the legislature

25 too, and maybe even the public is that education should

PAGE 28

remain one hundred percent free to all individua.ls, and the

2 government should provide the cost thereof, so ] would not

3 look personally at tuition or charging. I think education

4 should remain free.

5

I agree with Cal that generalizing, looking at the

6 nation as a whole, that our property taxes in Georgia for

7 education are relatively low. Local school systems, even

8 though there is a great hue and cry every time a change is

9 made, we generally don't collect nearly the funes that they

10 do in other states.

Now, looking at other states, as I mentioned

earlier, as to what tax methods and alternatives they have

around the country, we find that with the exception of oil

and gas severance taxes all the states with the exception of

two more use property tax for local cost or share of

financing of public education that they have control over.

Kentucky has a one percent income tax based on

18 where you work, and the state controls it. It comes to the

19 state, they tend to limit the amount of property tax, so

20 there are some other mechanisms, but the real problem here

21 is even if you said no to this question that it should not

22 be, you know, what~ your alternative. If you select one, 23 the distribution of that back to local school systems is a 24 problem.

25

If you look say twenty years down the road, if you

PAGE 29

want to change this away from one tax. to another I just

~.,:

2 personally don't see much opportunity to get away from it.

3

Now, a second factor is this. Local school systems

4 and local people who have local autonomy of their school

5 systems ought to pay for a great share, pay a great share of

6 the cost of education.

7

If the state were to find some tax. source to

8 finance it one hundred percent, just roll the money down to

9 the school systems, I don't think that would be healthy for

10
"z
11 i=
..'0"....
~~r~ ~12 '" 14 ! I'" :I: 15 ~ ":'>" 16 .zO..l 0z 17 '"Ol

two reasons. One, the state then would start to assume, if we
had a hundred percent money into it, picking up the cost against some alternative source, say the property tax, and the counties would not put any money into it, I think that would hurt the educational system, the state would tend to run it from this level up here. I guess I'll say too that's really the overwhelming thought behind it.

18

It is tough. I do know that our levels of M&O

19 and media, our school system amounts, et cetera, are

20 tremendous, and the only other comment I would like to make

21 on this would be relative to enrichment again.

22

It used to require about 4.5 or five mills in

23 equal required local effort the state mandates the counties

24 put up or the school systems put up. That's now down to two

25 mills based on equalized digest of forty percent, it's down

PAGE 30
rr------------------------.-------------,
to about two mills. Okay.

2

So all we're requiring at the state level for them

3 to raise in the form of property taxes is about CWo mills.

4 That's all the requirement we have.

5

MR. HACKNEY: You mean that's the average statewide.

6 It's less than that in some localities.

7

MR. STEVENS: But the point is they're required to

8 do that. say the state average is two mills. All right.

9 The additional they're putting in is at their own choice;

10
Czl 11 j:
'..o"....
@}2; ! 14 lo-n J: 15 .:l Cl '::"> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

the constitution allows them to go up to twenty mills, local school boards except for the independent ones to go up to twenty mills. Okay. That is done for local students and the state does not require that.
DeKalb County chooses to levy 25 mills for education. another county maybe 18 or 20. It's a local decision. the state doesn't necessarily participate in it . So I think that is relative to the property tax. The state

18 doesn't require all this property tax going into local

19 school systems. it's their own choice locally, and as long as

20 they have a free choice of what to put into education and

21 they choose to put in more, you know. and the people in the

22 county are controlling, supposedly controlling the city

23 fathers and county fathers as to how much property tax

24 they're willing to put into education, then I don't know

25 that, you know, we need to put a no answer on this.

PAGE 31

I think I would remain with the property tax,

2 with a yes answer, particularly with local -- and if were

3 mandating twenty mills in every county it might go the other

4 way, but with the level we're in I think we would go with a

5 yes answer.

6

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Cal, do you know just off the

7 top of your head what is the average local millage levied?

8

MR. ADAMSON: About 13.57, Don. That is from the

9 counties; that does not include the city because the cities

10
"z
11 j:
"o.G."o.
~ 12 ~
~Fi ! 14 ... ':"r 15 01) """;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

are different animals. MR. STEVENS: I have a computer report here on two
of them if you want to Xerox it. It shows the mills, what one mill will raise in each school system, what one mill will raise in each county, and also what the current millage rate is in every county in the state, it shows percentiles and so forth. It is fairly brief and I can give it to your staff, they can Xerox it if they don't already have it.

18

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: We would like that, we sure

19 would.

20

MS. GREENBERG: Mr. Stevens, you just spoke of this

21 required local effort. Don't you feel that it's more of an

22 equalizing factor since we were talking about property rich 23 and property poor counties and counties that have power plants 24 -- in essence the ones that are rich can levy a very low 25 property tax as far as required local effort, and the

PAGE 32

difference between whatever two percent and twenty percent, 2 eighteen percent goes into their coffers for thEdr 3 educational services, whereas the poor county hEs to levy a 4 very high property tax in order to get to that lequired local 5 effort?

6

MR. STEVENS: I think you answered your own

7 question. I agree.

8

MR. ADAMSGN: I will to.

9

MR. HACKNEY: It's not unequalizing, it's an

10
..,
z 11 ...
.'o0"....
@;I ! 14 ... '<:"zl: 15 ..:.>, '":) 16 ~... Q
Z <l
17 :

equalizing tax, isn't it? If the required local effort were just based on ability to pay, I'll certainly agree, and I believe you gentlemen will support this, that we -- the impact of the required local effort diminishes each year because it's fixed at a set dollar amount .
MR. ADAMSON: It's frozen. MR. HACKNEY: That's right . To back up just a few years here, when the required

18 local effort was passed in '64 -- wasn't it, Cal?

19

MR. ADAMSON: Right.

20

MR. HACKNEY: That' s right, in '64 -- it began at

21 fifteen percent of the cost of the state program of education

22 was supposed to be generated at the local level, the remaining

23 85 percent to be generated by the state. Now, that's just of

24 the state program, not of the total cost of education you

25 understand -- enrichment as Dr. Adamson likes to say.

PAGE 33

The law at that time provided that the required

2 local effort or the fifteen percent would increase each year

3 by one percent until it reached twenty percent and it was

4 supposed to top out.

5

We had new property, or property revaluation going

6 on throughout the state at the time. We found that some

7 people just with their one percent for one year because of

8 the revaluations that were coming in were actually having

9 their millage virtually doubled in some areas -- inflation

10
"z
11 j:
e ; ioc....r..: ! 14 I'" ::r:: 15 ~ "cr: => 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

obviously figures into this too ... so the General Assembly rose in anger and it first simply slowed it down a little bit to where it would only increase by one-half of one percent per year, and then in 1972 as I recall the thing was locked in at 78 million five hundred -- well, I think the law technically says no more than 78 million 600 thousand, or less than 78 million 500 thousand, the department of education has always split the difference, seventy~five-five.

18

There is no magic to the number, that just happens

19 to be what eighteen and a half percent was costing that

20 particular year, so we froze it at that point, you see.

21

Now, at that time, at the time of its freezing

22 obviously something well in excess of fifteen percent of the

23 cost of the state program of education for that year, but

24 since it' s been frozen it I s diminished now to about ten

25 percent, slightly under for the fiscal year we just began

PAGE 34

last week, so even though it is clearly an equalizing factor 2 j based on, quote, ability to pay, it's equalizing has

3 diminished and will continue to diminish as long as it's

4 frozen, and obviously the cost of the state program is

5 continuing to increase.

6

MR. STEVENS: I veiw that a little differently.

7 The difference between two mills statewide averaged to

8 equalize say twenty mills gives you inequities on --

9 In other words, every mill raised, the wealthy ones can

10 raise~ mill and generally raise more money.

When we froze RE in '72 the RE statewide average

was around 4.9 percent, say five percent, so by virtue of

dropping down to two we've raised the range, the zone in

which equity had existed. I think that's what you were

talking about, wasn't it?

MS. GREENBERG: Exactly.

MR. STEVENS: And that would be my general comment

18

on that.

19

MR. ADAMSON: Let me make a distinction here.

20 Mr. Hackney was using percentages and Clark was using mills,

21 and you can't mix the two together when you talk about the

22 eighteen and a half percent at which time the 78,55 million

23 dollars was frozen, that did not constitute eigteen and a

24 half mills, it constituted something less than five mills,

25 4.9 mills, so you've gone from 4.9 mills down to slightly

PAGE 35

less than two mills, whereas your percentage has decreased

2 from eighteen and a half down to less than ten percent.

3

I just wanted to make that point for clarification

4 because they're apples and or,anges and they don't rightly

5 mix.

6

MR. HACKNEY: Could I add also, please -- you must

7 also bear in ~nd that unfortunately many members of the

8 General Assembly have trouble grasping this particular

9 concept, the required local effort even though as Dr.

10
"z
.11 jco:: 2
@;i 14 ..~.. '" :I: 15 ol) "co: ;;) 16 .~.. zo 17 :

Adamson indicated is frozen in total statewide is not frozen for any district, and it fl~uates each year. There's a new study made each year, the-thing bounces allover the lot, and based ona county's, quote, ability to pay as perfected in the tax digest, end quote, they pay perhaps as much not a 9.7 or 9.8 percent required local effort which is the average statewide, but as little as a couple of percent or as much as -- we've seen it i~ excess of 24 and 25

18 percent, you know, in Atlanta, but that was back right after

19 it was frozen, you know, the thing was still high.

20

But the ability to pay based on taxable wealth is

21 still as present as it ever was, it's just that the total

22 required local effort assumes a diminishing stature each

23 year.

24

MS. GREENBERG: Question 3 relates to a

25 constitutional provisbn, Article VIII, Section VII,

PAGE 36

Paragraph 1, which mandates that the county's fiscal authority

2 shall levy the school tax which is certified to by the county

3 board of education, and Question 3 asks:

4

"Should independent school boards be given the

5 same authority to set the local tax as county school boards?"

6

MR. ADAMSON: I answered yes, because I do not

7 for the life of me I can't really see why one should be

8 treated differently from the other.

9

First of all, you find some various statutes that

10
"z
11 j:
@;;."o~.". ! 14 ... '<:"zl:: 15 .:> "~ ::> 16 .~.. Q Z <l: 17 :

refer to county boards, members of county boards of education, for the life of me I don't see that they should be treated any differently than any member of a city board of education.
I recall one specific that has always bothered me, it says an employee of one board of education cannot serve as a member of another board of education, that board or another board, yet there is no prohibition since the word county is used that prevents a city board member from serving

18 as a member of a county board somewhere. We actually have

19 some of this, and this has always bothered me from an

20 educator's standpoint that we treat the two groups differently

21

MR. HACKNEY: Are you looking at me to respond?

22

I have no particular answer for this question. I

23 see it as something that was put in to begin with by I assume

24 some legislative vote, therefore I wouldn't advocate removing

25 it or anything.

PAGE 37

I can understand Dr. Adamson's feelings on it.

2 Basi.cally I think that sort of thing we agree with, but it's

3 sort of like the question that comes up a little bit about

4 Savannah-Chatham County, should they be mentioned in there?

5

They were mentioned for some reason. I think Dr.

6 Adamson is very familiar with it.

7

MR. ADAMSON: I am. I think the Savannah-Chatham

8 County, if I might address that, at that specific time there

9 was a question as to who would operate the school system,

".;;

10 the city or the county, and they decided they would both have

>:

"Z
11 j:
..I0I..<..

one school system that served both, and that was really the

12 II< first attempt to merge together city and county school

@ ; I systems, so it was mentioned in that particular way.

14 !

We have foll~ed suit now with many cities and

I-

UI

4

:I:

15 ~ counties having merged together, and you in effect treated

"II<

::l

16 .Iz.I.I them differently from the fact that you treat Tifton and Tift

"Z

4

17 II< III

County which used to be in the same category, the 'city and

18 the county system, and now operating as just a county sy'stem,

19 so the school district in Chatham County serves the entire

20 county which is in comparison to the city of Savannah.

21

Really it doesn't make much difference, but I don't

22 see any need for it to be mentioned since we don't mention

23 Bibb and Macon and all the others that have since gone

24 together.

25

MS. GREENBERG: Dr. Adamson is referring to

PAGE 38

Question 5 on page 2 which asks "Should Chatham COtmty and

2 the City of Savannah continue to be specifically referenced

3 in the constitution?", and that also is part of Article VIII,

4 Section VII, Paragraph 1.

5

Mr. Stevens, would you like to respond to the

6 quest:bn?

7

MR. STEVENS: We have got now --

8

THE REPORTER: Mr. Stevens, would you talk a little

9 bit louder, please?

10
'"z
11 j:
@;;o..e..x..: ! 14 ... '<"l J: 15 ~ 'e"x: ~ 16 .~.. Cl Z <l 17 :

MR. STEVENS: We have got about 28 independent school systems now, and I think one of the bigger ones would probably be Atlanta. Most of them are fairly small like Bremen and others, the smaller school systems, and if you really get down to it I don't think it's a big problem either way on this, if you go either way with this.
I do think local governments ought to decide this . I think the bigger issue would be if you get right down to it

18 from a public point of view the school systems probably

19 should be consolidated, there's really no reason to have,

20 you know, an independent school system in the middle of

21 another system. We have more than enough school systems as

22 it is, and it costs the state tremendous amotmts of money to 23 accomplish the scale to have 180-some school syste~, it's

24 very costly, you know, but here that's a local issue, and 25 so many of these local school syste~ probably wou1drlt want

PAGE 39

consolidated, but I'm speaking from a financial point of view,

2 not necessarily from a county rights point of view or

3 anything else. Financially it is very expensive to maintain

4 all these independent, or all these number of school systems.

5

So the real answer I think to Number 3 is financia11~

6 is at least they probably should be consolidated, but as long

7 as they are independent, you know, the city council I guess

8 supposedly in these counties -- these counties come and

9 request funds, they don't set budget, they request funds,

10
Czl 11 I-
o<....t..:
~ 12 ~
~F~14 ! IIII :r 15 ~ Cl <t: :> 16 ~ Q z 17 :::

and the city or county fathers or whomever would then decide on the budget for the independent school system. I don't think that's the case throughout most of them. There's 28 of them, and most of them are fairly small, and I don't have really a big problem with it one way or the other.
MR. HILL: Could I ask another question? This came up last time, and I would like to address it to you.
There is a provision in Section V, Paragraph 7 on

18 page 68 that protects systems established prior to adoption

19 of the constitution of '77.

20

At the last meeting we discussed this, the committee

21 members discussed this question and tentatively decided that 22 was no longer necessary that the systems be specifically 23 protected because they fall within the same requirements and 24 everything else, so now that you are here could you respond 25 to that?

PAGE 40

MR. ADAMSON: I believe that, if I recall correctly,

2 when I was a teenager how this came about, but the

3 constitution of 1945 when it did all the consolidating,

4 and that's when this came into being, that was included so

S as to not specifically require the -- it was a massive

6 consolidation with the constitution of 1945, I think we went

7 in Georgia from about 600 and something school districts

8 down to a little over 200 -- Pete, you may recall the 9 specific figure, I'm a little bit young to remember all that,

10 but I would tell you -- I'm not implying that you're older

but you've been at it longer than I have I think that was

included at that time simply to allow those cities who had

school districts, municipal school districts to continue,

but the prohibition of creating more, I would implore that

that be kept because I think that without it you're going to

have a lot of pressure put on legislators to create more.

MS. GREENBERG: Could one of you explain the

18 distinction between the county's boards are able to just ask

19 for their levy and the city boards have to request it? Is 20 that the primary distinction between the means of financing?

21

MR. ADAMSON: Let me address it, since I was a

22 superintendent of a city school system before coming to the 23 Department of Education, and Clark and Pete may want to add 24 something to this, but I think you have to recognize that 2S municipal or city school systems are creatures of the

PAGE 41

legislature, that's how they come into being, they came into

2 being through an act of the legislature prior to the

3 constitution of 1945 which put the prohibition of the

4 establishment of any more on, and the method of taxation as

5 provided by the act which created a particular municipal

6 school district varies.

7

There are some, which the city of LaGrange school

8 district is an example, where I grew up, the city of LaGrange

9 school system is actually a department of the city government

~:

10 of LaGrange, just like the water department, the streets and

"z
11 i=
..oO..f..:
~ 12 ~
~F~14 ! I'" :r 15 ~ "Of: ;:)
16 .~.. Q Z
17 ::

sewers. On the other hand, the Waycross school district
was created by an act of the legislature, and the Waycross board of education is specifically given the authority in their charter to levy a maximum of up to 22 mills, so there is a wide variation even within the cities; therefore, when you go back to the question that I raised earlier I think

18 you ought to treat the cities and counties all alike and

19 you would standardize ..

20

The other problem that I have with that, in many of

21 the city charters they have to go to the city commission to

22 get their tax revenue, they request it, then the city

23 commission or whatever that form of city government reviews

24 and decides on how much revenue they're going to have, yet

25 the city commission in itself has no authority to call for

PAGE 42

the abolition of the school district if they want to get rid 2 of it.

3

There's only one provision, a couple of provisions,

4 but the real only one that I'm aware of that has ever been

5 used to any effect is that if a city wants to get out of the 6 school business they have to go to the petition route and 7 collect a petition of 25 percent of the registered voters, 8 and then they call an election, so that is another problem 9 that exists within the law.

10

Clark, you may have something to say.

MR. STEVENS: I don't.

MR. HENRY: Do you think by giving them this

authority to set the tax would encourage them to remain in

existence, whereas --

MR. ADAMSON: I think it would encourage them to get

out of it.

MR. HENRY: Oh, it would?

18

MR. ADAMSON: And I'm for Clark, we've got too many

19 school -- if we follow the same line of reasoning as Clark,

20 we have too many small school districts in the state of

21 Georgia. They are not all municipal or city school systems

22 too, incidentally, because actually the smallest school

23 district we have in the state is a county school system.

24

MR. HENRY: I mean whereas right now they have to

25 go to the city government and are subject to an almost line

PAGE 43

item of their budget --

2

MR. ADAMSON: They are.

3

MR. HENRY: -- and whereas the county goes to the

4 county board of conmlissioners or whatever and says "We want

5 this millage rate set in order to raise this much money,

6 this much revenue," so what I'm saying is if you allow the

7 cities to do that, to go and say we want this amount of

8 revenue from this millage rate, would that encourage them to -

9

MR. ADAMSON: I view it quite the opposite, that it

10
"z
e;j.11 I...oIll:
! 14 I':z":
15 ~
"Ill:
;:)
16 ~...
oz 17 :i

would result in the cities making decisions that we do not want rather than -- many times it becomes a political issue within the city.
On the other hand, the provision was made by law that the city could by means other than the petition route ask for a referendum, either the city board of education or the city governing body could ask for a referendum for the voters to decide, and I think the voters must always be given

18 the decision as to whether or not a school system in a city

19 shall exist, continue to exist or be abolished.

20

If that provision were made somewhere, I think it

21 would facilitate in my opinion the elimination of some of the

22 small inefficient uneconomical-to-operate school districts.

23

MS. GREENBERG: Any other questions or comments?

24

Okay. To get your vote, Mr. Hackney, you think on

25 Ques:ion 3, your answer is yes or no?

PAGE 44
._-----------,

MR. HACKNEY: I don't believe I have an answer .

.,

2 I certainly attempted not to have an answer on it, I'm certai

3 of that.

4

MS. GREENBERG: Is that how you stand now I no

5 comment?

6

MR. STEVENS: I don't think he and I either one are

7 going to be able to answer yes or no on this.

8

MR. ADAMSON: I would answer yes. I can unders tand

9 their position.

10

MS. GREENBERG: Okay. We will go on to Question 4.

Czl

11 i=
.'"0".".

"Should a specific millage limitation on property

@ r l12 '" taxes which can be imposed by local boards of education be retained in the constitution?"

14 ! I-

MR. HACKNEY: I feel that it should, but in that

'<"l

:J:

15 ~ same connection I think that it's a thing that should be left

Cl

'~"

... 16 zIII c

up to the local voters as to whether or not -- and you have

Z

<l
'" 17 III another question dealing with that -- whether or not it may

18 be exceeded.

19

And I feel that it's important as long as you have

20 grand juries deciding who's going to be on the board of

21 education. You need people who are responsive to the

22 electorate I believe deciding, unless the electorate decides 23 itself of course as you indicated, deciding whether or not 24 the millage should be fixed at some I dorlt think we should

25 say exorbitant amount but something in eEcess of twenty mills.

PAGE 45

Should it be twenty? I don't know. Maybe it ought

2 to be 22 or maybe 15 or something of the sort, but some sort

3 of a limitation should be placed when you've got nine

4 elected officials deciding what the bUdget is going to be

5 for a given school district for the coming fiscal year in

6 my opinion.

7

MR. HILL: Do you think the twenty mill limitation

8 is as good as -- is satisfactory?

9

MR. HACKNEY: If they said fifteen mills instead of

;,.,
:~,,~

10

CJ Z
11 i=
.'0.".... 12 '"
@rl 14 ! ~ VI :I: 15 o:l
CJ
'":::l 16 Iz..I.I
Q
Z
'" 17 III

twenty I would be trying to build a case for fifteen mills; if they had said 25, I would be trying to build a case for it.
Apparently this is something that has pretty well been reached in most areas and, yes, it would certainly like to see it retained.
There are some areas it's long since gone past twenty mills, and I think it's probably needed to, but it was done by popular vote.

18

MS. GREENBERG: Most school districts or most

19 counties have exceeded this?

20

MR. HACKNEY: No, Ma' am.

21

MR. ADAMSON: No, Ma' am. Only a very few.

22

CHAIRMAN THORNTON: That's what I was going to ask

23 Cal while ago. The average millage rate in the state right

24 now is 13.5.

25

MS. GREENBERG: But under Paragraph 2 have they voted

PAGE 46

to exceed it?

2

MR, ADAMSON: I think there are six of them, Vickie,

3 six as best I recall, there are six school districts in the

4 state to which the twenty mill limitation applies that have

S that authority, Some of them are not exceeding the twenty

6 mills,

7

MR, HENRY: Could I ask one more question I forgot

8 to ask a moment ago?

9

If you give independent school boards the authority

10 to set the local tax, do you foresee that they would only tax

property then, or would they still have various revenues that

they have right now?

MR, ADAMSON: Technically the only schoal districts

that have the authority, the city school systems that have the

authority to tax is an ad valorem tax as provided in their

charter, and I would still be referring to only that ad

valorem taxation authority to be given to the city boards of

18 education,

19

There are some school districts that have n~ city

20 school districts that have no ad valorem taxes because the

21 city has found ways either through revenue sharing, power

22 generation, utilities not to have to levy a tax, and that's

23 fine, That still would not necessitate any property tax levy

24 if the city chose to about it that way, but the authority

2S would still be there,

.~
PAGE 47

CHAIRMAN THORNHILl.: Mr. Stevens, would you like to

2 address the Question Number 41

3

MR. STEVENS: Yes. Currently the twenty mill limit

4 can be exceeded by local constitutional amendment. We have,

5 like Cal says, several of those, and I think some of the

6 counties, mainly DeKalb right now is around 25 mills as I

7 remember.

8

You might want to consider on this issue a stage

9 and I agree we need a limitation because of the political

10 CzI
11 j:
@;;..'o"....

makeup of the boards, but you might want to cons ider a different approach to the limitation.
One thing we've look at for quite some time just out of interest would be a schematic system that might work

14 ~I something like this, to set a required local effort at ." -c(
%
15 ~ between two and five mills on a statewide average, let's say CI :'>"
16 ~ two mills for example, and then come back and allow the school Q
Z
-c(
17 : boards to carry that up an additional ten mills on their own

18 authority.

19

This would be limiting the school boards' authority

20 to raise taxes at the local level, you understand, because

21 they can go twenty as it is now, so to limit that at ten 22 and let's say go up to another fifteen mills by local 23 referendum, that is, let the people decide in the community 24 if they want to eventually spend more for education up to 25 another fifteen mills. That would all total up to around

PAGE 48
, , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _..._ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
27 mills. There's no magic to this, it's just schematic,

"." I:'

2 it's just an example that you can go varying degrees of it.

3

But in setting -- if you decide to recommend and

4 set the millage, you don't necessarily have to stay at 20,

5 period, and leave the authority to local boards and then go

6 the constitutional amendment, local constitutional amendment

7 to go higher.

8

There are other ways to approach it. You might want

9

c.;,

,:',

10

z~

11 j: I:< 0.Q...

.~r~ @~ 12 I:< 14 !

l-
V>
~:z:
15 .:>

~

16

...I:<
~
.z..

Q

Z <i(
17 .I.:<.

to consider them. This is just one example. MR.. ADAMSON: If I may -MR. STEVENS: Don't use my numbers now. MR. ADAMSON: I just want to caution that I have
personally seen in this type of arrangement, if I understood you correctly, was a millage to be voted on annually by the electorate, that fifteen mills, where you say that fifteen mills could be determined by the electorate that it remains there permanently. That bothers me if it's one in which

18 you're going to have to go to the electorate, the board every

;:'

19 year if they need to levy that, because the experience of

20 most states have had that have this has been disasterous.

21

All you have to do is look at Cleveland, the midwest

22 where this is common, and the school systems can get chaos

23 simply because the voters become disenchanted with the members

24 of the board of education, there are occasions on record where

25 voters have simply voted down millage levies simply because

PAGE 49

they didn't like a member of the board of education, and that

2 becomes a real problem for me.

3

MR. STEVENS: There are other ways people were

4 talking about. You could say set the minimum by local school

5 boards at twenty, but authorize up to another ten or fifteen

6 mills by local referendum rather than having to go the

7 constitutional amendment route.

8

I'm just saying, you know, I'm not -- I agree with

.9 Cal, there's probably problems anywhere you go with this, the

10 twenty mills, there's all kinds of problems that will turn

"z
11 j:
@;I'"o.".".

on this issue, but we're just saying that in essence there are other ways that you can look at this to set up a schematic in the constitution depending upon what you feel about the

! 14 I-

limitations for local financing by property tax.

OIl

%

15 .:l

I don't really have a recommendation for it. I

"'";:)

16 ~... wouldn't necessarily recommend this or any other .

Q

Z

17 =

MR. ADAMSON: Vickie, I said no, but I must -- in

18 saying no I agree with the statement that Pete made earlier

19 and I've been opposed to this all along, so what I'm about to

20 say, and anybody familiar with my dissertation would

21 recognize that I do not believe that boards of education

22 which set policy and at the same time make such decisions

23 as millage levies ought not to be responsive to the public. 24 That's a firm belief I've had for many, many years and I 25 continue to maintain it.

PAGE 50

If we could get that, then I feel there should be

2 no cap on the millage because the electorate would have the

3 con~rol of the board of education, and we're gradually moving

4 towards this, it's just taking such a slow process to do it.

5

The number of elected boards that answer to the

6 voters has increased over the past few years, but it's ever

7 so slowly.

8

I wish some way we could wave a magic wand and

9 boards of education would be responsive to the public, and

;..
",

10

"z
11 i=
'o.."....

@;j

,

! 14

t;;
:J:

15 ~

"'";;;)
16 .~..
.'Q
Z
17 :;

they could hire a superintendent as an executive officer to do the job, and if he doesn't do it, kick him out and get somebody who will.
MS. GREENBERG: So would your response then be different if the boards in the counties were elected rather than appointed by the grand jury?
MR. HACKNEY: Mine would be yes . MR. ADAMSON: Mine would be different from a yes to

18 a no.
19

MS. GREENBERG: Do you have th~ statistics on which

20 counties or districts have amended this portion of the

21 constitution?

22

MR. ADAMSON: I can give you d~ta on that. I'll

23 provide you with a copy of it. I collect it every year.

24 I don't have it with me, but I do have it in my office.

25

MS. GREENBERG: Then I have another question with

PAGE 51

Question 3 which deals with the authority to set the local

,';:

2 tax.

3

Apparently in school districts with appointed boards

4 the district, the appointed county board can set the millage

5 rate, and that's dangerous and that's why we need the ceiling?

6

MR. ADAMSON: That

7

MR. HACKNEY: They don't set the millage rate, they

8 set the budget, and then it's left up to the county

9 commissioners I believe to raise the --

10

CzI 11 i=
..0~....
12 ~

@rl

14 !...

'~:"z: 15 ~

CI
~ ;;;)

16 .'z"..

0z

~

17

~
'"

MR. ADAMSON: I think you'll find that in the Newton County case they actually can set the millage.
MR. HACKNEY: Oh, they can? The bottom line is the same, though, MS. GREENBERG: Would you recommend -MR. HACKNEY: The digest is so and so, then they set the budget that has the effect of setting it. MR .. ADAMSON: But if the digest is changed, the

18 board can still maintain the same millage that they've set

19 even though they've changed their number of dollars, It's

20 a complex problem.

21

Now, what was the question?

22

MS. GREENBERG: Possibly would you recommend then

23 deleting from Article VIII, Section VII~ Paragraph 1, the 24 provision which allows the boards of education the authority

25 to levy without going to the local government?

PAGE 52

MR. ADAMSON: No, I would not recommend that,

2

MS. GREENBERG: Since apparently we're worried about

3 responsiveness to the people?

4

MR. ADAMSON: Right. That's right, responsiveness

5 to the people.

6

Still if you don't do it that way you've got to

7 turn around and go through some other political body --

8

MS, GREENBERG: Which would be responsive possibly

9 by being elected.

10

MR. ADAMSON: That hasn't worked either. I think

you've got to have a board of education that has the duty and

responsibility to tax for education, but that responsibility

must be answerable to the public to me by them being elected

by the public and put into that position. That's just where

I come from, and, you know, that's part of the democratic

process which I still have a great deal of faith in,

MRS. COOK: I'm just going to mention the fact once

18 ~gain for about the umteenth time that there is a serious

19 problem in some counties, particularly Bibb, where an elected

20 board submits a budget to an elected county commission, and

21 which annually has a big hassle with that board of county

22 commissioners simply because the county commisSon does not

23 accept that budget and will cut it every time, and the board 24 has no authority, we have a pre-1877 charter.

25

MR. ADAMSON: That has always bothered me too

PAGE 53

because I've found as a practical matter that the school

2 districts that the charter predates the 1877 constitution,

3 they use this as a rule to get by some things they don't want

4 to live with, and then if it suits their convenience they'll

5 say this is the law.

6

MRS. COOK: That's what I,lm concerned about, any

7 statement of support for Paragraph 7 which was read"by Vickie

8 that school systems established prior to the adoption of the

9 constitution of 1877 shall not be affected by this

10 consitution.

This, of course, contradicts any other statement

that all school systems should be treated alike, because it

certainly does not create that kind of equality among school

sytems.by the constitution.

MR. ADAMSON: I personally favor the elimination of

it, but I don't know how it could be eliminated.

MR. STEVENS: It goes back to what we were

18 originally talking about, they probably ought to be

19 consolidated. The example you gave there --

20

MRS. COOK: We have a Bibb County board of education

21 that includes city and county schools, so we already have that

22 kind of situation. There is no -- there is only one system

23 in Macon and Bibb County, and it's governed by the Bibb

24 County Board of Education, they're all elected officials.

25

MR. GREENE: Your problem comes into the

1

PAGE 54

constitution which the 1877 --

2

MRS. COOK: That's the protection that the

3 commissioners have. We took them to court, I've told this

4 committee

5

MR. ADAMSON: It's a very serious matter. The only

6 way to do it is to change the constitution, to be honest about 7 it.

8

MR. HILL: The committee tentatively agreed last

9

,.,.1
-;.

10

"z
11 l-
@;;.I:< o 0.

! 14 I'<"l %
15 .:>
"I:<
.:;)
16 ~
Q
Z
17 g<l

time to eliminate that provision. MRS. COOK: That's what I'm trying to make sure,
we're still supporting that elimination. I wasn't too sure. I heard that turned around this time, and I wanted to make sure.
MS. GREENBERG: Okay. Let's-MR. HILL: Let me ~ring the other members up to date on what we have been considering in the other section in terms of how the local boards will be made up.

18

The proposal would be that the local boards would

19 continue to be elected or appointed as they are at the

20 effective date of the constitution, and thereafter they can

21 be changed by local act subject to referendum, so I don't

22 know that there will be

There will not be any change on

23 the effective date of this consitution on the makeup of the

24 local boards, so we'll still have some appointed and some
-.
25 elected under the way it's gone so far, so under that

PAGE 55
----------- --------------,
circumstance you probably would still say yes that the

2 limitation should be retained, since we don't have elected

3 officials in every county we don't have that accountability

4 so that we would probably under the present thinking of the

5 committee still retain that limitation, the millage

6 limitation.

7

So I think you're agreeing with the millage limita-

8 tion under the present circumstances should probably be there,

9 but perhaps a different method of changing it could be

10 CzJ
11 i=
@;;o"......

provided for in the constitution so it would not necessitate a local amendment every -time you wanted to do it.
MS. GREENBERG: Okay. Question 5, "Should Chatham County and the City of Savannah continue to be specifically

14 ~I referenced in the constitution?"

'z"

15 .:l

That is under Article VIII, Section VII, Paragraph 1

CJ

"::>

16 ~...

MR.. ADAMSON: I say no .

Q

Z

17 :

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Mr. Hackney, Mr. Stevens?

18

MR.. HACKNEY: If it suits Chatham and Savannah not

19 to be specifically referenced, then I think it would be fine.

20 I don't think anybody else cares, really.

21

MR. STEVENS: I don't think it needs to be

22 necessarily separately referenced either.

23

MS. GREENBERG: Question 6, "Should the present

24 method oi removing or increasing the local millage limitation

25 be retained in the constitution?"

PAGE 56

That is Article VIII, Section VII, Paragraph 2.

2

MR. STEVENS: We have already covered that I think.

3

MR. ADAMSON: I said yes. If you're going to keep

4 the millage limitation, then there should be some provision

5 for a local school district who desires to do more than this

6 to be able to solve that problem.

7

MR. HILL: Yes, but it may be modified, so long as

8 some procedure is set forth in the constitution to allow --

9

MR. ADAMSON: As long as some procedure is provided

10
zCl 11 I-
.'o.".".
@;j 14 ~ I'<"t ::t 15 ~ Cl :'>" 16 .~.. zQ 17 ~

for them to do more than that in that system. MS. GREENBERG: Number 7, "In those school systems
containing a power plant, the tax wealth per pupil is typically far in excess of neighboring school systems. Should an attempt be made to equalize the disparity created by this situation?"
MR. HACKNEY: An attempt is made through the required local effort, and as you know the required local

18 effort per child and average daily attendance, for example,

19 Richmond county which is the richest, so the only problem

20 here is the fact that the required local effort as mentioned

21 earlier is diminishing in impact all the time.

22

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Mr. Adamson?

23

MR. ADAMSON: I said yes, there should be some

24 equalization.

25

One of the things that we have looked at is what

PAGE 57

would happen if we pulled out all of the utilities, the power

..

2 plants, what happens to the disparity that exists, and I

,"!;

3 would hope that this committee or some committee looking at

4 this would look at the possibility of utilities taxes being

5 done by the state. The disparity in the revenue per child

6 just shrinks up enormously when you do that, number one.

7

Number two, then, the disparity can further be

8 reduced if the present provision for district power equaliza-

9 tion or some other form of equalizadon were adopted and

.,i.;

10

\:I Z
11 j:
..0~....
12 ~

@;I

14 .~..
'~"
:I:
15 ~

\:I
~ ::)

16 .zC.D.

Q

Z

~

17

~
CD

funded in the state. Then that begins to get down to the bottom line that
Pete has talked about, about your required local effort, then the required local effort is two mills or five mills or less than ten percent or eighteen and a half percent, it doesn't assume the proportion that it does now.
MR. HACKNEY: It's a popular belief among many members of the General Assembly that in the case of -- I

18 mean that all of us allover the state are paying part of

19 their required local effort due to the location of the power

20 plant there, and to some degree that's true.

21

MR. ADAMSON: And to some degree that's true.

22

MS. GREENBERG: So could you foresee some sort of

23 tax from those power plants going to a state fund and being

24 disbursed statewide?

25

MR. ADAMSON: I'm not sure how, and again you get to

PAGE 58

the distribution question that Clark mentioned earlier about

2 the sales tax, how do you distribute, it becomes a po1tica1

3 question itself, but just the fact that the utilities were

4 removed from property taxation at the local level and put

5 at the state level, the disparity in revenue per child that's

6 generated diminishes greatly, and that's a political question

7 that those counties -- boy, they'll fight you tDthe nth degree

8 for that.

9

MS. GREENBERG: All right. Any--

10
"z
11 i=
'o."".".
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 lV> :z: 15 ..:.., '";;;) 16 ~... Q Z 17 :

MR. STEVENS: The power plant problem, I'll give you
to magnify, shows that Heard County really has got four or
five big ones, I guess, but in Heard county one mill raises
$143 per child, and you go then to the poorest county which is Jefferson, on~ mill raises $11 as opposed to $143, so you
,
see that there is a great opportunity there for enrichment in
Heard based on the tax base. This has changed dramatically
in the last years.

18

If you want to look at the dollars per student

19 produced by one mill levy against equalized digest, the

20 median -- the median, that's the most common number in 1970-

21 '71 was $13.93. It has now risen last year in an eight or

22 nins~year period from $13.93 to $35.90 per student per one

23 mill levy.

24

The growth in the state is absolutely phenomina1,

25 and that's 157 percent increase in eight years enrichment in

PAGE 59

eight years as opposed to others what a one mill levy would

"...

2 raise, and it goes back to that initial question we had

3 earlier. It's probably the toughest issue you have to

4 struggle with in this committee as to the equalization issue.

5

Now, even at the ninety percentile which would be

6 say Ben Hill, let's take out "the power plants, you're looking

7 at about 58 or $59 per student as opposed to ten or eleven.

8

The power plants really kick it about in about four

8r 9

five couties up there, Heard, Webster, Appling is about

10 $101, those counties there, but the equalization issue and

"z

11 I-
'0.l>"...

the disparity in that issue alone is becoming phenominal.

12 '"
@)r l

Let's see, I had a few more points on that. There are all kinds of ways to approach it. To me

14 ~ I-

the required local effort, the $78 million or so is not such

':"r

15 ~ a big fact01in our overall scheme of things, thjPverall cost ":'":l

16 lz.D.. of education to the state or local counties, but this "

0z
17 '"lD disparity between even the ninety percentile and the bottom

18 is I think a grave problem, and I think the state is subject

19 to, you know, the courts and other problems associated with

20 it down the road, particularly with the disparity continuing

21 to grow wider and wider.

22

MR. HENRY: I have a cQuple of questions. Were you

23 through?

24

MR. STEVENS: Yes.

25

, MR. HENRY: I'm sorry. I hat~o keep harping on

PAGE 60

this, the power equalization. Would that raise our per studen

2 outlay where we're now 51st in the country up to an adequate

3 level or a level which the state could be proud of?

4

And the second question is, if we did have a power

5 plant property taxes returned to the state, would that be

6 adequate to fund the district power equalization?

7

MR. STEVENS: No.

8

MR. HACKNEY: It would raise undoubtedly the amount

9 spent because it would provide an incentive to raise taxes.

.,

lD

11 .Cz-l
0.'"".". 12 '"
@rl 14 .~:'"r 15 ~ Cl '"::) 16 .az..l Q ..Z 17 '"

Whether it would raise it to adequate or not -MR. STEVENS: And there's not really a correlation
to DPE and the expenditure per child. MR. ADAMSON: All DPE does is guarantee to a local
school system: that they have the ability to raise per child the same amount of money as their neighbor at the ninety percentile. That's in reality what it is.
MR. STEVENS: It would put more money in, assuming

18 the counties --

19

MR. HENRY: It would reduce the tax burden on the

20 people in those counties to the extent that the state made a

21 payment to that county.

22

MR. STEVENS: Let me say this to you. If you're

23 in Jefferson County and you raise one mill the local people

24 give you $11 in property taxes and the state gives you the

25 ninety percentile, the $35, the likelihood in Jefferson

PAGE 61

County is to do what they properly ought to do in Jefferson

~~~

2 County, that is to put more money into public education,

3 but that would tend, like Mr. Hackney says, to raise that $11

4 at the county level per mill and say they had this windfall

5 from the state and they're likely to jump five, ten mills to

6 get this huge influx of state money, and it~ a small cost

7 to them, but you know the counties are spending two, three,

8 four mills currently on education.

9

I don't know whether or not, particularly where the

10 tax digest is low, I don't know what they do for education

z~ 11 j:

in those counties, frankly.

..0"....

12 "

THE REPORTER: I'm going to have to remind everybody

@ r l to speak up, please. I've got to hear)Ou and make a record

! 14 of this.

l-
UI

::t
15 01)

MR. HACKNEY: I certainly agree with what Mr.

~
";;;) 16 .'z.". Steven:s is saying there. I know in the normal appropriations

Q

Z
17 "'"

process the surest way to get something funded is to show the

18 federal government is going to put in at least fifty percent

19 of the cost. That almost insures you're going to get your

20 local money.

21

MR. STEVENS: It would tend to raise the local

22 expenditure of the state.

23

MR. ADAMSON: It would have that tendency.

24

MR. STEVENS: To put more money into education, so

25 programmatically the tax question is whether or not the locals

PAGE 62

want to pay more taxes, so it's a different issue. It's

2 difficult. Money is important.

3

MR. ADAMSON: In the event of the District Power

4 Equalization being funded, I think it's imperative there be

5 some cap by which equalization could take place. Otherwise,

6 as Clark has said here, some of the scmol systems will just

7 go, you know, the whole gamut because they can see a wind-

8 fall from the state, and you could control that by a cap as

9 the number of mills that a system raised would be equalized,

"~'

10

"

I!I Z
11 I-
'0...".... 12 '"

@rl

14 ! I':"z:
15 o!I

I!I
'"::;) ... 16 zIII
Q
Z
17 '"III

you still have the authority to raise on up to the constitutional limitation of twenty, but above say fifteen there is no equalization to go with it, and this is just one of the ways in which the whole process of equalization can be implemented.
MR. HENRY: It would facilitate raising the state's per pupil expenditures to at least an acceptable level as compared to the United States.

18

MR. ADAMSON: It would facilitate that. it would

19 not guarantee it, but I think it would result in the per

20 pupil expenditure being increased.

21

MR. STEVENS: You could equalize this ninety

22 percentile, it would cost you 300 million, put it at 75

23 million, equalize it at a lower percentile, you could phase

24 in a program through the years as the budget permits. You

25 know, the exact formula for equal distribution and so forth,

..~

PAGE 63

I don't think anybody is necessarily wed to that, but there

2 are many different ways that you could

I think it ought

3 to be under the statute that you could look at through the

4 years to embark on a program to more nearly equalize

5 education.

6

You certainly couldn't go to the power plant level

7 which would be a hundred percentile, to raise $143. You

8 could go a lower percentile, but even DeKalb County's level,

9 if we eliminate that, would probably be too high statewide.

10 A lower percentile would probably work, or some sort of

I:l

Z

e ; ;11

~
o.'C".I..

mechanism, but here again it's expensive.

MS. GREENBERG: Okay. Thank you",

Question 8, "Should the state be required by the

14 ; constitution to finance special schools (schools for vocationa,

f-

':"z:

15 .l) tech, adult education, exceptional children)?"

I:l

:':">

16 ~

This is reference to Article VIII, Section IX,

Q

z

17 : Special Schools.

18

MR. ADAMSON: I answered yes.

19

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Next question.

20

MR. HACKNEY: I answered no on the grounds that the

21 constitution doesn't need to be -- This is something we're

22 doing at the present time, it seems to be pretty firmly

23 established in practice as well as statute. I assume you're

24 talking about things like area vo-tech schools and so forth.

25 There seems to be more than enough impetus behind these

PAGE 64

programs at the present time to ensure their continuation, 2 I don't see any way for the state to cease doing what it's

3 doing in these areas, constitutional provision or no 4 constitutional provision,

5

MR. STEVENS: I agree with Pete on that. I think

6 I would answer that definitely no, particularly the word

7 required in there. If you want to just put something in

8 saying mayor should, just what we're doing now, but we do

9 need statutory authority to deal with this because before

,~,

10

zCl
11 I-
'0..".... 12 '"
@rl 14 ~ I'x" 15 ~
Cl
'";;;) 16 .lzD..
Q
Z
17 '"lD

94.142 came along at the federal level the kids were into some of these special schools, and this law, we have tended to try to mainstream back in the school system some of these
\
kids. We don't need the constitution to bind us in
regard to these special school areas, we need statutory flexibility to deal with this problem, so I would answer Number 8 if you have the word required in there similar to

18 Mr. Hackney, no.

19

MS. GREENBERG: How are they presently financed?

20 How are special schools financed presently?

21

MR.. ADAMSON: The Atlanta Area School for the

22 Deaf, the School for the Deaf at Cave Springs, the Cabinet 23 for the Blind at Macon are financed through budget appropria24 tion for the state board of education and are actually

25 operated by the state board of education.

PAGE 65

MR. .sTEVENS: The state puts up direct money for

~;.~

2 those.

>.~

3

MR. GREENE: At this point they're under statutory

4 authority; is that what you're saying?

5

MR.. STEVENS: Yes.

6

MS. GREENBERG: Are some local school systems also

7 financing vocational tech schools and other special schools,

8 or it's strictly state funded?

9

MR.. ADAMSON: There are five special schools that

10
"z
11 j:
....II:
0
~r~ @ ~ 12 II:
! 14 ... '-"c :I: 15 .:.
l:I II:
.::>
16 zlD
Q
-Zc
17 II: lD

are operated by the state, the three that I named plus North and South Georgia Area Vocational Technical Schools which are residential type schools~
Then in additton to that we have 26 area vocational technical schools that are operated either through local boards of education such as the Bibb County one or area boards where the counties have gone, or school districts have gone together to provide the service.

18

Now, again, primarily the funding of it comes from

19 the state, although in some instances a local board or area

20 board or county commission may put additional money into it,

21 and I did not address that issue when I said yes, the state

22 should operate -- I meant the state should operate these

23 special schools that now exist, for instance for providing

24 for handicapped children or vocational, specialty vocational

25 programs on a residential basis, the state should still

PAGE 66

operate those .

.,

}

2

MR. STEVENS: What we're saying I guess in summary

3 is that we don't see any change needed.

4

MS. GREENBERG: Also the second part of that

5 question, "Should local boards of education be required to

6 finance such schools?"

7

MR. ADAMSON: For the ones that exist I would say

8 the local boards should not be required to,

9

,

~..'

10

I.!l Z
11 Icr-:
0......
12 cr:
@;I 14 ! ol -n -:<rl 15 .:I
Ic.r!:l
;:)
16 ...zIII Q Z
17 c-<r:l III

MR. STEVENS: Well, to give examples here, you know, area vo-tech schools, we've got seven area vo-tech schools we put money in. I don't know what's special schools; you've got to define what you're talking about.
Now, you go to the second part of the question 8 there and you say area vo-tech, if you want to call that a special school, you know, the question there should the state finance area vo-tech schools --
MR, HACKNEY: Some we almost do, and some we don't

18 really get close to the almost, do we?

19

MR. ADAMSON: We've got a wide variation, Pete.

20

MS. GREENBERG: Then possibly~ should reorganize

21 the constitution under this section called special schools

22 and separate the various types of schools it covers, because

23 it covers vocational training schools, schools for

24 exceptional children, schools for adult education --

25

MR, STEVENS: The only thing you can say there is

PAGE 67

just say the state is authorized to provide for all or part

2 of funding or something and you would be covering that I

3 think.

4

MRS. COOK: If we use that kind of language, would

5 that guarantee that this area of concern could possibly be

6 neglected? I'm particularly concerned about the exceptional

7 children because I would like to consider that issue

8 separately maybe from vocational tech or adult education

9 because many so-called exceptional children are of the age

10 which should be included in any funding for educational

.~.

..,

z

11 j:
"0.0."-.

purposes, that is they're not capable of being mainstreamed

@@F~ ~12 ""

or attending what we call regular educational programs. Are we going to allow the constitution to provide

! 14 ... an out as far as supporting an educational program for

'-"e
%
15 ..:.l, exceptional children?

"";:)

16 .zC.D.

MR. STEVENS: We have to -- the federal government

Q

Z-e
17 "C"D requires -~ not all kids can be mainstreamed. We've got to

18 have flexibility to go both ways.

19

MRS. COOK: I'm not talking about that. The fact

20 that they cannot be mainstreamed does not say that they can't

21 be educated in some way. I mean there is an education that

22 can be provided for -- we're not talking about education as

23 being simply academic, you know, but we're talking about

24

If we're going to get philosophical here about what

25 education is, there are exceptional children who do have

PAGE 68

some potential that can be developed, and I wondered if we

2 are just allowing the constitution not to consider the rights

3 of these people to an education.

4

MR. STEVENS: That already does.

5

MRS. COOK: That's my question. If we do not

6 mandate it, is there still some provision that would not allow

7 these people to be neglected a5 far as educational oppor-

8 tunities are concerned?

9

MR. ADAMSON: Let me see if I can put this in anothe

10
Czl 11 j:
.""o."'.
@;~ 14 ~ ~ '-"<l % 15 ~ Cl "':;) 16 ~... Q Z -<l 17 :

perspective. You're talking about Section IX, aren't you,
Vickie, Section IX, Paragraph I? MS. GREENBERG: Right . MR. ADAMSON: In reality all this does is,give the
authority to two or more political subdivisions who have a need to operate an area school and to provide taxation for it to establish it by popular vote, and let's assume that two

18 small, or more small school districts have a need to provide

19 a service for exceptional children that they can't do

20 themselves, this would make it permissible for them to

21 establish by referendum a special school to carry out that

22 and to tax for it, and in my opinion this section should just

23 be retained as it is.

24

MS, GREENBERG: Without the section the authority

25 lies with the state to provide an education for exceptional

PAGE 69

children or funding, or this section allows the local system

2 to establish that and get funding from the state? In

3 essence the same thing?

4

MR. ADAMSON: I don't see the conflict.

5

MS. GREENBERG: That's what I'm asking, is there a

6 need for this?

7

MR. ADAMSON: Yes, there is a need for this.

8

MRS. COOK: I would just like again, I don't know

9 why Bibb County comes up as an example for some special

10
CzI 11 ...
0<
o
ll.
w
9;1 14 !... ':"r 15 .:> CI 0< ;;) 16 ~ w Q Z 17 :

problems, but it has again in this case related to the question should local boards of education be required to finance such schools, and there is a situation involving the Bibb County Board of Education now in which during last year the board was required after having been sued by parents of an exceptional child to pay for the education of that child in an Eastern private school simply because the county system did not, could not provide the proper facilities or

18 personnel to deal with this child's educational needs, and

19 the parents won the case.

20

They have sued a second time for not nine months of

21 care, but twelve months, and this would include also the 22 expenses incurred bythe parents in visting the child. Now, 23 that's still pending I understand. I don't know how that is 24 developing, but that is a situation, but the fact that Bibb

25 County had to spend, what was it, $20,000, I don't remember

PAGE 70

exactly, for that child's education, it makes this a very
" ,~

'(1
f~

2 important issue I -think.

3

MR. ADAMSON: I don't think that issue is going to

4 go away, but what I see here is that if Bibb County chose

5 to establish along with other counties under this section

6 of the constitution a school to serve this particular child

7 that you could always have a court question as to whether or

8 not this is the most appropriate education, and you're still

9 not going to get away from that, but again I say to you this

10
Czl 11 i=
..'0"..
~ri @~ 12 '" 14 ! IOIl <l :J: 15 .: Cl .'::"> 16 zCD Q Z <l '" 17 CD

affords boards of education an opportunity to by referendum, and that's with voter approval, decide this is the way we're going to attack our problem. Whether or not the court would agree with the county that this is the appropriate way to do it or if the parent could challenge it, that's a whole other question .
MRS. COOK: You're not going to have any court cases by mandating it.

18

MR. STEVENS: This question has really got two

19 issues with it. That is, you're raising the issue of whether

20 or not somebody should provide assistance to that

21 exceptional child; the answer is the federal law requires

22 that.
23

The second question that's really raised by this is

24 who finances it, the state or local government. Right now

25 local governments in the case you mentioned would be

PAGE 71

required to finance this special case. We only finance

.~)

2 special large institutions like for the deaf, for the blind,

3 et cetera, the state really hasn't attempted to -- although

4 we've put some grant money into like TMRs, training for

r

5 mentally retarded, we also provide a great deal of education

6 for Department of Human Resources for MR/MH kids, so you've

7 got a program issue should they be 'served, and the federal

8 government requires that.

9

And then who finances it, right now it's local,

10
"z
11 j:
0/..I..I..:
12 /II:
@rl 14 .~.. ':"r 15 ol) "/II: ;;;) ... 16 zIII Q Z 17 /II: III

and this question says should the locals continue to have to finance it or should the state do it.
I don't think we've put much money into special separate local schools.
MR. ADAMSON: We don't . I think really the second part of this question should be deleted. In answer to the first question, yes, the state

18 should provide for those five schools that exist and should

19 finance them; then if local school districts want to go

20 together under this article of the constitution and provide

21 area schools, then in so doing they provide the finan.cing

22 and it's inherent that when they set it up that they determine

23 how the financing is going to be, each of them contributing 24 whatever provisions that they vote on to do so.

25

MRS. COOK: How do training centers for mentally

PAGE 72

disabled children fall into this? I mean is there considera-

2 tion inherent here for those facilities, because I do know

3 in my experience with such centers discrepancies in

4 programming, staffing, this kind of thing -- support.

5

MR. ADAMSON: Training centers that are operated

6 jointly by school districts are dependent upon the contribu-

7 tion of the local school system under the contract power of

8 systems to contract together for services, and they do vary,

9 but the TMR centers as Clark said do receive some basic

10
Czl 11 j:
@;;oO....l..: ! 14 lo-n J: 15 .:> Cl Ol: ;) 16 ~... oz 17 :

support in the appropriations act every year, of which the state does provide some support for the TMR centers.
We have a psycho-ed center network throughout the state,the state board has set up twenty of those.
MS. GREENBERG: To summarize Question 8, then, you are all in agreement that yes, they should?
MR. ADAMSON: For the five that exist now, MR. STEVENS: I don't see a need for a change,

18 really.

19

MS. GREENBERG: Two more questions, then we're

20 finished.

21

Question 9, "Should two or more boards of education

22 be able to contract with each other for shared facilities,

23 under Article VIII, Section V, Paragraph IV, and maintain

24 shared administrative authority, rather than singular

25 authority in one board?"

PAGE 73

MR. ADAMSON: My initial answer to that is yes,

2 and yet there may be some constitutional question about the

3 creation of additional school districts, and I'm not sure

4 that they're recognized.

5

One of the things that we find in trying to get

6 boards of education to contract together for facilities,

7 and we now have five area high schools serving multischool

8 districts, this is one of the hardest difficulties we have

9 to overcome in getting together is that whichever system is

10
l:l Z
11 i=
...o<>=
lL
@;~ 14 ~ I':<"rl 15 .:> l:l <>= ;:) 16 .~.. o Z <l 17 :::

sending its students to the other one has no legal authority, and I would -- my answer is yes, they need to be some provision for that because I think if it did we would begin to move
MR. srEVENS: -- another step closer into getting some of those small schools to begin to -- that's another step in the consolidation process .
MS. GREENBERG: I know there's a Supreme Court

18 decision which apparently decided the authority is one board

19 rather than a j oint board, but is there any way we could

20 change the language of Paragraph IV to clarify it that there

21 would be joint authority?

22

It's a matter of the Supreme Court's interpretation

23 of Paragraph IV I imagine that came to this conclusion that 24 authority is only in one board. That's Section V, Paragraph

25 IV on page 67 of the constitution.

PAGE 74

MR. STEVENS: I'll tell you one thing you might want to look at is take like Marion County, Schley County,

Webster County situation where they've put a comp high school together, it's in Marion County I think, and that school board

there is running that, and the people that send their kids to school from Schley and Webster have no say-so whatsoever

in the school their kids are going to, so if you want to cure that I think you ought to -- I think it ought to be cured -- you could make provision in these cases for at least

a board be set up with taxing authority, but it be composed of members of the board in the other counties with equal representation based on kids or whatever other factor you

want to use, but I really think that just from an equity

point of view there needs to be some kind of board setup composed of other board members, not a separate new board, but a, you know, of different people, but a composite made

up of other board membrs in those counties, a joint board be 18 set up in these cases. I think that's only fair and

19 equitable for the taxpayers, the kids in the various counties.

20

I'll agree with Cal on that, you have an oppor-

21 tunity here to make a good change. How it would be written

22 I don I t know.

23

MR. HACKNEY: I see no problem with authorizing

24 such a thing as long as it's left optional with the

25 participating citizens. If they felt it was the thing to

PAGE 75

do to let one system do it, fine, let them do it. If they

2 wanted to have some sort of shared administration, that's

3 fine too.

4

MS. GREENBERG: So whichever authority, whether

5 it's joint or

6

MR. HACKNEY: ~ right.

7

MS. GREENBERG: Any further connnent on Question 9?

8

Okay. Our last question. 10. "Should the

9 constitution specifically provide for the manner in which

10
Czl 11 ~
.'oa"....
@;I 14 ~ ~ '-"e :I: 15 .:l Cl '":;) 16 .~.. Q -Ze 17 ::;

equal educational opportunity for the citizens shall be realized?"
MR. ADAMSON: I said no. I said the constitution should provide for equal educational opportunity, but the manner in which it should be done should be carried out by statute because of the changing conditions from one time to another, and the legislature needs to address that point You know, it should be required that the legislature address

18 it, but let them carry it out.

19

I don't know whether the other two gentlemen

20 agree with me or not.

21

MR. HACKNEY: I think perhaps you're right. You

22 see, the constitution is saying what you're going to do and

23 not specifically how you're going to get there from here.

24 Hopefully the statute would set this up.

25

MR. STEVENS: I have a question on the question.

1,

PAGE 76

What would you put in?

:~;
~:.: ;

2

I struggled with this some, and I don't know

3 specifically what you could put in if you want to be specific.

4 I don't understand the

5

MR. HACKNEY: That was the reason for part 2 of the

6 question.

7

MS.' GREENBERG: That's right.

8

MR. HILL: Mr. Adamson raises another point, though.

9 He said yes, it should provide an equal educational oppor-

10
"z
11 j:
.@;~'o..".... ! 14 I'" ::z: 15 .:> '"";;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ::

tunity for the citizens, it should be a requirement, but we had talked about this earlier whether to change the mandate from an adequate education to something broader.
MR. ADAMSON: That would come in Section I, Paragraph I.
MR. HILL: You would support a change in language to require equal educational opportunity?
MR. ADAMSON: Adequate and equal.

18

MR. HILL: Adequate and equal, so you would support

19 that.

20

MR. ADAMSON: That's really what I said, but then

21 let the details be

22

A VOICE: And the money.

23

MS. GREENBERG: Would you also, Mr. Hackney and

24 Mr. Stevens, agree with that mandate providing for an

25 adequate and equal educational opportunity for all citizens?

PAGE 77

MR. HACKNEY: I think that's about what the thing

2 does at the present time, or it implies it,

3

MR. ADAMSON: I think that's what it's attempting,

4 but it really doesn't say it.

5

MR. HACKNEY: It implies it, but it doesn't

6 specifically say it in those specific terms.

7

MR. HACKNEY: I thought maybe you all would take up

8 the thing on page 69 there on Section VIII about freedom of

9 association. Is that something you don't pian to address?

10
CzI 11 i=
'o.."....
~ 12 ~
~F~ 14 .~.. '<"l :J: 15 .:. CI '":;) 16 .~.. o Z <l 17 :

MS. GREENBERG: That is being addressed in another subcommittee, and I have done some research on it and we can go into that, but I don~t know if it's necessary right now,
MR.. HACKNEY: I had no particular comment to make, I just wondered how that got past --
MR. ADAMSON: Could I raise two other questions that have given me problems, and one of course is on page 71 of the constitution I'm using, I don't know which one you're

18 using, which consolidation is provided by 51 percent of the

19 registered voters in each district shall vote in the election. 20 Is that

21

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: We handled that the other day.

22 We said it should not, we said a simple majority.

23

MR. GREENE: Of those voting,

24

MR. ADAMSON: Under the same section, Paragraph II,

25 Section (d), trustees, local trustees. Those don't need to

PAGE 78

exist any more.

2

MR. HILL: I don't know exactly where you are.

3

MR. ADAMSON: On page 72 of this document, I don't

4 know what document you have.

5

MS. GREENBERG: What article and section?

6

MR. ADAMSON: It reads under Paragraph II,

7 Subsection (d), the General Assembly shall have authority to

8 make provision for local trustees of each school in a county

9 system.

10
."z
11 j:
'o."..
~ 12 ~
~r~14 ! !;; :~z: 15 .:J "'~" 16 .~.. Q z
17 :

MR. HILL: This was omitted from the revised draft of 1970 and '64, and I don't see a need for it either.
CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: We haven't even addressed it, but I agree with you, I think it ought to be eliminated.
MR. ADAMSON: I just wanted to call your attention to it. I think the boards of education operate better where they don't have that millstone to deal with .
CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Do we have any th ~t have

18 trustees?

19

MR. ADAMSON: Yes, we've still got some. All they

20 do is create problems.

21

MR. HENRY: Is that a salaried position?

22

MR. ADAMSON: No.

23

MR. HENRY: A dollar a year position, or is iteren

24

that?

25

MS. GREENBERG: Okay. Any other questions or

PAGE 79

comments from any subcommittee members or any visitors?

,"

f

2

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Let me say to Mr. Adamson.

3 Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hackney, we certainly appreciate your

4 coming and giving us your time, coming and addressing this

5 subcommittee today. Your comments will be most helpful as

6 we get into these issues ourselves.

7

Let me say it is 12:21, do you want to take a break?

8 I'm primarily addressing the committee. Do you want to take

9 a break, just a short break and go on or do you want to take

,~: .. \

10

CI Z
11 i=
'0..".... 12 '"
@rl ! 14 ... ':"z: 15 ~ CI '::"> 16 .'z.". Q Z 17 ''""

a lunch break? MS. COOK: I really can't stay any longer myself,
I must ask permission to leave. I'm sorry. MR. GREENE: I would rather take a short break. MR. HILL: Could you stay for ten minutes? We may
be able to zip through this. CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Let's take about a five-minute
break. we'll come back and we'll try to get away from here by

18 quarter to one.

19
"
20

(A brief recess.) CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Let's go on with our business

21 and maybe get away as soon as we can.

22

Let's go down the decision agenda and try to reach

23 a consensus like we did last time, and this will give the

24 staff something that they can go ahead and work with in

25 working on a draft.

PAGE 80

Number 1, "Should the s:ate be required to assume a 2 greater responsibility for the financing of public education?

3

What was your feeling on that, Ms. Cook?

4

MRS. COOK: Let me see, what did I write down here.

5

I think I said yes. I just took some notes and

6 jotted -- I'm going to say yes right now, but I think it

7 needs to be qualified.

8

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Joe?

9

MR. GREENE: I'll say yes, and without getting into

10
zCJ
@;;11 ..joa..::.. ! 14 IOIl :I: 15 ~ aC:J ::> 16 .~.. oz 17 :

a lot of comments I am concerned that the percentage, the
distribution of cost has constantly increased over the past
twenty years as was pointed out from the local effort, and I
think that it's just about reached the point where we've got
to do something about that.
CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Okay. I agree, I said yes too. don't
Of course, I go along, I/think that what we need to
get, the document ~tself, the constitution needs to get

18 specific as to how that should be done. I think that should

19 be handled by statute, but I do think it needs to be addressed

20 in some kind of broad sense.

21

MR. HILL: I think this goes back again to the same

22 provision we were talking about at the last meeting, the

23 purpose, the first statement of what is the obli.gation of

24 the state of Georgia with respect to education.

25

MR. GREENE: Yes.

PAGE 81

MR. HILL: We heard some suggestions at the very

2 end of the first part of the meeting that we should include

3 some language about equal educational opportunity as one of

4 the mandates of the state, so we may draft some language for

5 your consideration, but as Mike was pointing out at the break

6 Freeman Leverett in the last meeting when this came up stated

7 that if you include such language in here you may have all

8 your school systems being run by superior court judges,

9 state superior court judges, because if they see that equal

10
.CzI
11 j:
.o<.>..
@;I ! 14 I'<"l :t ..15 .:l CI
;;;)
16 .~.. Q Z <l
17 ::;

educational opportunity then they-Ire going to be the ones to determine what is actually being meant, so that will be the other side of the argument, but I think that's how we will address this in our draft, a restatement of t hat first paragraph, first section of this article.
CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Okay. Did you want to add any more comments to that?
MRS. COOK: No. I think that sums up my feelings.

18

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Number 2, "Should the local

19 property tax continue to be the primary source of revenue

20 for local school systems?"

21

MRS. COOK: I agree with the consultant who

22 suggested we change the language to major or important

23 source, and I wasn't too sure that the issue of whether it

24 is already a primary source was cleared up, because one

25 person said it's not a primary source to begin with, but it

PAGE 82

is a significant source. I think the other two did agree it

2 is a primary source.

3

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think it depends on where

4 you're coming from when you say source. If you look at it

5 from the total package of what we get to operate our schools

6 on. it is not the primary source, the state funds which are

7 derived from other methods of taxation is our primary source,

8 but if you're looking at it strictly. from a local level like

9 as a board member and you're levying your taxes down there

:".;

10 then it is a primary source. the only source really.

11 ".Z..
.'0Q"...

MRS. COOK: Then I would say yes with all other

@ r l12 '" problems being considered. MS. GREENBERG: The question was raised because the

! 14 ... constitution does not really address which type of property

':z":

15 .: is used for educational purposes, but it was an issue because

16

":.'>"..
.z..

we may want to put that in, but since it only addresses

17 .'Cz.".l property, it just says property there's no reason we have to

18 even put in real property or personal property.

19

MRS. COOK: I think most of our experts have

20 suggested that we not be any more specific about drawing

21 road maps than we have to be.

22

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Sometimes you can lock yourself

23 in with a constitutional provision that could really be a

24 detriment.

25

MR. HILL: And I think the point was made, and an

PAGE 83

important one, that the extent to which the state would take

2 over the entire financing of public education and take away

3 the local property tax is the extent to which you take away

4 local control.

5

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: That's right.

6

MR. HILL: So there seemed to be a feeling we've

7 got to maintain some local property tax.

8

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: So we can maintain control.

9 That's my feeling.

10
CzI
.11 io.=.:.
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 1;; :r 15 .:l C:I ::l 16 ~... Q Z 17 ~

MR. GREENE: That sums up my feelings.
CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: All right. Number 3 , "Should
independent school boards be given the same authority to set the local tax as county school boards?"
MRS. COOK: If you're going to allow them to exist, I say they should have the same rights as any other boards, so I say yes to that .
CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I'm of the opinion and I get

18 the feeling from last time the other members of the committee

19 because they're not with us today pretty well feel like this

20 is an opportunity or a proper time to do away with these

21 exceptionalities that we have as it relates to local school

22 systems whether they operate under a charter, whether they're

23 classified independently, so

24

MRS. COOK: They have essentially the same obliga-

25 tions, the same responsibilities, so they should have the

PAGE 84

same rights and opportunities to do those things.

2

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Shall we move on, then?

3

MR. GREENE: Yes.

4

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Number 4, "Should a specific

5 millage limitation on property taxes which can be imposed by

6 local boards of education be retained in the constitution?"

7

MRS. COOK: I say yes.

8

MR. GREENE: Yeah .

9

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I agree.

10

MR. GREENE: I think that other alternatives ought

to be explored, and I don't know whether we can address

ourselves to that in the constitution or not, but I do feel

that other than the amendment route I think there ought to

be other methods explored.

MR. HILL: Is the twenty-mill limitation adequate

with you?

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think it's adequate now.

18

MRS. COOK: It's adequate if we can get together

19 on the Bibb County board.

20

MR. HENRY: Of course, to the extent you mandate

21 equal educational opportunity, like they were saying, you

22 may have Treut1in County has to levy over twenty mills to get

23 to the same level as DeKa1b County does leveling 13 mills

24 or 12 mills or something like that, so, you know, the method

25 of going beyond twenty mills, would that facilitate this

PAGE 85

equal educational opportunity that you want to put in here?

", "

2

I think that mechanism needs to -- you know, we need

3 to take a strong look at that mechanism.

4

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Maybe we ought to look at

5 Question 6 at this point which says "Should the present

6 method of removing or increasing the local millage limitation

7 be retained in the constitution?"

8

That's what you were getting at.

9

MR. HENRY: Right.

10
..,
z 11 Ia-:
(@)F~ @~ 12 ."a0.":.
! 14 I'" :r
.15 ..:.,I a: ::>
16 z... Q
..17 aZ:

MRS. COOK: I don't really -- I heard so many things pro and con here, and I'm really not clear in my mind about what the advantages and disadvantages are of constitutional amendment versus what they call statutory authorization, and I think several people have spoken for and against each of 'these postures, so I'm not too sure how I feel about where the limitation should be, how they should be established, whether in the constitution or by statute

18 here, but I do think some control ought to be mandated

19 somewhre, so I'm sort of ambivalent here.

20

MR. HILL: There seems to be general agreement in

21 the discussion I think that there should be some method

22 provided for in the constitution to allow local systems to

23 raise that twenty-mill limitation or to reduce it, and if it

24 is provided for in the constitution my feeling is that the

25 present provision is not that bad, it's just too wordy and

PAGE 86

it can be reduced, and if you just had a clear authorization

~\:

2 to the General Assembly to provide by local act for the

3 reduction or increase in the limitation subject to referendum,

4 as long as that was put in there it would have the same effect

5 as a local amendment, this change couldn't happen without the

6 people voting on it locally, and if that change were made

7 then I think that would be all that would be necessary.

8

MRS. COOK: Is that what you're saying about

9 Number 6, about the present method?

10

11 z~ ~

'o.."....

:@-- .

~12 '"

That makes sense to me. I would agree with that. MS. GREENBERG: Isn't it true that six districts that have authorized millage over twenty have done it by -have they gone this route. or have they gone the

14 >I:ir;
15 01)
~
'";:) 16 .~..
oz
17 :

constitutional amendment? MR. HILL: I think they may have gone the local
amendment . MS. GREENBERG: Which may speak for the fact that

18 ParagBaph 2 is so confusing.

19

MRS. COOK: If we vote yes for Number 6, then we

20 have to say no to Number 4. Is that not the same thing?

21

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: No.

22

MR. HILL: The specific millage limitation of

23 twenty mills would be retained. In other words, that would

24 be across the board.

25

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Everybody can levy up to twenty

PAGE 87

mills now. If you want to go beyond the twenty mi:J.B, then

2 you would have to go to this what we're talking about in

3 Number 6, that mechanism to go beyond that, which I think is

4 good.

5

MR.. GREENE: You could do it under local amendment.

6

MR.. HENRY: We would like to do away with local

7 constitutional amendments as much as possible, and that's the

8 reason I say should you facilitate it or should you make it

9 clear so that people don't have to go the local amendment

10
Czl
.11 ~a.o.:.
~ 12 ~
~F~ l 14 I'-" :I: 15 ol) aC:l :::> 16 ~ Qz- 17 :

route. MR. GREENE: What alternative -MR. HENRY: It's a referendum what, what is it,
51 percent. CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think you can handle it the
same way that you would handle consolidation or to handle the setup of your board, whether you want an elected board or an appointed board. Couldn't it be handled in the same way,

18 Mel?

19

MR. HILL: Yes.

20

MR. HENRY: Have them do it by ordinance and

21 advertise the ordinance, and then have a referendum on it

22 or something like that.

23

And another thing that was brought out is that

24 perbaps you may want to put a condition in here that where

25 your boards have gone to be an elected board and therefore

PAGE 88

you do have that political accountability to the people you

2 may want to give them the discretion to raise that limitation

3 subject to the vote of the next county school board election.

4

I don't know -- I know peqie have said, you said

5 that where they're accountable to the people you don't have

6 that great a problem with them going beyond the twenty-mill

7 limitation, but where they're strictly appointed you don't

8 like for them to have -- you wouldn't like for them to have thE

9 authority to go beyond that twenty-mill limitation, so I mean

10 that may even facilitate having county boards elected.

CI

11 ~

I just throw that out as an alternative.

'..o."....

~ 12 ~

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: We would really be making some

~Fi! distinction between boards of education, appointed boards and 14 ... elected boards .

'"
:r

15 ~

MR. GREENE: That's what we don't want to do. We

CI

'";;;)

16 .~.. don't want to make aryexceptions for boards, systems or

Q

Z

17 : anyone else.

18

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL ~ That's right.

19

I think personally I like the twenty-mill limitation

20 as it stands right now. That seems to be an adequate limit.

21 I think there's only one school system or maybe two that have

22 exceeded that. There are some that have voted to go beyond

23 it that have not aen gone up to that, so that seems to be an

24 adequate limitation, and then with the mechanism to go beyond

25 it, simplifying that mechanism --

PAGE 89

MR. HILL: Yes, that's right. The present mechanism

2 really just needs to be clarified and simplifled and it will

3 probably work fine.

4

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Okay. Question Number 5, we'll

5 go back to that one. It says "Should Chatham County and the

6 city of Savannah continue to be specifically referenced in the

7 constitution?"

8

I think we

9

MRS. COOK: I say why not. It doesn't matter to me.

10 I don't see the advantage or the disadvantage.

MR. GREENE: I say a resounding no. I don't think

any reference ought to be made to any system personally.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think that holds with what

we ---

MRS. COOK: I just don't have any strong feelings

about: it one way or the other, so I yield to the majority.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Okay. Number 7, "In those

18 school systems containing a power plant, the tax wealth per

19 pupil is typically far in excess of neighboring school

20 systems. Should an attempt be made to equalize the disparity

21 created by this situation?"

22

MRS. COOK: In view of the second question and how

23 impossible it is to do, I would have to say no to the original

24 question since I can't answer the second question.

25

MS. GREENBERG: They're envisioning some sort of

PAGE 90

regulation on a local level. If we could possibly somehow

2 phrase something in the constitution, bring it to that level

3 and get it out of local politics, because really power plants

4 are financed, the burden goes on the people of the entire

5 state, and who's profiting is one county, so it's inequitable.

6 I don't know how we could do it.

7

MR. GREENE: Suppose if you had a system where the

8 revenues would flow to the state and then would be disbursed

9 from the state for educational purposes --

~:.

10

MS. GREENBERG: Exactly. Now, should this be

I!I

Z

11 i=
'0."".".

elevated to constitutional status, or should that be

@ r l12 '"

DR. PYLES: I have worried about this before we got

here, for several weeks I have been concerned as to whether

14 ~ l-

or not -- I firmly believe the utility part of the taxes

v>

:z:

15 .:l should be taken out and put and pooled allover the state.

1.:1

'";;)

16 .Iz.I.I Whether it should be a constitutionally mandated requirement

Q

Z

'" 17 III and how you define utility would be another question, or let

18 the legislature do it. I feel strongly about it.

19

MR. GREENE: I do too.

20

DR. PYLES: I'm kind of disturbed about Heard

21 County.

22

MR. HILL: Maybe if we just spoke to this in the

23 sense of an authorization to the General Assembly to provide

24 for special taxation of utilities for purposes of statewide

25 distribution of the tax, just an authorization rather than a

PAGE 91

mandate it would be all right. We would be throwing it to the

2 General Assembly to do it.

3

DR. PYLES: Those counties would really holler,

4 Part of that of course goes into their M&O.

5

MS. GUY: I have a question. If the money is

6 pooled in and it's to be distributed statewide, where would th

7 distribution process be?

8

I think that question was raised earlier with the

9 example of the sales tax. What about equitable distribution

10 of this money?

z~

11 j:
'"oa..

MR. HILL: That would be thrown into the legislature

@ r l12 ~ too.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: That would be statutory.

! 14 t-

MR. HILL: That would be part of the bill creating

'<x"l

15 .:. the tax or the special levy. It would also have to address ~ '";;)
16 .~.. the distribution formula, so that that would be for the o

Z

<l

17 :::; legislature as well.

18

MS. GUY: Give it all to the legislature?

19

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Let them deal with this

20 distribution formula, because the distribution formulas can

21 change as times change.

22

MR. HENRY: I think in light of your first decision

23 to sayan equal education, I don't think you can start 24 dealing with utility property in the constitution. The

25 legislators know equitableness, for lack of a better word,

PAGE 92

of the taxation of utility property in the state, and it is

2 returned to the state for taxation and then disbursed out to

3 the counties for their general revenues, I'm not talking

4 about school finance right now, I'm just talking about

5 general finance.

6

Once you mandate equal, I think if you like this

7 district power equalization or, you know, if that could be

8 improved upon once you say equal I think they're going to

9 have to adopt something like that, and I think that maybe one

/]

10

Czl 11 i=
'o.."....
~ 12 ~
~ri
! 14 I'" :I:
15 .:I
Cl
:'"2
16 .~.. Q Z
17 :

of the first places they may look would be to the property taxes on utilities, but I don't think you should put it in the constitution that utility property will be -- you know, what you're doing is you're earmarking funds for education, and then to set the distribution problem which has to my understanding always been the obstacle in earmarking anything for education, so I think if you just leave it -- you tell the General Assembly you want it to be' equal, and then you

18 have the judiciary to make sure they provide equal education,

19 and you just leave it up there to their discretion on how to

20 make it equal, whether it's by public utility property or by

21 an extra cent sales tax. I think the mandate tbat it be

22 equal is sufficient I would think. I don't know. I'm sure

23 you're all in strong disagreement with me.

24

MR, GREENE: That appeals to me initially, but I

25 have some deep concerns about those isolated counties where

PAGE 93

the utilities are principally located and how unequal it is

2 as it stands ..

3

MS. GREENBERG: And particularly since they're

4 I guess agreed that adequate implies equal, and that's what

5 is going on now. The present situation is inequitable, I

6 think we almost need a provision --

7

MR. HILL: Why don't we say this, why don't we try

8 to come up with some language which you can then react to?

9

I mean the fact is we're undecided about this

10

~

"z
11 I-
'o"
~
12 ~

~r~ ! 14

l-
ll>
<l :I:
15 ~

"'":::l
16 .~..

Q

Z

<l
17 :

whether we should say anything specifically about utilities or not, and until we have some language drafted we're not going to really know whether to answer that yes or no, and it would be easy to say if you have it '~ell, gee, maybe we'd better forget it," but why don't we work on this --
CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think that's a good idea, to try to work on some language, and then if we can agree on some language fine; if we can't, then we may not even want to

18 address the matter.

19

Okay. "Should the state be required by the

20 constitution to finance special schools (schools for

21 vocational tech, adult education, exceptional children)?

22

We pretty much got the -- Well, the consultants

23 we had pretty well stated they didn't see any need to change

24 anything.

25

MRS. COOK: That's being done.

PAGE 94

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Right.

2

You have looked at this, Mel. Do you all find --

3 is there any objection that you have been able to come up

4 with "in terms of that section?

5

MR. HILL: You know, next time we were planning to

6 devote the meeting to a discussion of special schools and

7 this section, and to hear from others about it, so I would

8 say why don't we leave this question until then and we can

9 think about this a little further.

~

10

":z:
11 j:
..'0."....
12 '"
@rl 14 ~ lv> :I: 15 o!) "'"::l 16 .Iz.I.I Q Z '" 17 III

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Okay, MRS. COOK: I would like to do that too. CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: All right. Good enough. Let's go to 9, then. "Should two or more boards of education be able to contract with each other for shared facilities, under Article VIII, Section V, Paragraph IV, and maintain shared administrative authority, rather than singular authority in one board?"

18

MR, GREENE: I think so, I can see some economies

19 of operation in doing this, and I think that the systems can

20 work out among themselves some kind of equitable representatiol.

21

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think the key to the thing

22 is this. If we say they should be able to contract with each

23 other, wouldn't their contract specify how they would in turn

24 control whatever voice?

25

DR. PYLES: That was the problem with that case,

PAGE 95

the Tifton versus Spier case where two units tried to do

-r

2 this. but they left the governing authority with just one

3 board rather than with the other.

4

No. no. They were trying to structure it that both

5 boards would be able to operate a high school, the court came

6 in and said you couldn't have that. only one board could

7 operate, either one or the other, not both. you can't have a

8 joint board, and I think that's what was suggested here by

9 Clark was to provide some mechanism where one or two

:.'
t-

10 representatives from each board -- not to create a new

11

"z
i=

board, but to operate that school.

..0G..o..:

@ r l12 Go:

MR. HILL: Was this in lieu of consolidation? I

mean is this really a way short, is this a method short of

14 .~.. consolidation and therefore the thought is if we provide for

'"

:I:
15 .:. this the consolidation might be more attractive?

"Go:
::>

... 16 III Z

DR. PYLES: I think it would be easier to do this.

Q

Z

17 Go: III

because presently what you have is when two boards are trying

18 to combine and operate jointly a high school, according to that

.,

19 court case you cannot do that .

'..

20

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Like Tri-County High School,

21 one of those boards of educ::ation controls the high school.

22

DR. PYLES: That's right. The parents of these

23 other kids have no control. no way to impact it except just

24 take their kids out, and I don't know how they're going to do

25 that.

PAGE 96

MS. GREENBERG: We just have to work on language.

'.~

2

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: What we're saying is we need

3 the provision in here to allow singular or joint control or

4 any other kind of method that the boards might want to work

5 out that would make it constitutional.

6

DR. PYLES: Right, so the courts would not throw it

7 out, or at least the judge did in that case.

8

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: The judge threw it out on the

9 basis that it was not provided for in the constitution?

10

z"
11 i=
..0~....
12 ~

.@1-/I

14

1
>-

I-

':"r

15 .:.

"~
;:)
16 .Iz.I.I

Q
Z 17 ~
III

DR. PYLES: He said either one or the other, but he said you can't do it the way you guys have structured it.
I think, Mel, to answer your question, yes, that I think would facilitate ult{mately more cooperation in consolidation which I still think is kind of the bias of what I keep hearing .
CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Do you all agree 'with that? MRS. COOK: Yes.

18

MR. GREENE: Yes.

19

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: 10, "Should the constitution

20 specifically prov~de for the manner in which equal educa-

21 tional opportunity for the citizens be realized?"

22

MR. GREENE: I say no.

23

MRS. COOK: No.

24

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: No .

25

MR. HILL: But shall provide that the equal

PAGE 97

educational opportunity saal1 be required?

,,.

2

MRS. COOK: Oh, yes.

3

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Okay. Very good.

4

Mel, will you all have time to send out a draft of

5 what we talked about today?

6

MR. HILL: Yes. We'll send it out with the notice

7 of the next meeting.

8

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Very well.

9

Thank you all.

10
Czl 11 j:
.'0.."... 12 '"
@rl 14 ! ~ '<"l :I: 15 ol) Cl '"::> 16 .CZ.D. c Z <l 17 'C"D

(Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m. the subconmittee meeting was adj ourned . )
+++ ++ +

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VIII Subcommittee Meeting Held on July 10, 1980

,

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 7~10-80

Proceedings. pp. 3-7

SECTION I: PUBLIC EDUCATION

Paragraph I:

Public education; free public education prior to college or postsecondary level; support by taxation. pp. 7-21, 75-77, 80-81, 96-97

SECTION V: LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS
Paragraph II: Boards of education. pp. 77-78
Paragraph V: Power of boards to contract with each other. pp. 72-75, 94-96
Paragraph VII: Special schools. pp. 63-72, 93-94

SECTION VI: LOCAL TAXATION FOR EDUCATION
Paragraph I: Local taxation for education. pp. 21-55, 56-63, 81-85, 89-93
(Independent school systems and power of taxation. pp. 36-44, 83-84)
Paragraph II: Increasing or removing tax rate. pp. 55-56, 85-89

l'AGl<~

1

3

STATE OF GEORGIA

4
COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VIII
5

of the

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

Subcommittee on State Board of Education
10
:.,:)
,-
iI
':
)

! '-,
):'.'

i,\.

.:U

\,

Room 40la

State Capitol

Atlanta, Georgia

Wednesday, JUly 16, 1980 9:20 a.m.

PRESENT WERE:

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS:

CHARLES MEREDITH, CHAIRMAN JOHN GRAHAM MS. MIRIAM GRAHAM ODELL OWENS DR. WILLIAM PRESSLY SENATOR TERRELL STARR

SELECT COMMITTEE STAFF:

MS. VICKIE GREENBERG MELVIN HILL

'.

OTHERS:

'I.')
Z
!'

DR. CALVIN ADAMSON DR. JIM MULLINS

,,:,~Vlr'
/- ~ \, ',r,c,;;;..') .-

jJ

-PR-O- -C -E -E -D-IN- -G -5

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I guess we can start. As you

,know, this is the second meeting of what is scheduled as three

meetings and sort of fact finding sessions from various persons

whom we feel can be of assistance to us in trying to carry out

(, our assignment here.

7

We had anticipated having the State Superintendent

with us this morning, but he could not make it and he has made

() himself available to us on the 28th of this month and I thought

10 that I S important enough for us to have a meeting to listen to ..,
z
11 ;:him. I know itls probably an imposition on the part of the o .">,.
I. ~ committee members who have to come so far, but I think we should

\-.
z
ego ahead and convene and those who can come can come 50 is

./ ./
!,~ ;:: that agreeable wi th everybody?

<::
I
15 ,~
';:-..r'.:
::l
Q;l
11" 7:
'.":\
L

MR. GRAHAM: What time do you want to start? CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Hels available at 9:45, but lid

; like us to meet at 9: 00 because Mr. Vann, who we thought was

going to be with us this morning and could not be here, we will

meet with him at 9:00 and at 9:45 we will listen to the 2U superintendent.

We have another meeting scheduledfor August 7, which

I went back to my office and realized that lim going to be out

of town. Illl be in Houston.

MR. HILL: August 6.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I I 11 be in New York and then

:'\(:1': 4

Houston, that's right, August 6.

2

Since we're going to meet on the 28th, I would like

3 to move that to the next week, if we could, and on that meeting,

4 the meeting in August, we hope to have our first review, the

first draft copy of the document. Does that present a problem?

MR. HILL: We have a meeting already scheduled one

week later on the 13th so I would hope we could make it either

Tuesday or Thursday of that week instead of Wednesday.

I}

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: If we have it on the 14th what

would that do? That's the meeting we had scheduled for that
dz
11 ~ time anyway?

~~ 12 u

sv

~

MR. HILL: We had scheduled one for the 6th; that was

O' rG--:-~J~ Jj"-"-""-. v~ the only meeting scheduled for August.

'-- /

'"

,'"
,I "

DR. PRESSLY: Would there be a possibility of

"1:

I.", .~ following through on your Monday and going on over to the 18th?

.l::

1(, ~"' ,~

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It's okay with me, the 18th.

a

Z

: 7 :<i:i:

MR. HILL: Is the 11th bad for you?

DR. PRESSLY: I'm out that complete week, but that's

19 ,alright. Somebody is going to miss anytime of course.

MR. HILL: The 18th would be alright.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. That means that on the 18th

22 that probably will be the committee's last time as a group

looking at the document although there will be a final document

developed between the 18th and the first of September. That is

when we have to turn it in, right?

MR. HILL: No, not exactly. I think my suggestion
I
I would be if we plan the meeting for the 18th maybe go all day for the purposes of finalizing. It will be the first draft, but also trying to come up with a recommendation. Then we will
) work on that between the 18th and the first and second week of (, September and have one more meeting of this subcommittee to
finalize the recommendation and it will go to the Full Committee. 1'1 I think middle September is fine.
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. Let s review then. We have !( the July 28th, 9:00 a.m., and then August 18th and the 18th is 1Ii; the all day meeting.
MR. HILL: Let me also say that the meeting on the
,l
:': 28th, the committee is going to have to make it' s own decision '; on this decision agenda. We haven't done that. It may be an " ;,: all day meeting on the 28th as well. It really depends on how
+long it would take the committee to go through this, but you
~ can't draft something until the committee decides. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. Alright, this morning we
have two resource persons, Dr. Jim Mullins, who is Executive Director of the Georgia Educational Improvement Council, and we're going to have Dr. Cal Adamson, Associate State School Superintendent and we have Mr. Milligan. Mr. Milligan, what we tried
MR. HILL: Mullins. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Mullins, Mullins. I've got it

6
now. Do you have a copy of this agenda? DR. MULLINS: Yes, sir~ CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: What we've done is to allow a
resource person to pick up one at the time and comment on it~ I Also, we'll do like we did the last time, members can have
comments on the same item and we'll take those too. Okay, go ahead.
DR. MULLINS: Well, in responding to the first item about the constitutional mandate of an adequate education for 10 the citizens be changed, it is my feeling that it should not.
I.:
ii ;:I think you'll find as you look across constitutions in other
.,
., ~~ states you'll find similar statements. It is our opinion that

T

.:' of an adequate program of education So I feel no on that one.

':

;~

::>

i \' 'L"

DR. ADAMSON: I also answered no and I won't be able--

,:.

I.

1C' .~. I'm Cal Adamson. I won't be able to stay with you all the time.

I'm going to have to slip out after awhile.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Let me suggest that we take you

in turn

.11

DR. ADAMSON: That's alright with me. Jim and I are

, ) used to agreeing and disagreeing

.~ .\

DR. MULLINS: Mostly agreeing.

'4

DR. ADAMSON: I used that term first, did I not?

.~

DR. MULLINS: You certainly did.

__ . _ - - - - -
-,-_.~,_._.

DR. ADAMSON: Let me say to you that one of the things

that has sort of concerned me is the question of equal

! educational opportunities which is not really addressed. It

, i was one of the -- Vickie, one of the questions that was raised

~ in the last subcommittee.

MS. GREENBERG: Yes, Subcommittee 2.

DR. ADAMSON: And I'm not so sure that the question

~ . of adequate education -- I certainly feel it should be retained

for this subcommittee somewhere, either in that particular

section or in another question we have here related to Section
v
Z.
!I ~VIII of Article VIII, that the question of equal educational

i ':: opportunities might not be added.

-","
Ii

MR. GRAHAM: Would it be appropriate to ask a

I: ,;; question at this time?

.:,c

DR. ADAMSON: It is for me.

lO'

u

~,
MR. GRAHAM: I'll ask this first to Dr. Mullins. I
(
I
-- <
,Q",; agree with you that the Constitution when you're drafting

a Constitution ought to be in more general terms than specific,

l:j but I believe it ought to be clear that the constitutional

language ought to be more than simply aspirational and it ought

to confer rights that are enforceable by children upon the

default of the state. If the Constitution is going to confer

rights that are enforceable by children if the state should

default then I did need for you to define what adequate means.

DR. MULLINS: Well, I don't have the definition of

i' \i: t

8

adequate, but I think, as I said, John, you have a correspondence

through your statute in the adequate program for education and

3 you have definition there. Of course, as you well know, each

4 'of the areas of the adequate program of education have not been

S funded. That might relate itself down to another item on this

h . agenda. When you start changing words, and as an attorney I

, think you're well aware of the necessity to be precise, but

8 when you start beco~ing precise you have the same difficulty

') in the new term. If you say equal opportunity that carries

\0 many connotations other than just what might be adequate. So I

]) ~don't really know what adequate means outside of what the :) .''J~
~~ t"' ~]]. ustatute has told us it means. The Constitution will at least get us into the category of providing as a primary responsibility

11

j

,. ~ of the state, education of its citizens. It says adequate.


1:
]5 ~Other terms may be used, but I don't think I would be interested
,"
::>
]6 ~in seeing that changed.

2:

<

)7 r;(.

MR. GRAHAM: Dr. Adamson, suppose the Constitution

1S said that it is the duty of the state to provide an equal

19 ,educational opportunity with high quality educational programs

20 'for every child and there we've put in equal educational 21 opportunity and substituted high quality for adequate?

DR. ADAMSON: John, that gives me a little bit of a

23 problem because again the definition of what is high quality --

24 Is a court going to make that decision as to what high .quality

25 is? I assume that it would. I think you would still run into

Li-.

.. _

~

"

the same difficulties as I envision what the ramifications of

that would be.

MR. GRAHAM: I was referring there to language that's

i found in the Texas, Virginia and Florida Constitutions.

DR. ADAMSON: Uh-huh. I think New Jersey also has

" something in their Constitution dealing with quality and as you

may be -- I don't know if you remember exactly the language that

x ,was included in that, but the Cahill Decision shut down that

q school system because -- Maybe that's part of what ought to be

10 here, but I just don't know. I'm not that well versed.

I: ,
cr~

MR. GRAHAM: You have no argument with the equal

()

>.

DR. ADAMSON: I do not. As a matter of fact, in my 1,1 : opinion that should be an addition to it.

:>

DR. MULLINS: If you do get into the court on

.1:

::>

I,.} f;:':l September 1 that's basically what you're going to be talking

l

" :i

about

anyway

I

suspect.

MR. GRAHAM: That and the definition of adequate.

;}

MR. GREENBERG: Do you both agree then that if we

change the language to provide an adequate and equal education

.'1 it would not -- it would be beneficial rather than left it?

DR. MULLINS: It would give us another term to define.

MR. GRAHAM: I think it's equal opportunity rather

than equal education.

DR. ADAMSON: Equal opportunity, I would not want it

10

to be equal education. I use the term equal educational

~'.:

opportunity.

DR. MULLINS: That's been pretty well accepted in

+ the courts. They haven't had too much difficulty with that

one, but just like in Rodriguez when you started talking about

quality then you'd had tremendous difficulties. You look at

our state situation in education where we believe in local

8 control to certain degrees and we also believe in state

<) control in certain degrees and we haven't yet defined what the

state ought to do and what the locals ought to do and where

.;: maybe they could best provide certain kinds of educational
o
"-

'(/(r~.i~.J~)\)r-"~''1'2'o

~
J_,.~

opportunities. So as a result, you don't have educational plan for the delivery of education

an to

established children.

","\-.,.~. ::// // /

"

t~ Without tha.t, it's very difficult to get into this "quality"

TC
15 ~ question and even then you're into some subjective criteria.

::J

i (1 .;'

MR. GRAHAM: You're right. The definition of

Cl

7

<

1'-: -;"

1 ,::.:., adequate is much more difficult than finding out whether

there's equal opportunity. Do you believe that the Constitution 19 ought to specify unacceptable causes of unequal educational ,:() opportunities?

DR. MULLINS: I don't. I think that ought to be left

to the statutes.

23

MR. GRAHAM: For example, should the Constitution

~,..., say that no child shall be discriminated against in the

'S provision of educational resources on account of race, religion,

n--------------- . -- .. ------------ ..-.--.----.--- . -.--.-----.-
II
1 : color, national origin, sex, etc.? I'
, II
DR. MULLINS: I think there you've got your 14th

J I Amendment and you've got your First Amendment. They impinge

J : upon us whether our State Constitution states that or not and

, therefore we are going to fall into conformance, if you want to '
,
I
6 i use that term, with those constitutional rights that are

guaranteed to each citizen of this state and of this country.

x 'So I think, once again, when you start trying to delineate and

'1 you start trying to define further in the Constitution you

begin to compound the problems within the Constitution. That's
(~
7.
!I ;:where your statutes can best, in my opinion at least, support CJ "-
~ the Constitution and if the statute doesn't stand the
I2'
~ constitutional test your profession is enhanced.

,.
~

MR. GRAHAM: Should the Constitution at any point

~

I.

~ state why education is important? I'll give an example of a

::'
,:0
~: Constitution that does that, one that says: "Knowledge, self-

,~ :~; reliance and an understanding of the democratic process being

safeguards of liberty and thE. bUlwark of a free and open I') government, the state of shall maintain a system of free public

education."

DR. MULLINS: I think not because any definition of

that type you come with you're going to add things that seem
,,
~-) , at the moment just the perfect statement, only to find out on

reflection a week later after the constitutional referendum has

passed why did we not add this and if the Constitution doesn't

f'"V; l: 12

give vent to it can we, in fact, statutorily add it? So I

2 would think not. I wouldn I t like to see that.

3

MR. GRAHAM: The Supreme Court of Georgia has already

4 :i done all of that anyhow, I think, in cases. Alright, I'm sorry,

5 : I didn' t mean to take the floor.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That's okay. Any other comments?

7 Alright. Proceed to the second one. It says, "Should the

8 provision stating that an adequate education for the citizens

9 I: shall be a primary obligation of the 'State of Georgia' be

10 changed?".

, '.:>
, 7.
11 i-
-':">
>.

DR. MULLINS: I said no. I think it should be a

.

12 ~ primary obligation of the State of Georgia.

(~ ~'~~ "~ 1

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. I think the last time

\'S;_

I

14 ~ there was some discussion on what "State of Georgia" -- what

':i
1:
15 ~ does that mean in terms of whether that respon-- Where does '"0:
::>
16 ~<Xl that put that responsibility when you say the "State of 1:'\ z:
17 ,~Georgia"? Does it put it under the governor's office, put it

1f' under the legislature, put it under the courts or where? Is

19 that clear?

20

DR. ~~JLLINS: I think when you say the "State of

Georgia", the "State of Georgia" as a government as opposed to
,
n ! three divisions of government, I think it would sort of impinge
_~, .' on all three. But as a primary obligation of the state, I think

we see all three continually involved in such decisions for

education. We're spending anywhere from 53 to 56 cents of every

rr-- ------.------ .-.---.----,.-.- __._.__ ---.- ---------
I
1 I state dollar in education. Now that certainly indicates a

2 II primary responsibility and obligation to education even though
II

-' \1 it divides out to about 36 cents for primary, secondary, 17

Ii

4 I: cents or so for higher education, but at the same time it II

:!

:1

5

I Ii

indicates

that that responsibility

and

that obligation

is

there

Ii

(, il and is being met from that point of view of revenue. The amount

I,

II

7 [i of time we spend in the General Assembly each year, apart from
il
Ii
k I! appropriations, on educational legislation I think indicates,

Ij
il
9 Ii you know, its obligation and its interest. The number of

iO .., associations that have vested interests in education certainly

z

IJ ~ are coming forth through the General Assembly, through the

o

"-

~,

s~ I)~ ~'" Governor's office. Our state department is a very strong and

)r'!'!"- ~ &~ I~.r"

~_ powerful state department and has been so enhanced by the

,,~"

I

14 ~ General Assembly and given those responsibilities to see the

"r
15 ~ compelling interests of the state being carried out. So I

'"::> 16 ~00 think when we look at all of these things and of course the
a z <
t 7 :~ courts are going to come in with compelling interests, perhaps

lP i not being met by definition of the statute. So I think it

I~ i should remain as a primary obligation of the State of Georgia

20 and not say of the legislature or of the judiciary or of the

executive branch.

22

MR. GRAHAM: Dr. Adamson, would you define primary?

Is that the same thing as fundamental or should the word primary

and fundamental be there?

DR. ADAMSON: That's a word I'm not really sure of,

PAGE 14
II but when I use t~-~:r~ p~~ry .~.....:~~~~ takes ~~~~~~::

2 II priority. That's the way I interpret it.

II
3 II

MR. GRAHAM: In constitutional language, do you

4 Ii understand what the term fundamental means? )1' I[

5 Ii

DR. ADAMSON: Oh, yeah.

6 !I

MR. GRAHAM: Would that be the same thing as what

Ii

7 i: you were talking about as primary?

11

8 II

DR. ADAMSON: Almost, but I don't see them as

II
9 iIlI synonymous quite.

10

MR. GRAHAM: Could you use both words, primary and

z"

11 ~ fundamental obligation?

o

"-

@ .112 "~'

DR. PRESSLY: Primary has to be fundamental, doesn't

it? You don' t need both.

14 ~

DR. ADAMSON: I guess that's a matter of semantics.

<::

:I:

15 ~ I think primary and fundamental almost mean the same thing and

"a:
:>

16 '~" yet I'm not sure that they exactly are synonymous.

oz

17 :ii

MR. GRAHAM: Which one do you like the best?

18

DR. ADAMSON: I like the word fundamental because it's

19 more definitive.

20

DR. MULLINS: It could also be more limiting.

21

MR. GRAHAM: It might be more limiting.

22

DR. ADAMSON: Yes, it could.

23

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH I Dr. Adamson, would you like to

24 come in on the "State of Georgia" issue? Whether thatJs clear--;

25 When we say the State of Georgia everybody knows what we're
_.---~----_._----

1 II talk~ng about?

- - - -- --~--------~-~---

PAGE

15

2 I:1I

DR. ADAMSON. When you say the "State of Georgia"

I' 3 III that means to me the government of the State of Georgia which

4 II takes in all three of the branches of government. I don't have 5 IiI' any problem with that term, "State of Georgia", and I agree tha~

6 II you should not change the primary obligation.

,I

11

7 !IIi

MR. HILL: The draft of 1970, the term "shall be a

II

8 :: primary obligation of the State of Georgia and its political

i1
9 :1 subdivisions". That was a change proposed in the 1970

10 Constitution. Would that kind of change be any problem to you? :

"z 11 ~What we've done before was by stating that it's the obligation

o
Q.

.cv

12 ~of the State of Georgia then there was some feeling that the

(~~\-~_".'!!. ~ ~~fl

local people wouldn't see it as much as their obligation as
"I

14 ~well. So that was kind of the genesis of this question.

'"""
1:

15 '!.l

DR.. ADAMSON: Mr. Hill, I think that touches on

":'"J

16 ~ another problem. If you say education is the primary obligation

az

!

J -; :; of the State of Georgia and the Constitution turns right around

18 I and sets up 159 constitutionally established school boards at

19 the county level plus those independent, what determines who

20 shall have the responsibility for education? What recourse

21 does the state have? That's a little side issue, but I really

11 don't think if the State Board of Education as a part of the

23 !executive branch of government determines that Podunk School 24 'District is not providing an adequate education in Georgia how 2~do you go about seeing that the mandate of the Constitution

PAGE 16

that says the State of Georgia has that responsibility What

2 do you do about it? That's not very clear right now. Jim, I

3 see nothing that gives anybody the authority to do much abOut

4 it.

5

MR. GRAHAM: If we use the term the "State of Georgia"

6 then the legislature can delegate to the political subdl~isions

7 that which it already has and more if it wanted to.

8

DR. MULLINS: But if you say 'and the political

9 subdivisions"then you give the political subdivisions basically

10 equal status with the state.

"z
11 ...

DR. ADAMSON: Well, I don't think they ought tb have

'o"

Q.

w

12 ~ equal status. I do not believe they should have equal status.

!~~Vd ~

\~~~r~

MS. GREENBERG: Could we alleviate the problem of

'--

14 ~I local school systems providing adequate education by changing -~

':<x: 15 ~ I know this is not our jurisdiction, but Section V, Local Schoo1
'"a.::
::J
16 ~ Systems states "authority is granted to county and area boards i

Q Z
<
17 ~ of education to establish and maintain public schools within

18 their limits". Could we make that a stronger statement arid

19 say something like county and area boards of education shall

20 establish and maintain adequate public schools within their

21 limits? And it would be a constitutional mandate which could

22 be enforced by the courts and by the General Assembly.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: When you say shall you imply that

24 they have to.

MS. GREENBE~G: Right.

PAGE 17

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That 's what you want?

2

MS. GREENBERG: Just make a flat mandate, county and

3 area boards of education shall establish and maintain adequate

4 pUblic schools.

5

DR. ADAMSON: Vickie, from my experience I believe

6 that authority has been interpreted by the courts to require

that counties have a school system so I don't think that's the

real problem. As I see it, the real problem is at what point

does the state guarantee that they're going to provide an

10 adequate education? What is the state going to do about it if

Iz:l

11 ~ they don't, if it's determined that they don't? John?

o

"w"

i12 ~
(@) . _.

MR GRAHAM: I don't believe they could do anything. DR: ADAMSON: That s right. I don' t think. The

,--:::...,/

I
i + ~ thing that bothers me about the whole statement is the State of 'r<
15 ~ Georgia is responsible for education as a primary obligation
'::">
J6 '~" but yet that's really all it says.

1

<:

J 7 'i

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Would you recommend that something

18 be added to give the state a right to move if the local

J9 I systems

20

DR. ADAMSON: I think that's one of our long range

21 goals in the department is to look at this possibility because

22 ! we have seen some instances where school systems have not chosen
23 to meet state standards as set by the State Board of Education. 24 ,I What are you going to do about it? The State Board in reality 25 has no option except maybe the possibility of cutting off state
---------- -- ----- ---

PAGE 18

funds. Well, when you cut off state funds that's further

2 deteriorating the situation instead of improving it in my

3 opinion.

4

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Do you think some staternep.t ~bou14

5 go on Section II that would enhance the authority of the state

o Board of Education to act on that?

7

DR. ADAMSON: I don't know what statement it ou.ght

8 to be and I'm not prepared this morning to discuss that.

DR. PRESSLY: Aren't you really saying not to enhance

10 the authority because this statement definitely give s them

cz?
11 ~ the authority it's their responsibility, but rather the method

o

Q.

~

12 ~ of carrying out?

(~ ~~:c;-r~ !"!"- ~

DR. ADAMSON: Of carrying out that responsibility.

~

/

.

14 ~I Perhaps you:' re right. I'm just trying to get at an idea that



I

15.0 that's a problem with me as a school administrator.

<:'

:':':'>'

16 ~...

MR. GRAHAM: If it is a responsibility of the State

Cl

Z

17 ~ of Georgia to provide this then it seems to me that the

18 legislature could enact enabling legislation underneath

19 that to insure that the State of Georgia provides it by putting

20 teeth into the State Board.

21

DR. ADAMSON: I don't know what the answer is, but

in my opinion there needs to be something done to do that.

,.

--'

DR. MULLINS: I think basically this is the mechanism

that we're operating under now. When the legislature gave to

the State Board of Education the authority to develop standards

r---------------- ----- --- ----

PACE 19

I II which take on the guise of administrative laws then that gives

2 !I not only the authority but the mechanism by which to do it. I,Ii
-' 11 Now this is not meant in criticism, but I think the history of

education in Georgia with the local versus state control being

of such paramount concern that the State Board has traditionally

dropped back just before, how would we say, exercising the

authority which I believe it can exercise for many reasons,

political or otherwise.

9

DR. ADAMSON: I think that's probably true, but let

10 me give you a specific example although this may not be the plaqe
,~
z
11 5. to do it. Many of you are aware of the difficulties that '::J "-
12 ''~"" Sumter County Board of Education, the President's home county,

f-
cZ has had. First of all, they do not meet the mandates of the
'n

11- ~ standards that the law provides for the State Board and yet

<
I
15 ~ the Attorney General has said so what? They haven't done it,

'"::J
16 c~o but all you can do is cut the money off that the state has

z

1-;

-<
c~L appropriated.

That doesn't really get at the problem.

That

l(': i further deprives a child of an education rather than enhances

19 ! it to me.

MR. GRAHAM: It's not necessarily that county, but

take a county in the State of Georgia that has an elected school

board and an elected superintendent and these elected people

are the property owners and their objective is low taxes. This
i'
also exists. They're not raising the revenues.

DR. ADAMSON: What can the State Board do about that?

What can the State School Superintendent do about that?

,',

~

2

DR. MULLINS: That he can't.

3

DR. ADAMSON: All this is entwined, I think, and it's

4 a concept I'm trying to get to.

5

MR. HILL: If this provision were -- If there was a

(, statement added in this provision that the General Assembly

shall see that this obligation is met and provide funds for

carrying this out by law will that run afoul of the State

') Boards having the responsibility for it? Do you see a problem

10 with the General Assembly in here being given the specific

'.:)

'z:

11 ~ mandate to make sure this happens rather than the State Board

o

a.

"'

(~9}'''''''' ~I' ~sy.~,

12

: ...

itself?

,,~:;J/

DR. MULLINS: Well, as a statutory making body, it

14 ; basically has that authority already. You don't have to say

<:
'1,
15 ~: it has it. It's got it, but whether it will ever exercise,

'x;
~
1b '~" you know, that kind of authority is yet another question.

z

-0:

!7 ~

MS. GRAHAM: I 'a just like to say you made the

18 statement that you didn't think cutting off the funds was the

19 answer. Well, in my opinion I would have to disagree with you

20 because it seems to me that most anybody that has any common

21 sense in any average school system if they found out their

1) funds were going to be cut off you better believe they'd get in
,,
...:..) there and pitch in and see that the standards were met. At
_)'1.-. least that's my opinion.

MR. GRAHAM: Youmay be giving more credit to some of

the commissioners around the state than they're due because

there are commissioners in the state whose sole objective is

to keep taxes down.

DR. ADAMSON: That's right.

MR. GRAHAM: And they'll tell you that.

6

DR. ADAMSON: And when you get in that particular

situation that suits them fine.

8

MS. GRAHAM: But what about the parents within that

,) school system, wouldn't they have enough pull to see that the

iO standards were met if they were given a mandate saying you've
zCJ
1I 5. got to come up to this level? o "DR. MULLINS: That's what you like to think about

this form of democratic government and it may happen, but unless

: you challenge it to happen it's not going to and I think what

l~ 0 I might have heard Cal say and I think what may have been the '9 ,;< ::>
16 ~ tradition in all of these matters go back to prior to United c '~
; 7 ~ States versus Georgia with the 89 r.ecalcitrant school systems

Ie, that refused to desegregate. They said to the federal government

19 keep your money, we don't need it. The federal government said

.'U fine and to the State Department of Education you don't give them

any state money either. Well, then all of a sudden it was a

'7 different matter. They got in their plans and they became

desegregated. So there you have an example of what happens when

the funds are cut off. Now if you don't cut the funds off

you'll not kndw exactly what's going to happen. The commission

I is not really that much of a-problem to us in education, the boards of education who reflect commission's attitude.

MR. GRAHAM: I meant to say boards of education. I

f couldn't think of the word.

DR. ADAMSON: Of course the other question is

(I legally the Attorney General has not specifically ruled an

opinion that the State Board has the authority to cut off the

s funds. That again would be a court question even if it

L) happened.

10

DR. MULLINS: That may be where we really need to

11 z~'" get a lot of clarification because even when the Attorney

o

0. w

:: :~ General speaks it's nice to hear him, if you can agree with

(l(y(fbt'~~F1~~~\'''-''- ~~ him, that's great; otherwise, just take him to court.

~//

~'
14

DR. PRESSLY: The decision that you referred to,

~
<

is 0 Mr. Mullins, a few minutes ago, isn't that a case that you

'C>

f~

:J

1h ~ could use when you cut off funds? It's been done successfully?

oz.

<:

17 :;

DR. MULLINS: I would think that would be a

!x precedent.

DR. PRESSLY: Precedent, yes. I have no worries

20 about cutting off funds being a valid way to do it. I think

21 that forces us all -- Money talks and if we lost it we'd stir

,1 'around and do something about it seems to me. So I do think we

have the means here.

DR. MULLINS: I think so, but playing devil's

2) I advocate again with attorneys, you know, they can justify on
lc__________________ _ _

j':\(;; 23

the left as easily as they can on the right.

DR. PRESSLY: I know. We've got one over here.

3

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Let me see if we can't find out

'+ where we are. I'm a little confused. Are we saying that the

~ Constitution should be modified to be explicit in what the

(, State Board of Education can do in order to enforce the

l adequate education statute? Are we saying that? DR. MULLINS: I'm not saying that and I'm not saying

it not because it may not be necessary. I haven't given it that
10 much thought to make a definitive statement. My off the
shoulder reaction is you wouldn't want to be that definitive
Cl
~.
~ ~";' in the Constitution. Let your statutes in relationship to the u.
responsibility of the Board convey that authority.

DR. ADAMSON: I guess what I was really saying, I

1 I~ 0 answered this question no -- number 2 no, but I said there seems ~ .:r. :J " ~"o,' to be some problem and one of the goals, it appears to us, is <; -"I ~ to provide somewhere down the road either an amendment to the
Constitution or something, some form of relief so that the
'j question of an adequate education being a primary responsibilit~
::1) of the state somebody will have the authority to act and get
'I the job done in an adequate manner.
))
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. We'll take note of that
and hopefully

DR. ADAMSON: Something will come out of it.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Something will come out of it and

reflect that. Okay.

Let's move to item 3, "Should the State be required

to assume a greater responsibility for the financing of public

education?" Mr. Mullins:'

5

DR. MULLINS: I find that a rather difficult question

() to answer yes or no. I believe that the state has the primary

obligation and should provide for the adequate education. Now

~ that is going to require certainly more money if we're talking

') about a greater percentage of the revenue. Are we talking about

more total dollars? You know, I don't exactly know where we're

going there because this comes out in a lot of different

theoretical approaches to the financing of education. If this

case goes through to success and if our present method of

; -I 0>- financing education is declared unconstitutional because of the J' < [
15 ~ enrichment question then we're going to have to come up with
.:;;;
III '~" a new mechanism. There are people who say let's go full state ()
2.
<:
17 ~ funding. Then a committee that met the other day where Cal

and Clark Stevens and Pete Hackney discussed this matter, well, 1~) you know, you're talking about basically one billion additional

20 dollars in order to "equalize" educational opportunity for all

.: ! students in Georgia. Well, I don't think that would be

" ! realistic to think that's going to take place because that
" \ would increase the state's total budget by 1/3. On the other ,, ~r side in the adequate program of education you have a section 25 called district power equalization. Now that program, you know,

: doesn't really answer all the questions even though it moves

toward equalization. It's cost factors. I know it was talked

a little bit. The cost on that, if you used it as a property

tax reducing method it may run a hundred and thirty four to a

hundred and fift.y mi.llion dollars in the 90th percentile level

() ! of funding. But if you didn't reduce taxes and you just put

money on the top up to a certain cap then it would cost you

somewhere between two hundred and twenty-five to twc hundred

and sixty million dollars or so. So when you start talking

about a yes or a no it really is going to get into a problem,
z".
II ..., I think what I heard Clark talk about. How much money we get
; ") ;1':
" 'J is not as much of a problem to us as how do you distribute it
2:
.~!~""o. ~ and there lies, you know, the greatest difficulty and if you

h,; say state doing this are we not then eliminating perhaps

~; Good morning, Senator.

!t,

(Senator Starr entered the room.)

DR. MULLINS: Y'all want to introduce Senator Terrell

Starr for those who don't know him? I don't think anybody jl doesn't know you.

SENATOR STARR: I'm sorry I'm late. I've been on the

long parking line out there.
,)
DR. MULLINS: So really the question in my mind comes

down to the point of where does the local fit into this? Are

we going to look again at increasing required local effort for

the locals, their share of contributions to the education of

I' ,\ \, I 26

their child? Are we going to look for full state funding? I

don't believe that, I believe some part of the latter. So I

guess on that one I'm a fence rider. I don't think that's a

,+ yes or a no answer to this question.

DR. ADAMSON: I answered yes, but I said not the total

cost and I guess in reality I haven't really differed from Jim

in that it's difficult to say to what extent it ought

x to be one way or another. I take it when you say the state

() assume a greater responsibility for the financing of public

10 education you're trying to get at the percentage or the state

L1 7
i 1 :; dollars for education, but I'm not so sure that that can 't be

"'-

I. ~ interpreted that when the state assumes the responsibility that

~ !~~~.s0~) v'~\-,}"._""!,,

~"-
~

it

is

saying

the

state

is

going

to

assure

that

a

local

school

\2,:.:::::./ / 14 district __ that it participate in a fair and equitable manner


l:
15 '~and the state is going to make some provision for equalization L:':":>"
3 of the local systems to do that and if it does that then my
a
T.
~ answer would definitely be yes. ~here would be no fence

I " straddling at all when it comes to that particular part of it.

19
..
:'1

DR. MULLINS: That's a very good statement CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Any comments?

21

DR. MULLINS: If we're not going to question that one

n let me make one other statement. When you start looking at this

whole question of equalization of educational opportunity via

the dollars in the school system it's almost going to require

us to look in a different manner to how we determine how the

dollars are distributed. I'm not coming up with a distribution

system, but I'm saying this, if you look at Mitchell County
J.
-' for an example you may have property rich-income poor folk.

4 If you look at Heard County you may find property rich-income

rich situation because of what happens to be on the land. You

h can have smaller land masses and greater income, more revenue

7 to support local government in these areas as opposed to greater

x land mass with less income to support: the existing students in

9 another county. So it almost requires us to look at each of

10 the 159 counties with 187 school systems as to the income that

L1

11

~Z


1S

available

by

county,

as to the value of the property and the

o
"-
~,

L~ ~ ability of that property to be taxed upon those people's income

';:"~-1

;~:

(\::~=~;h~/,='!"!'.

~
,~,

and

the

cost

of

living

factors

in

each

of

those

counties

and

14 ~ I don't think we've ever really, you know, on a definitive


r
15 ..,.:>", basis looked at these differences to see if we can not 'OJ
It, ~ catagorize various counties to such kinds of factors where one (l z <:
j! ~ county may have to get more because of these problems. We do

l~: ! a lot of things in the state where we can do quick start

Jl) programming and other kinds of things. We have vocational and

technical schools where we're relocating industry, where we're

21 increasing that local property tax base and the state's actions

) ) are going to say more populated areas in doing this have

tendency to skew the income toward those particular areas.

You'll also find local option sales tax will be found more in

these areas. So you will have greater opportunity to provide

1'.\\,/; 28

for local government in certain areas of our state than in

2 others and I think we all recognize that, but I think as we

3 approach this whole question we may have to think of it in

4 terms a little different than how we have thought of it in the

5 past because administratively it's easier just to come out with

h a formula and everybody get some of the same. I would sU9gest

7 ! that probably John's case will make a very strong point to show a flat grant comes from the state with the freezing of the RLE

<) and thereby he has an opportunity then to throw off on the

property tax as enrichment which is causing the differences

between counties abilities to provide educational or equal

educational opportunities to its students.

MS. GREENBERG: Do you feel that a provision should

be stated in the Constitution?

] 5 .~
'-"
.>:
::>
16 ~ 'oz" <
]7 ';;

DR. MULLINS: No. MS. GREENBERG: On question 3. MR. GRAHAM: If it's the state's primary obligation

](i then shouldn't the State of Georgia, as we have tried to define

that, also insure that funds are provided to meet that

2U i obligation?

11 .:-1

DR MULLINS: Doesn't that imply it?

.),

DR. ADAMSON: I think it says so right now. It says

_,.'' it shall be a primary obligation of the state through taxation.

2\

MR. GRAHAM: I'd like to have something a little bit

25 more than OPE which is a bunch of words on paper. That may be

1

PAGE 29

implied there that it's supposed to do it.

~.,'.;

2

roo'

DR. MULLINS: But that's where your statute comes

3 in though, John, and I think this is what the Senator and his

4 collegues are going to have to grapple with with the various

5 resources. But if you shackle them with the mechanism then

h there's no need for that other consideration based upon the

realities of the political environment and the needs and the

~ laws and so forth.

q

MR. GRAHAM: I'm not suggesting that the Constitution

10 ought to tell us what the mechanism is for providing the funds.

'z"

11

I f-.
cr~

think the Constitution ought to say the State of Georgia shall

o

"-

12

I:,:
U

insure

that

there

are

funds

provided

to

maintain

whatever

u.

educational standards it sets, adequate, high quality or whatever

,

\4 i: words you want to use.

~

I

15 .:>

DR. MULLINS: I think it says that when it says shall

I':)

~

:'

Il,

zI;;; "a'

be

provided

for

by

taxation.

z



[7 ~

DR. ADAMSON: The question is taxation at what level?

SENATOR STARR: The courts are going to tell us.

I':

DR. MULLINS: Sir?

2U

SENATOR STAFF: The courts are going to tell us to

21 do this. It's inevitable.

1)
DR. MULLINS: They're going to tell us to do it.

MR. GRAHAM: I wish I was as optimistic as you are

about that.

DR. MULLINS: You've got a lot of cheerleaders.

!':\ '., i< 30

MR. GRAHAM: Never seen both sides of the case

2 pulling for the same thing, only the Attorney General's office

3 is in there fighting.

4

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Are there any other comments on

5 I item 3? Okay.

o

We'll go to item 4, "Should the State be given more

I'
7 Ii authority to set minimum educational standards for private

k schools?".

DR. MULLINS: I'm going to say no. In the

10 Constitution, first of all, the education of its citizens is

"z 11 ~ the compelling interest of the State. I think case law has
o
@C<>. w 12 ~ stated this. I think though that the division of private
~(~~ .~.~ ~ parochial/public schools was assured in the landmark decision

-'......:.-..__.. I

i
14 ~ of Pierce versus the society assistance and I think there you ~ 1:
[) ~ have the right to go whichever way you want. But the state has ~, ex: :::J
10 ~ to say that that particular parallel form of education, private 0 z <
17 '""" education, must at least provide basically what the public

1(; schools provide. I think over in Dekalb County you've got a

It) case looking at that issue and we're going to see many more,

20 but I don't think the Constitution should reflect that because

21 I think you will come in conflict with the constitutional

1 ' cases. _,.,

DR. ADAMSON: I said yes and I disagree with Dr.

24 Mullins on that particular point. I firmly believe that there

should be minimal educational standards for education regardless

r r - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- ..--~~----- -- -- - - - - -

PAGE 31

of whether they come from public or private sector. As for

the carrying out of the setting of those minimums that's a

.\ statutory authority and ought to be put in the statute rather

4 'than in the Constitution, but there should be in my opinion

S The Constitution should require some minimal educational

o standards for public schools and for private schools. Let's

face it when you talk about public -- when you talk about

education if you're just going to set up an educational system

'} and there are not going to be some minimum standards required

lO for it you're not doing much even in the public sector.
l? Z
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: And you also have difficulty

determining whether or not the adequacy is the primary --

primary responsibility has been met.

14 r
>-

DR. ADAMSON: That's right. What are some of the

<'A

I

1\ ~ measures that you put on to determine the pUblic school system

':"J

J('1 'zX_l of the state and its political subdivisions are adequate.

C,

"<-:

:::1:
en

There

have

been

a

lot

of

general

guidelines

that

we

have

used,

I ,- but none of them really apply to private education.

) ')

DR. MULLINS: I think case law has related to

:'.') frivolous equivalency, but when we get into adequacy that's
,
i even a challenge back upon what we're doing in the public -,-, schools. I think there's a difficulty when you try to go into

::::3 the Constitution of the state with that kind of a statement

.:cl emotionally and theoretically and personally. I believe they

_c-- should have the minimum standards. I think that can be handled

i'\;1 32

through the statutes and if the statute then come,s into

~~

-: conflict with the Constitution then it will fall.

3

MS. GRAHAM: I'm a little bit confused. If you want

4 standards for your private schools how are you going to enforce

~ that if you can't enforce them in your public schools?

(,

DR. ADAMSON: That's the whole problem.

MS. GRAHAM: I mean we're back where we started.

DR. ADAMSON: And I guess that thing that I'm trying q to relate is that if we're going to give a private school the

10 authority,as the courts have, to exist to provide education

! 1 ~~ there should be some minimal s set by somebody somewhere to do

()

o

.~

r.~ : it.

(/'(7('?~V~0r~!!"~ ~~

\'\."--- //I

~

MR. GRAHAM: You're talking about licenses.

'--.-------

14:
~

DR. ADAMSON: There's no such thing as a license for

<

I

a private school.

;:,

J() ~ w

MR. GRAHAM: But if you had to do it and you had to

Cl

L <.

17 :; enforce it you do it through a license.

DR. MULLINS: That's the way you do it.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: But anybody who wants to start

.)0 ! a school can get a --

21

DR. ADAMSON: In any place he wants to start it in

any conditions. You know, even the question of adequate

restrooms for the kids in a private school is not addressed.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Dr. Pressly, you want to comment

on this based on your experience in this area?

PACE 33

DR. ADAMSON: The State Department can go in and

2 look, but there's not really anything prescribed what meets

~ the minimum that a private school shall have in terms of

4 education, one hour a day, two hours a day, six hours a day?

5 How many days out of the year?

DR. PRESSLY: Let me say that traditionally this has

7 been accomplished through accreditation. Both the Southern

x Association and the State of Georgia have looked over the

q i independent and private -- independent or private schools.

I(!

DR. ADAMSON: What percentage of the private schools

'z"
11 ~ are accredited? You see, when you look at that question

(I c.

"O''

SENATOR STARR: Use the church schools.

DR. ADAMSON: Segregation academies is my terminology

]4 ~ for a lot of them.

'<
1:
1:; ~~
l:) <>: .:>

DR. PRESSLY: I would agree with you that we

lh

OJ
,Z",

obviously

have

some

in

the

state

that

shouldn't

even

exist.

I

C.

Z

:

<.

0:
'D

don't

question

that

at

all,

but

the

ones

that

really

have

any

I ~: respectability about them have attempted

I9
,

DR. ADAMSON: Have done a marvelous job and I don't

2U disagree with those who have done that. Where my disagreement

is is as a means of avoiding some social issue or something

" that they don't want to. They run out and start a school for

ten students or five if they want to.

SENATOR STARR: Say you have a child that goes through

third grade in one of these christian schools and then they want

to come to the public schools, what criteria do you measure

them by? Are they ready for fourth grade? How do you handle

3 that?

4

DR. ADAMSON: Most of the schools use some sort of

5 test and we run into a real problem with this because many of

h the youngsters don't meet

7

SENATOR STARR: I just know scores of these little

H church schools.

DR. ADAMSON: The other side of the coin is many

10 school districts in order to get the kid~ back will just say

'z-'
11 ~ you come back and we'll welcome them with open arms.

o
"'-

12 ~
\/(7;~~~~r'~~

SENATOR STARR: To get those numbers up. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: But if you had a clear set of

14 ~ minimum standards then you would have something to measure them

<:: r
I 5 :~: up against.

'"'.;)

J() .~..

DR. ADAMSON: Yeah, but I'm not saying the

c

z

<

J1 ~ Constitution ought to dictate what those minimum standards

are. The Constitution ought to require some minimum standards 19 and then let the statute take over.

20

MR. GRAHAM: It seems to me if the legislature

21 recognized that education is the primary duty of the state they
., )
would look at licensing maybe as -- That would establish some
) : standard.

DR. ADAMSON: That's a political question.

MR. GRAHAM: It is a difficult question.

rr------------- -- ----------. -------
DR. PRESSLY: You do know, for instance, there is

2 obviously, and I'm well aware of this, there's a great loophole
:';'
3 here. But let's say the Georgia Association of Independent 4 Schools, for instance, no school is permitted to be a member 5 of that that doesn't reach the level of accreditation and even

fj above it. So with your accredited schools and the members of the

7 official organizations, as I see it, there's no problem because

'i we've insisted on this all the way. In fact, I will long

Ii

I'

9

,1
1

remember a

time when

down

in

Columbus,

Georgia

we were

having

)U a meeting at this association at a time when some schools were
'.'
JI ~ in the organization that had no blacks within the student
'o"
~.
12 "~' body and we had a great war over whether they were going to
(\~(:..(c,~~),~J c..,..,,~ .~~- be permitted to stay in or not and we ruled them out and I had
,.,:=/); I
J4 >- the embarrassing situation of one of the head masters of one ~;; <l :x:
15 .:> of those schools pointing at me and saying, after it was all
""";OJ
.16 :~ over and the voting was over, you have ruined my school and o l ,t
!;' ~: you are responsible for the fact we've lost accreditation. And

maybe I was, I donlt know, but he had no business in that

19 organization. There was no question in my mind about that

20 because he wasn't living up to the standards of the organi-

21 zation. Now this doesn't even touch the ones that I call

fly-by-nighters.

,-,

_.)

SENATOR STARR: That's the ones that bother me.

.;4

DR. ADAMSON: That's the ones that bothered me too.

DR. PRESSLY: I agree wholeheartedly something needs

'\1

36

to be done.

MS. GREENBERG: Are you saying that for a family

-' to educate its children -- their children it's wr.:)ng or the

4 child is getting an improper education and it's strictly a

5 family situation? If I wanted to teach my children I think

(, I could do probably as good a job as the school system could

do and if we set some sort of guidelines the General Assembly

S shall provide for minimum standards for schools you're really

I
9 :1 preventing a lot of good -I

10

DR. ADAMSON: That's what this Dekalb question --

MS. GREENBERG: But why couldn't we rather than

address the school address the student, say that a student

shall be provided with a good education and there shall be

minimum standards that the students must meet? That way you

get at the student and you allow for all types of schools that

you're sure that the student is going to get the proper

education. So if I want to teach my child in my home

DR. ADAMSON: You don't have that right.

19

MS. GREENBERG: Presently.

20

DR. ADAMSON: That's what this Dekalb County case

21 I that Jim mentioned is all about.

DR. MULLINS: You see you've get the compulsory
,,
--' attendance law and that says you're going to go to school. Now

the state has a compelling interest to see that all of its

citizens are educated adequately. Now the question then comes

down what is adequate and in the situation like you speak of

2 can this be determined adequate and what kind of assurance does

~ the state have that that child is going to receive the

4 education "adequately"? Now the only thing that's given us

5 much guidance here, I think, has been case law and I think

h statutes can be enacted. I think John hit upon it in licensing.

7 The Independent Association of Private Schools set standards

g that can also go into the Southern Association or these other

9 accrediting agencies and meet certain minimal kinds of things.

10 Now whether that's adequate their definition of what it takes

to be accredited that's up to question as well, but at least

it gives some uniformity, some consistency relative to what

they consider a school to be and what should be in that school

and what kind of people are teaching those students.

<:

:r:

15 ~

MS. GREENBERG: That's still not addressing the

"'"::J

16

co
,z.,:

question.

Even if you have a facility and everything is great

a ',:



17 '"" it's not addressing the problem on whether the student is

Ij ":~ getting -- If you set minimum standards at each level --

Il) ;:

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Even if you had the best

20 equipment, the best teachers, required the students to go day

21 and night you could not guarantee that the students themselves

are going to receive and perform at a certain level.

MR. GRAHAM: We're talking about providing opportunity, 24 whether they take the opportunity is another thing.

DR. PRESSLY: I do, though, think we can determine

whether a school is itself doing an adequate job by our testing

program. I have great confidence in the testing program at

3 grade levels. That doesn't mean every child in the school is

4 going to come up. Obviously, some are not going to, but I

5 think you could set a standard. You would have to have a

certain percentage that are reaching such a level because

7 obviously you're going to have some that can't do it no matter

how hard you try and they try, but I know testing programs are

9 not well enough received and you couldn't have put that in as

10 a state obligation. But I personally have a great deal of

confidence in the fact that if you have child if you want to

say that's been educated at home that has reached the fourth

grade level that is reading and working arithmetic at the

eighth grade level then obviously the child is getting an

education. Well, someone could argue he's not getting the

co

u:

::>

16

~
w

group

reaction,

but

if

the

family

then

immediately

took

in

Cl

"l.

<i

17 .~ some other kids and had ten or twelve then they would have

is the group reaction. There are all kinds of ways here -- I

J9 wish we could reach the point where our confidence in the

20 testing was such that we could establish that as a means of

judging.

y)

MR. OWENS: Any testing in any situation should be

the sole criteria for evaluation of accountability of the

2\ ' school, the teacher or the student. It takes a multitude of

2~ different criteria in order to determine what that student

f'\ 't-, 39

really has learned. Many students have difficulty in writing

and expressing themselves in examination, some don't have clear

understanding of taking examinations. I think that's something

that maybe the schools or society as a whole in certain areas

of the country have fallen short on. The aspect of test

taking, although for the lack of something better it's what

we use many times, but I think other things should be added to

it as a means of evaluating that student's school or teachers

t) or etc.
il

JO

DR. MULLINS: Well, educational accountability demands

It "~z some educational criteria by where a child has learned what he

o

0w

12 ~ is taught and in that lies a problem. This goes back to the

;'C;c>,'V""/')1, \

~ j:

,((\.J) )~~"'D
<:~;;//

~
~

state's

responsibilities

versus

those

of

the

local

school

14 ~ system's under the state's authority. If you do not have a

':<r:
]5 ~ curriculum that has been sequenced, that goes to every subject
:"':">'
10 ~ area from grades 1 through 12, I'm not talking about minimal oz <
17 ~ standards, and given to each of the school's teachers in this

Id ! state and by that the supervision of it can be delivered and

19 from this the testing program that will determine whether the

20 child learns will forever be in this test taking argument

21 i because right now our tests are not valid. They don't reflect

anything. We don't have a curriculum and until such time as

you have one that's usable and that is being seen through

supervision to be given to the student then your testing will

forever, you know, be a question of contention. You have two

1

PAGF' 40

terms of val idity you've got to deal with on tests and they -, won't work for you then and for all children, regardless of

:1 race or sex or whatever the other problems that we have across

4 various categories of people it will work if you've got

5 internal validity, that is, the test purports to measure what

() it's supposed to measure and it has external or curricular

-: validity, that is, it reflects what is being taught. If you

,1\ have those two things you can get at those kinds of objective

q problems.

~;

10

DR. PRESSLY: I couldn't agree with you more because

t:l Z
11 ~ for many, many years I worked on the accrediting committee for o "-
12 "~' the Southern Association and so many times we would be
~~ <O_~ .~ ~ accepting or rejecting a schobl and we were looking at things

[4 ~ like the square footage in the classrooms, which I think should
<:
I
15 ~ be looked at, what the faculty's salary was, which obviously
':'""> 16 ~ should be looked at, all of these objective measurements that
c,
2:.
<
17 ~ must be observed and carefully followed through on. I couldn't

JR agree more on and that's what you're sayinge So many things

19 have to be looked at, but in the final analysis I never did

20 think that we paid enough attention to where what happens

21 to the children, where do they arrive in the school and the

22 reason is it's so darn hard to determine and yet I think we

must keep working on that and working on it and refining our 24 methods and our procedures until we can do it because some

25 schools are doing a fantastic job in this and the next school

PAGE 41

in the next county isn't doing nearly as good a job. Both are

accredited, both are getting -- paying the same salaries, same

3 kind of building and doing an entirely different type of -- a

.:j I different job as far as the success for the students are

concerned and this is what I think we need to watch very

b closely. I'm taking us off base here.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I'm going to get us back on base

S i and see if we can't summarize what has been said on item 4.

MR. OWENS: Can we go back to the standards?

10

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think we have a split decision

JI 'o,". in terms of our resource persons. Mr. Mullins has indicated

. 'va

l.~ ~_". that the Constitution should not include statements relative

.\~;~ 3-):':-\.~-(,!~;~

~
I

to minimum

standards

and

Mr.

Adamson

said

yes

and

I

think

that's

14

)-
~

what we

wanted

to get

at

and

I'd

like

to

suggest

we move

on

the

r<

15

-:J IJ

next one.

:":"1

1() '~
~
C,

MR. OWENS: Then we're in abeyance then. One is

1.

1 / :; saying yes and one is saying no.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That's okay. They're just here

to give us information.

DR. ADAMSON: You're the one that's got to make the 21 decision. We've got the easy job.

MR. OWENS: I know I've come in late and I know you've

done a lot of discussing, but let me bring up one point for

consideration with reference to the standards of private

schools.

i'A(,J: 42

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That 's in reference to number 4.

-

MR. OWENS: Most of you can reflect the private

3 schools in the past before integration if you go back some 15,

-I 20 years. All of you can -- I'm sorry, ladies, you can't go S back that far, you're too young. But anyway, the private

6 schools were rather sound. Many times people would send their -, children to the private school who could afford it early in R the early days because they felt that they got what we call a

9 very good beginning, a formative foundation and you didn't

10 hear about the standards of private schools or the concerns

\z:J

[1

i=
r::r:

about

them

as

much

until

the

recent

years

and

that

was

when

o,.

12 ~"' all of these 1600 or 2000 private schools have popped up in

~(/~C1~J/SGV~J~d ,-C-""_'''.

.~
v.f.

the

state

as

a

means

of

avoiding

the

integration

process

and

\.

'J

";'

14

~ r;;

that's

where

we

have

reached

the

substandards

in

most

of

the

<: r

IS ,~ private schools that we have. Some of the old est:ablished

\:J
'".:J

!!l '~" ones still have some very good programs putting out very good

o
z -
11 ~ students and everything as such. I look at them sometimes in

l~ a negative sense only because it affects the public schools,

19 the monies, the students, things of that nature and it lowers

20 our ability to operate the public schools and I am public

21 school oriented with all of the schools popping up with no

standards, no guide as to how they're to be set up.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. I think Dr. Adamson told

us he had to leave. We would like to get through as many of

these as possible. How much time do we have?

,

l~

. __ ._~

..

. ~_ . .--- .._--_.

. \l-~--~--~~----~~

PAGE 43

I il

DR. ADAMSON = I need to be back in my office in

ii
II

2 ;1 about 10 or 15 minutes. I've got a 10:30 meeting over there.

Ii

J

II
,I

I'll let them cool their heels for a few minutes but not very

I'

4 long.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Let's move quickly to item 5.

h It reads, "Should Section VIII of Article VIII on 'Freedom of

7 Association' be retained in the Constitution?". Mr. Mullins?

9
10 no.
,-0
z

DR. MULLINS: Yes. DR. ADAMSON: I don't see any need for it. I said
DR. MULLINS: Why I think it should be in there?

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Well, first of all, you understand

the argument that that's been the question that -- I know where

it came from.

IS "'
'u";

DR. MULLINS: I know where it came from, but I just

.:>

J(

~
~
o

read the words and I don't find the words to be offensive to

l

me. If you take the words out you open up other kinds of

p;
I, situations. I just start getting into the whole area of

19 collective bargaining and professional negotiation when I think

20 of this kind of thing coming out.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Let me just share something with

you, what we came to an agreement on last time. We said the

statement "Freedom of Association", the statement itself, the

title seemed to be okay, but when you read the paragraph the

paragraph seems to be contradictory of the title and the

paragraph says freedom from compulsory association at all

2 levels of public education shall be preserved inviolate and

3 we said that if it read freedom of association, if you remove

4 the from compulsory -- Is that what we said? What did we say?

5

MR. HILL: We weren't really sure exactly.

6

DR. ADAMSON: I don't know what it means either.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I believe we looked at the time

that was put in here. It was put in here around the

desegregation time and it seemed to me it was a statement that

10 sort of provided for protection for those students.

! 1 ~. ,::,; o .,Cl..

MS. GREENBERG: I did research on this and I have a

.:>,
u

paper which

I

could

hand

out.

It is a result of the Board of

~

Education Decision in 1954. What happened was the General

Assembly provided for a commission to study the school laws

15 .:> in Georgia and the commission, which was called the Sibley

a<::J

::J

It>

"z'
w

Committee,

came

up

with

some

recommendations

to

circumvent

0

7.



17 "'"' the u. S. Supreme Court's decision in Brmm1ey v. Board of

J1) Education and if you'll note on page 1 where it talks about

19 the recommendations, the first recommendation was that the

20 General Assembly propose a constitutional amendment that would

21 forbid compelling the attendance of a child at an integrated

"- school against the will of the parent and provide for

_".' reassignment to another public school or a tuition grant. And .2\ on page 2 you'll note about the middle of the page the

following laws implementing the recommendations of the committee

PAGE 45

on schools were passed in the 1961 session of the General

1 Assembly. Number 3 was Article VIII, Section XIII, Paragraph

3 II, ratified in the general election on November 6, 1962,

states "Freedom from compulsory association at all levels of

s public education shall be preserved inviolate. The General

(c j! Assembly shall by taxation provide for an adequate education

7 ! for the citizens of Georgia." This recommendation and this law

1< is now found in Article VIII, Section VIII, Paragraph I of the

() '76 Constitution which is found on page 69 of your brown

10 copies which is titled Freedom of Association.

~;;
,I I "z
o'"
o.

MR. OWENS: Would that not be in conflict now with

] ) the federal laws?

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think so.

J l ;;;

MR. OWENS: If it's in conflict it's out of place

<
:r

I ') ." in the first place.

CJ

'";:)

] (. z'" w

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: In the face of this new

Cl

Z

I -,

<:
<>:
OJ

information do

you

still

think

it

should

be

in?

] ~~,

DR. MULLINS: When you read this without the backgroWld

j ') information, you know, you have to read it for words and even
.'
20 though you had that kind of history bringing it to this

,
i,.

particular point I still think it could very easily be

1 -' ..

interpreted. For example, we had school superintendents and

:~3 school principals several years ago that would penalize

~1:.' ;. teachers for not joining G~when it was GEA before it became "~S GAE, even to the point of saying if you don't join you won't be

f't\ GE 46

rehired. Now that's what you would call compulsory involvement,
",
2 you know, in the educational enterprise and I think that even

3 today under statutes and such there's protections against this,

+ but I guess with this information it does put a different

) perspective, but I think the words will still read what they

() say.

'7

MR. OWENS: Without sounding impertinent, state

K organizations -- and I don't agree with this compulsory joining

q of any association or group, but the state organizations now --

10 I feel that it's better that you join. They don't say you've

...~)

l:
1) '" got to or you're going to be fired.

The point is if you don't

o
", w
t ~ ~ join they'll find a reason next year that maybe you will not
I'\.~S''V--'b''l.~,
I ~,~: o~',m,',!O " be where you were this year. One in particular it's easy to

\""''-~':'/

,'J, I

state

is

the

vocational

group

and

it's

tied

in

and

you're

going

I;; ,~ to join that vocational group and you're going to attend those r,.r:J.

:.0 I,

meetings

and

I'm

not

trying

to

be

impertinent

in

making

the

D

Z

<:

, --1

!.l~
'"'

statement as

such,

but when

you're

a

part

of

a

thing

sometimes

l~) ,: it's just good to be a part of it.

Jl)

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I have one point of order.

:~o

MR. OWENS: I didn't mean to be impertinent in that.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I do want to have comments from

Dr. Adamson on two issues, one is the method of selection of

the State Superintendent of Education and the method of

24 selecting the State Board of Education. Those are the two

issues I didn't want to let him get away before commenting on

,':\(;1<; 47

r~~~~ then we'll come back to this issue. This is item --

il , II
;Iii 3 you?

MS. GRAHAM: You open large cans of worms, don't

4

DR. ADAMSON: Let me just give you quickly the

5 answers that I've put in these for what they're worth. They

6 , don't cost you anything and that may be what they're worth,

7 ! but I'll be glad to give them to you anyway. I said in number

k 5 that that should be no, should not be retained and my reason

) being that this just appears racial motivated to me and that's

10 behind us. Let's get that out of the way and go on with the

II ~ job. o "-

I~ ~

"Should either the State School Superintendent or the

/r;"~V?J-:_I.~\

-~

5 k~))J "". ~.!'. members of the State Board of Education be elected officials?"

'.

/' I I

VI

-~ _/,

\

14 ~ My answer to th~t not necessarily. I definitely believe that



I

is ~ the State Superintendent of Schools should not be an elected

<!)

:'":'

JIJ

,0
.:,

official.

I think he should be an official who is hired to do

o

2.

<'
]7 '; the job and as I have said to the other committee that I met

1II with pertaining to local school boards and superintendents

] 'j if he don't do the job somebody ought to kick his behind out

20 and get somebody who will do the job. That means that if you

elect him he's really not subject --
., ,
SENATOR STARR: That goes for superintendent.

DR. ADAMSON: I serve at his pleasure anyway. I'm

not on the Merit System and the same would go for me also and

associate superintendent. I firmly believe that.

j'.'\CE 48

Now to get to "Should the method of selection of the

2 State Board of Education be changed?". 1 1m not sure that the 3 right answer is going to be to elect board members. I think

they ought to be a policy making body selected in some manner

so as to represent the public and that sort of implies to me

a change from their being appointed by the Governor. 1 1m not

" sure what method that I would go about. Maybe the selection of

8 State Board members could be accomplished in some manner

~ similar to the State Highway

10

DR. MULLINS: Transportation Board.

DR. ADAMSON: Transportation Board or some other

form of it being done by either the people or the representatives

of the people and therefore thatls why I hedge as to whether

or not they should be elected. I am firmly convinced though

15 ~ and still maintain that at the local level the board should be

o

"::">

16 ~ representative of the voting public and should be elected and

c

L

,

< :~

then

hire

a

superintendent

and

at

the

state

level

the

l~ superintendent should be selected by the policy-making body to

lq carry out its policies and whether or not that policy-making

2U body is elected I'm not sure that that I s a way to do it in the

21 State of Georgia. 1 1 m not against it, but 1 1 m not sure thatls

\l the best way to get the job done.

Terrell, have I -- You perked up a minute ago. Have

24 , I answ~red the question?

25

SENATOR STARR: You couldn't have said it any better,

Cal, as far as I'm concerned.

DR. ADAMSON: As far as the composition of the State
:~.
3 Board, the State Board should represent the State of Georgia cl as a whole coming from districts. The congressional district

S method of apportionment as now"'done more or less represents a

h certain number of people and I think that's what the intent

7 of the numbers of the State Board is anyway so that the

>J. constituency out there has somebody that they can go to at that

t) level. So I said no, don't change it.

!O
"

And then, "Should qualifications for members of the

II

CzJ ;

State Board be provided for

in the Constitution?".

No, it

o0:

0w

J2 ~ should represent the population and every individual in the

:.,~~.;';10\

~

\(u.;;..;>1);-="'" ~ state ought to have, you know, the right to serve on the

_.///
- ....--'~

11 ). board. ~ ,~ r
15 .:,

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Including those who represent

::,
16 ! book publishing companies and the Governor? Under the
Cl
z. <:
.', :~ Constitution it allows -- prohibits the Governor and any person

]\ connected with book publishing companies --

1'1

DR. ADAMSON: I do have some strong feeling about

_:() that. I was referring to requiring that they be a college

graduate or that kind of thing is what I was referring to.

)"'

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Associated with any public or

:'3 private

DR. ADAMSON: I would agree with that. Vickie, I'll

give you that and you can have them.

L'AU': 50

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: On behalf of the committee,

2 doctor, we want to say thank you.

3 :1

DR. ADAMSON: Thank you for letting me come. I

4 enjoyed it very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

5

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Now we can go back to item 5. I

o I think we've probably done enough on that at this point.

DR. MULLINS: I concluded my statement on it this

3 way. With what Vickie gave us, this kind of research background,

9 it would appear that that particular item in our Constitution

10 could be an affront to a great number of our citizens. From that

standpoint, I would have no problem having this infor.mation in

hand to say, you know, remove it and I think through the First

Amendment we have freedom of association anyway. So I think

if that's what y'all were hoping to get around to you've got

15 ~ it under the United States Constitution.

'.0
:':">

16 ~

MR. GRAHAM: We're talking there in that section --

"z

)7

< ~

about

the

first

sentence

of

that

section

--

the

second

sentence~

Ix I don't know how it really connects up.

19

DR. MULLINS: Only from this we begin to see --

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It means that they'll provide

21 the monies.

MR. GRAHAM: But it says provided by taxation. It

_, .,' goes back to what you said about meeting the primary obligation.

,,

.."

DR. MULLINS: There's no need for that

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. Let' s now get Dr. Mullins'

PAGE 51

thoughts on 6.

2

DR. MULLINS: I agree with Cal on that one entirely.

~ I think the State School Superintendent should be appointed.

4 I believe that the State Board of Education should be elected

S or selected according to some other method than presently being

() done. On that latter point, the method that I would lean

7 toward more than any other would be the one that Washington

R uses and this is where they have caucuses of the local Boards

(l of Education in that congressional district to choose their

10 representative to the State Board. Now the reason I like that ..:.....
;t
our present State Board is composed of a fine group of people

who deliberate very hard and diligently upon the problems,
however, traditionally these people have deliberated in
l'l ;: Atlanta. Very few of the constituents of education know who
~
<
1:
1'; ,~, their particular State Board representative is. They all know ,~ u: :=>
i() '~"' who the senators are, they know who the representatives are, c z.
j7 ~ they know who the Governor is, they know who the commissioners are, they know who the local board is, but they don't know
I':) ~ the State Board person and they're going to be given more
20 i guidance in education through the decisions of the State Board
_)I' than they are in the local board and therefore it could be that
they need to be more reflective of those people. Now that also
231 goes into the next part of the question, I believe, that the 24 local superintendent should be appointed by an elected local
Board of Education. If you have local boards elected and

caucusing to select their State Board the people have direct

involvement. It also ties in with what Cal was saying about

not having to go into a great listing of qualifications for

board members because when you have these people who had been

selected by the local folks to lead their educational

enterprise they're going to try to select people as a group

that also reflect those attitudes toward excellence, if you

want to call it that, in education and we're going to get a

better selection. I don't mean a better selection of persons,

but a better process via the selection.

MR. HILL: The local system subcommittee is leaning

toward leaving the local boards elected or appointed as they

are on the effective date of this Constitution and thereafter

the local people could change them by referendum if they

15 ~ wanted to. Would you still feel this would work if we had some

L"
':";,

16 ~ boards elected and some boards still appointed?

oz

~:

17 ~

DR. MULLINS: I think it could still work. You're

18 going to still be dealing with citizens of Georgia who are

19 deliberating on the educational question and therefore I think

20 they can better select the person that they feel should

21 represent their particular congressional district on the State

22 Board making those larger policy decisions. If you go to an

~-' elected State Board person I think you get into many different

~4 problems. I don't think the problems are expense. I just

there's a problem in selection and I think the same thing

PAGE 53

would reflect over to regents. You need an individual who is

2 there for the purpose of deliberating on the matters of

3 education and has a dedication to that kind of deliberation as

4 opposed to somebody who just wants to hold down taxes.

MS. GRAHAM: Could I challenge you there. We, as

you know, have been through this locally in our county and I

7 was kind of suprised this morning when everybody kept talking

8 about local school board members even wanting to keep taxes

9 down. I guess that's because my mind doesn't run on that

10 track, but you still have to remember somewhere along the line

"z

J!

l-
oe<

you've got to keep some accountability at your state level and

0-

w

0:
.U..

the

Select Committee

has

already

said we will

never

go

for

both

of these, the superintendent and the State School Board, being

14 ~ appointed. That was in the paper. I gave you the article.

<l

r

15 ~

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: But I think it was not the method

1() ~ of appointment for the School Board was not ever clearly CI z. <
" :ii defined, not in the manner in which Dr. Mullins has defined it.

JI you?

MS. GRAHAM: Do you still have the article I gave

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: The newspaper clipping, yes.

21

DR. MULLINS: I don't know what the Select Committee

11 said, but the general feeling -- I think you would find over

most categories of people, legislature, Governor and others --

I think the Governor, Terrell, would be quite willing to have

the State Board appointed and let them appoint the Superintendent.

I'A(~E 54

I think on the other hand the legislature as a whole may not , be as willing to give that concession. I think the legislature

3 might be willing to select by legislative caucus as they do

4 I on the Transportation~oard. I don't think the Governor would

5 like that because either one of the two tend to put sort of a

6 plenary control implied in either the executive branch or the , legislative branch. So I think both of those two things may

~ not find adequate support.

9

DR. PRESSLY: Describe for me how the Highway Board

10 is set up.

11 ~

DR. MULLINS: I think probably Terrell could tell

o

w"-

12 ~ us better.

(~~o._.~ ~

SENATOR STARR. Each district -- You have ten

,~

14 ~ districts. Any representative or senator that touches that

r<

15 '0 district, like you've got a piece of the pie, they all in

u'':>:

::>

16

zr.o waz

caucus

vote and

they

select by process

of

elimination and

<:

i7 ''"" agree on someone. It's a difficult process. I know in

selecting our Highway Board member last time we met a half a

19 dozen times and finally selected a person, Jim, who wasn't even 2() considered initially because we had a stalemate. We had one

from Clayton County that we wanted and one from Haralson County
,", that they wanted and we finally agreed on Young Longino from .,_-,' Fairburn, but it was a good compromise It worked out .. We've
.,..., kicked this around a lot and everybody knows how I feel about

it. I can't conceive still of a person running for the State

Board of Education districtwide. It's just unthinkable, but

"

2 by the same token I like maybe a combination of what Jim is

3 saying, have your local board members involved in a caucus,

4 then recommending' three names maybe to the Governor who would

:1 appoint or confinm by the Senate or recommending three names

(, to the caucus to be elected like we do the Highway Board

"' members. That would get the parties involved in a pretty good
1\ cross section process. That might be the best answer.

C)

DR. MULLINS: That is good. I like that.

J()

SENATOR STARR: Have the local districts recommend

\:J
II Z~ to us in a caucus where we select -- like we select the Highway

o
Q.
w
12 ~ Board, but only have three names maybe to go from going in.

"",?Y.ft(J.,

,~

((~~j))'J 000""'0 ~ That process has got a lot of merit to me.

''-".':/:~/

~I

J4 ~

DR. PRESSLY: That sounds good.

!;;

<

J:

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Finish your statement.

'C-)"::

;;J

16 ~

MS. GRAHAM: Another thing I wanted to add is that

,~

a

0:
17 ~ locally we kept getting comments like well, if you have an

IX elected school board you won't get anybody qualified to run.

!(l Well, I'm here to tell you that in my district I have an

."2U opponent wi thin my party and there are two opponents in the

2l other party. So that's four people who are running for this

one district school board post. We have a doctor, an attorney

an educator.

SENATOR STARR: That don't necessarily fit all

,~, situations.

PACE 56

MS. GRAHAM: We have 18 people in Glynn County who

2 are running for five school board posts.

3

SENATOR STARR: That's great, but in a lot of

4 counties you've got to beg somebody to run.

DR. MULLINS: That's true.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Well, I think the difference

7 where we are now is that we've gone a little bit further in

R defining how -- what the process might take place that would

9 involve the people who involve the representation of the

1U people of Georgia and they would have some -- At least their

"z
11 ~ interest through the process would be somewhat protected as

...o
0..

12 ~ opposed to the Governor appointing directly both the board and

/;/~?'~~\

:.

. k. ..~ \,.Q,'J"),~)Jr~!"O

oJ
V1

the

superintendent.

,

J,~ "

j--
on

MS. GRAHAM: I'm not saying that it can't work. I'm

oC T

15 ~ just saying I think the people of Georgia are going to demand

'"::>
ii, 3 some type of accountability and when you start having both c.z.
17 ~ appointed then I think that's a problem.

18

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Do you think most people in

19 Georgia understand that there's basically no accountability

for the State Superintendent? I don't think they know that.

21

MR. OWENS: Most people don't understand that. I

22 I don't think -- Most don't even understand what the State

Superintendent's responsibilities should be as they have set

up now and as someone mentioned a few minutes ago, most of them

do not know the members of the board. They know the St.ate

PAGE; 57

Superintendent, who he is, his name. They do not know the

:,;.

.~, members of the board, but if they were elected they would know

3 the members of the board. You see, that's where that

4 accountability idea comes up again, the one or the other. I :; don't think it's been a problem with us as to whether or not

6 the State Superintendent should be elected or appointed. I

7 think right off we said no problem with that. Where we have

R , had problems trying to bring things together is what or how

; should we deal with the members of the board and I know that's

10 what we're discussing now.

l'

Z

I I i-
0'

DR. MULLINS: Terrell said -- What Senator Starr said

i:)

c'"

~

l' ~ to me makes more sense than anything I've heard thus far to

be very honest with you because it does marry all of the

j "1

>~
~~

various groups

together that should be involved in that


I
:5 ~ process and you're not eliminating anyone and you do have .:J 'C"l
!() a~ accountability.

z.

<0:

1'7 ::;

MR. HILL: Under the Washington plan are the

is nominees limited to the members of the boards themselves or

are they able to go out

DR. MULLINS: No, no, they can select --

MR. HILL: Anybody, okay.

DR. MULLINS: Start delineating those who are

available and you run into other kinds of problems.

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Who puts forth the person's

name? If I wanted to run I'd have to get somebody on one of

those boards to sponser me?

2

DR. MULLINS: Let's put it this way, you're going to

-' have to get your name in some way. You may walk in yourself

4 and give it, but it's got to get in.

SENATOR STARR: You can get anybody to put your

() name in. You submit the name and they vote this one, that one,

7 I get a concensus of the local delegation, you branch out and

k you start getting enough support to get your man.

MR. HILL: How many members are there in a typical

ji) congressional district? How many members of a board of

\ I education?

l' J
; ~~J~~),f~"

DR. MULLINS: Ten districts in 159 counties. MS. GREENBERG: The Washington state plan that he's

14. >-- referring to says the State Board of Education comprises 14 '"

! ...; members, two from each of the seven congressional districts '-

-'

j ; of the state elected by members of Boards of Directors of

;~

1.

17

<,
y

school districts within their respective congressional

~~ districts.

Ii

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: They also have to have the

2() election based on the majority of the persons who are present, .,. but you also have to have a majority of the School Board ,,
members present.

MR. HILL: But my question is how large is this

caucus going to be? Is it 150, 200 people that will be getting

together?

- - - - 11---~----

I I!II

DR. MULLINS: The mechanism by which that's carried

:1

2 :1 out, I don't think the Constitution would relate to. I think

3 you'd handle that --

MR. HILL: No, I just wondered from a practical

standpoint.

"

SENATOR STARR: Well, you're talking about five to

seven members in each county. How many are on your board?

MS. GRAHAM: Ten.

')

SENATOR 'STARR: Normally in a district you would have

10 15 counties. You might have --

."

2
II Z

DR. MULLINS: Seventy-five to a hundred and fifty

I')

u.

"'

1.: ::

(;:<--C.,V--1,i,,:'"1\. ~\ e""",,. :~

,,'-bJ))1--- u

\,:...."=~'~/_/

VI

members.

SENATOR STARR:

You could have a right sizable --

?: In selecting the Highway Board we'll have 35 to 40 members

<..
r.:
I c. .~ involved in the selection of each Highway Board member because
".c
::>
jn ~ you'll have that many representatives and senators that will o z
I 7 :"";. touch it in some fashion. Then we have a minimum requirement

j,\'; :: that have to be there present and voting to carry and then

19 I the majority holds of course. So it could get a bit unwieldy

:W like you I re saying.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Who runs it in the State of

Washington? Does -- Is the superintendent the one that goes

to the meeting and actually manages this process? I couldn't

pick that up from reading it. Did anybody find out who

manages the process?

1':\(;1 60
DR. MULLINS: No, I don't know, but you see, just , Ii like it was indicated, you have maybe 15 school systems within 3 a district. Assume that's so, then what you could do is each 4 school board would have one vote but they would do their own :. caucus about the person they wanted to support them. Then you

() could limit --

7

SENATOR STARR: That would narrow it down.

MR. HILL: And if there were only three that's what

9 they're going to be coming up with, three.

lU

DR. PRESSLY: Where will the three names go?

''':)
z II ....
'",o,,,-

SENATOR STARR: Well, I was just suggesting off the

~

1.' : top of my head that you would submit those either to the

,(\/\t/~JC:l"f.:-6~l_t".:0'Jt,\J\~)c'--un...o

~ 3
~

Governor

or

the

General

Assembly.

All the components are

14 >- confirmed by the senate and they might be sent to a district !;~ < ~
1S ~ caucus much like we elect our present Highway Board members,

,~
'""J 16 ~ those three names and then that caucus would in turn select

Czl
<:
17 ~ from those three.

18

DR. MULLINS: I like that.

it)

SENATOR STARR: That's a pretty good possibility if

20 we don't want to go to the election process.

21

MS. GRAHAM: I guess I'll go to my grave fighting

that issue. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Well, you have stronq support

from Mr. Vann.

L _ _,

MS. GRAHAM: Is that a guarantee?
,~__.. '----

I'A(;E 61

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: From the last meeting he was

very strong on this.

MS. GRAHAM: Have you got some support back there?

4

MR. OWENS: I'm looking and listening to these other

alternatives that they're bringing up. I have not been

() convinced that we are going weaken the quality of the State

7 Board with an election. Now in any kind of selection or

election or appointing of people to things there can always o be some problems of quality or whatever and I can see how some

10 persons with money and popularity and yet having no good feel

for the education can get elected, but we still have those

people out there and I believe that in most cases they make

some pretty good decisions.

DR. PRESSLY: I do too, but I just don't believe you

I ~l' could get anybody to run districtwide for a job that pays

,-'

'::">

,n

j [, 3 absolutely nothing.

o

z:

<:

l~:

MS. GRAHAM: We're going to change that.

SENATOR STARR: Unless they have an ulterior motive.

J)

DR. PRESSLY: Unless they have an ulterior motive.

MR. OWENS: Some have a motive of wanting to serve.

MS. GRAHAM: Well, there's a reason the people want

to serve on the State Board of Education. For one thing, it

keeps them informed about what is going on in the State of

Georgia as far as education is concerned and another is that \ ~, there are & lot of other fringe benefits and that is that many

1 I times the State Board members get to travel like to Washington,
I
II
2 D.C. and places like that at the state's expense.

3

SENATOR STARR: That won't fly.

MS. GRAHAM: Well, like one of our local board

members is appointed and the person made the statement that

he or she, I don't want to say which, anyway, the board member

7 had really enjoyed serving on the local board because she had

8 been able to travel a lot.

qI

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: She now.

10

DR. MULLINS: Isn't the issue though, Miriam, not

lz?

11

;::
t:t.

so much what the benefits are but what the local

constituents

C'

>

i 2 ~~ are going to be benefited by that representative on the State
(~\ ~.: ~)-- enn",.~ Board?

'---

i

14 >

MS. GRAHAM: You're right.

v,~.

<

r

15 ,',

DR. MULLINS: If you've got those local boards having

.:J

":>

i ()

,cn L w

direct

input

as

to

that

individual

who's

going

to

represent

0

Z

<

17

<Y-
en

them not only are they going to

feel

ownership

in that~ member

IN but that member is going to feel obligation to, you know, his

19 or her constituents in that district. There will be ~ greater

20 tie between the State Board member and the constituents within

21 the congressional district as a result of such a process. An

22 I election may not do that for you because it depends on where

,~.

.

'
)

the population within that district is located can play parts

as to where they may be more obligated as to other areas of

that district.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Under this provision, this

appointment for full term -- How -- If they're elected you

; could recall them, but under this process if you make a bad

4 decision is there any way to correct it? Say on Highway

5 Commission, how do you correct a bad decision?

SENATOR STARR: Well, they're appointed for a certain

term and of course you could have a recall provision just like

you would on any other official, I'm sure, but that's something

9 we'd just have to work out mechanically.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I was wondering if we could bring
'z"
that in to sort of ease the concern.

SENATOR STARR: How would you recall them right now?

MS. GRAHAM: Well, at least you have the option of

putting them out of office.

., ]') 0

DR. MULLINS: If they were elected and you recall

.::">

ji;

n Z.

on

the

elective

situation

you

can't

recall

a

State

Board member

z"

<

17 <e>n' because they're appointed and confirmed.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That's what I was asking. I know

under the present system you can't do that, but under the

20 system through the caucus mechanism would there be any way

Could the caucus recall them?

DR. MULLINS: Is it necessary because really we can't,
, ,.
any of us, guarantee that our decisions are inviolate. That's

the nature of the human being, but what you do is within your

mechanism you set up your length of service. Personally, I

PACE 64

don't think you should have a seven year term. I think it

2 should be four.

l

SENATOR STARR: I agree. I think a four y~ar term

"I would give you that accountability.

S

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We haven't even raised that as

() an issue and I think we ought to put that doWn as somethihg we

7 ought to be concerned about and that is the length of term.

,\

SENATOR STARR: A four year term -- Ms. Graham, we

'! did talk about that at one of our first meetings, didn't we?

10

MR. OWENS: The idea you brought up a few minutes

II ~"z ago of maybe the individual boards causussing or forming a

<,:.>

J.~ "~' causus of themselves and then from that maybe they have one

~~~ ~ /~~l~\,

~

......, vote when they all come together. that cuts out some of the

14 ,. cumbersome ideas -- cumbersomeness of the size. But I want to
..:
J:
15 ~ add something else to that. I'd hate to put all of that -'o-X" :>
16 :~:: Although some other states or groups, boards of education, z <
!7 ~ state groups, have the idea, I'd hate to put all of that

!8 !I!I responsibility on the school boards. I think we need to move 19 out into other areas and pick up people. For example, all

20 that's right in the boards of education, right at that crust

21 top area without touching base with maybe some of the other

" educators in other areas.

",,:,_,,

SENATOR STARR: Odell, don't you think by the process

Ii

2,l of selecting people they would do that? For instance, as it

2~ presently works if there's going to be a state board member

PAGE 65
Ir------------ ---.._--~
I il appointed the Governor's office checks with members of the

General Assembly and the whole congressional district to get

a sense of opinion on it. I would think if our local board

members were going to be selected the person to nominate to

the state senate caucus or the state house and senate combined

() i' caucus for purposes of selection of the board they would check

with the superintendent, they would check with other county

officials and they would check with the PTA groups, they would

') check with GAE to make sure they got someone really dedicated

I(I to education before they would recommend that person. You

,? 7-
11 ~ want to always get a good selection process, but you're touching o o.

j 2 ~ a lot of possibilities.

':SV-t:h ~\

=;~

r----- L:'...J; ) u ;. ."".' ' . ,",-,) ClllTtfllO ;:;
\l

MS. GRAHAM: I have no hang-ups with the present

\'

/ /i

if;

~.~.:/ /

14 ~ State School Board myself. I mean, I think many of them are

<:

I

15 ., doing a very good job and to me this is not the issue, but I

,0

':":>

::,

~U

7.
'a"

am

thinking

about

the

citizens

of

Georgia

and

I

don't

think

z

they're going to go along with both of them being appointed.

I don't care what procedure you use and we do have to be 19 realistic. That's why we're here.

20

MR. GRAHAM: I don't call what Dr. Mullins has

.21 suggested as appointed. It may be quasi-elected, but it's not

, appointed.

23

MS. GRAHAM: But that school board member is still

24 not "elected".

DR. PRESSLY: It's mighty close to election. It's a

quasi-election.

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think if we could get some

3 conCensus here. Somebody is going to have to do some

4 education We're going to have to sell it to the public and

5 I think when the public finds out that we have a superintendent

6 now who can lido what he or she wants to do with no accountability

7 to the board", the board can't fire him or her, that would

cause me much concern if I was an average citizen out there

just finding out for the first time.

10

SENATOR STARR: The alternative might be better.

"7.

11

MS. GRAHAM: Well, that's a good selling point.

MR. HILL: Well, of course this will always be an

option available to provide for election of the school board

members. I mean everyone knows that's one option. So the

beauty of this proposal is it really. is a halfway point

!:J

~

~

1()

J~
!u

between what was originally proposed,

which

is

appointed

by

"i:.

<

)7 ~ the Governor, or election. It really is a compromise

position so it would be a good thing to propose at least to

19 have down for people to react to and always you can fall back

20 on the election if it's absolutely necessary.

2\

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. I think we've covered the

Decision Agenda and I'd like to express on behalf of the , ,, committee appreciation to Dr. Mullins for his contributions.

24 Also, I'd like to remind us on the 28th we're going to be

hearing from Dr. McDaniel and I also would like to request that

maybe, let's say at the end of the 28th meeting let's see how

4 close we can get to a concensus as a committee on these items.

So I would like you to give some serious thought -- July 28th

at 9:00, we're going to be meeting with Mr. Vann who has some

information he wants to share with us. At 9:45 we're going to

~ meeting with Dr. McDaniel.

q

MR. OWENS: July 28th?

JO

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Yes. I'm sorry, you weren't here 41

I; ,- We have two more meetings scheduled as of now: July 28, 9 :00,

12 u and that may be all day so keep your schedule open, and on the--

f, r\~U.SE;Y~.:!".J\4/\\/IJ-'='~'~,:; August 18th.

_-_ _' ~,~_~./'/ ",// ..... ..

I, .r. _~

MR. OWENS: We will be dealing with these questions?

!;;

<;

T

J:; .~

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: With Dr. McDaniel on the 28th.

.~

:'"-,'

:., .'"~ However, after we finish that I do want to see how close we can

az

<i

~ get in terms of concensus of this committee on these issues

,. because that will allow us to begin to do some preliminary

1'.1 drafting work for the August 18th meeting.

MR. OWENS: May I ask a question? The ideas that you

21 had with reference to the structure of possible selection or

using the term quasi-election process of the board members,

could we get that sort of structured?

'.1

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think it's a good idea. I

think that we talked about, and I would like to ask the staff

to do this, the last time we summarized several alternatives

and the superintendent could be elected, the board could be

3 elected; the superintendent could be appointed, the board could

4 be appointed; the superintendent could be appointed by the

board or appointed by the Governor, the board could be appointed

(1 by the Governor or by the legislative district method or by

local elected school board method and I think it would be

instructive to us if we had sort of a summary of those

variations. Is that asking too much?

il)

MR. HILL: We'll be happy to put together just a

z

it", summary of what the options are. I don't want to draft these

o

0.-

;.,,~cYlid\

,'"~' u

for each of these proposals.

I think all we have to do first

~.

.'I'\r.I~E;-"\)\.)).'/"-"-",-. :: is to decide which way it's going to go. We can certainly

\<~- j /

'

1, describe -- And based on the meeting today, we have much more

1; of an idea what that last option is, the local selection

process. So we can describe that. We'll put it together to
,.
:r talk from at the meeting.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Could you put it together and

Ii mail it out so that we would have to chance to read it?

"

MR. HILL: Yeah. Sure, we'll send that out with the

notice of the next meeting since there are a number of people

" who weren't here, plus Mr. Vann from the Board of Education

will be responding to this on behalf of the Board of Education

at the next meeting on the 28th as well as the State School

Superintendent, Tom Vann, who is a member of this committee and

1' ..:\CE 69

a member of the Board of Education. Did you want to set up

the September meeting or would you rather wait till later?
..r ~
CHAI~ MEREDITH: Let I s wait until the 28th and ask everybody to look at your calendar for September or bring

your calendar with you so we can pin down an appropriate date.

Okay. Thank you so much.

f

Ii

,

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 11:03 a.m.)

;"1
;
!!

l' ! ",' ::;

70 C E R T I F I CAT E I, Peggy J. Warren, CVR-CM, CCR A-171, do hereby certify that the foregoing 69 pages of transcript of represent a true and accurate record of the events which transpired at the time and place set out above.
"
Peggy J. Warren, CVR-CM, CCR A-i7I
II)
(.,l
15 ,",
::'0

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VIII Subcommittee Meeting Held on July 16, 1980

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 7-16-80

Proceedings. pp. 3-6

SECTION I: PUBLIC EDUCATION

Paragraph I:

Public education; free public education prior to college or postsecondary level; support by taxation. pp. 6-46

(Private schools and freedom of association. pp. 30-46, 50.)

SECTIONS II: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, and III: STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT. pp. 46-66

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
..,
z 11 i=
@;;.'lo1"... ! 14 lV> <t :I: 15 ..:.>, '::"> 16 .~.. c Z <t 17 ~ 18
19
20
21
22 23 24
25

PAGE 1
STATE OF GEORGIA SELECT COMMITTEE
ON CONSITITUTIONAL REVISION COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VIII SUBCOMMITTEE ON BOARD OF REGENTS, ARTICLE VIII
Room 401a State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia Thursday, July 17, 1980 1:30 p.m.

PRESENT vJERE:

2

COMHITTEE MEMBERS:

3

MRS. ANNE T. HAGER, CHAIRMAN

F. SIBLEY BRYAN

4

DR. ALONZO CRn1

5

SELECT COl1MITTEE STAFF:

6

l1ELVIN HILL

MIKE HENRY

7

EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL:

8

DR. JIM MULLINS

9

10
"z
11 I-
.'lo".l..
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ I'" J: 15 .:> "'::"> 16 'z" 0z 17 ''""
Ig

19
20 21 22 23 24 25

PAGE l(a) ---

PAGE 2

PRO C E E DIN G S

2

1:30 p.m.

3

ANNE HAGER: I would introduce, but I guess we know

4 each other by this time. Mr. Hill suggested that we work from

5 this decision agenda and I hope all of you brought that with

6 you today. It was in the mail and I also hope you had a chance

7 to review the comments from the last meeting that were mailed

8 out--the big thick packet there. Doctor Friedman, and--Did you

9 get a chance to look through that?

10

JIM MULLINS: Not really.

t:I

Z

11 l-
e."o.<".

ANNr: HAGER: OKay. ~"1ell, I think first what we will

@ . ~~; do is to hear your comments on this agenda, if you want to run down that. We'll listen td you and after that we will discuss

! 14 I- it among ourselves. So we will give you the floor.

<II

:I:

15 .:>

JU1 HULLINS: Oh, that's nice. I always like to have

t:I

e<

~

16 .~.. somebody else so you've got somebody else to argue with .

Q

Z

17 ~

MEL HILL: ~\fell, you may have. You may have somebody

18 else, Henry Neel from the Board of-- may come by.

19

JIM MULLINS: Oh, Henry is a good man. Well, just

20 going down--this one is not quite as difficult as the one we

21 had the other day, at least from my perspective. First of all,

22 when you talk about shoulp the composition of the Board of Re-

23 gents be changed and I'm going to give you my opinion and the

24 opinion of my office and we say no. If you want me to clarify 25 on those thin~s I will do so but, I think a response there if

PAGE 3

you're not interested in clarification we will just go to the

2 next one.

3

ANNE HAGER: It has worked ,,,'ell in other 'words?

4

JIB HULLINS: I think it has.

5

ANNE HAGER: No problems?

6

JIM MULLINS: I think it has. In the unique nature

7 of the Regents and their mission to me declares that this com-

8 position is quite adequate. I don't know their feelings, but I

9 haven't heard them arp;ue too much about that. "Should the

10 method of selection of the members of the Board of Regents be

11

z"
i=
o..'"....

changed?"

And I don't feel th8.t should be done either.

I

@ ; j think the methods by 'VJhich they're operating now is sufficient. However, in three, "Should the term of tIle members of

14 ~ the Board of Regents be changed?" Here ,vllen ,'Ie are thinking in 1;; < :I:
15 olI this age of accountability and you have a seven term year of of-
"'":::I
16 .~.. fice thet these people are occupying and I think perhaps the Q Z <
17 :; background of that was Governors serve for four years and if he

18 appoints a regent who is going to be in there for seven years

19 this would have a tendency to at least moderate the influence,

20 you know, on those Regents in their decision making over the

21 university system. Four years, however, would appear in line

22 "lith ,,,hat we have our elected officials and also in line with

23 ,vhat some other Boards are serving. It would give an opportunity for 8.

24 Governor ';:J1:1.o does not succeed himself, the neoN' one CQITling in, to review the

25 accountability decisions of those particular Regents and if in

PAGE 4

fact they are doing a fine job I'm sure that they might find

2 themselves reappointed as we have found in our State Board on

3 numerous occasions as we have gone from one Governor to another

4 So, four years, at least to me seems to be responsive using as

5 the base line of reason accountability. You might have one who

6 is excellent. You may want to keep him on for fourteen, fiftee

7 years. That's fine. That's up to the Governor and the analy-

8 sis of that persons' contribution. I feel that if you keep

9 him in seven and guarantee him seven we have little way of doin

10 much with him until the closure of that service time.

Czl

11 ~

ANNE HAGER: Let me go back and comment on just two

o

0-

12 ~and three if it is appropriate. I guess it is just to discuss

(~) ~ ~ r ~ it at this time. What,and I guess I direct this to you Mel,

14 ~What are the, Melvin--What did the other committee do about the

':-"<r
15 ~ selection and the term of office? There was some talk about

~
::>
16 '~" maybe making the Boards the same.

I'm not saying we have to, but

z -<
17 : have the other committees?

18

MELVIN HILL: They haven't made any decisions. The

19 other committee hasn't made any decisions about whether to

20 change it. They seem to be leaning toward leaving the composi-

21 tion and method of selection--iJo, no the composition ,)f the pre-

22 sent State Board of Education the same. But, the method of se-

23 lection is really under--

24

ANNE HAGER: Their still looking at that?

25

MELVIN HILL: Consideration.

PAGE 5

ANNE HAGER: How about the term of office? Have they

2 shortened that? Have they talked about making it, like four year

3 instead of seven? 'Cause the Board of Education is seven years 4 too; isn't it?

5

~IM MULLINS: That's correct.

6

HELVIN HILL: They haven't really discussed that.

7

VICKI GREENBERG: But it is your opinion about the ter

8 of office of the State Board?

9

JIM MULLINS: Four years.

10

VICKI GREENBERG: You feel that they should conform?

CzI 11 ...
.'o."....

ANNE HAGER: Both of them should. Do you feel that it

~ 12 ~ should be comformative between the two Boards: the Board of

(@)r~ Regents and the Board of Education?

14 ~ t;;

JIM MULLINS: No. I think you've got two different

<t :I:

15 .:> animals, even in how they receive money. One is line itemed, CI '~"
16 ~... has very close scrutiny, has a very accountable mechanism Q

Z <t
17 : through the appropriations process by which this is looked at.

18 One of your questions in here later, requires to the lump SUM.

19 you know, item. Because of the unique nature and I'm going a-

20 head of myself but because of the unique nature of the univer21 sity systems that programs, for example on the graduate level 22 requires some intricate and expensive equipment, whereas when 23 you get into the public school system generally you're not face 24 with that type of a problem. So to line item, as an example a 25 university system you know it's not as feasible because of the

PAGE 6

different missions of the various universities; colleges, jun-

2 ior colleges and other post secondary institutions under their

3 control. So, I think with those unique funding differences,

4 that it has an effect back to say what might be well for the

5 State Board of Education doesn't necessarily relate to what

6 might be best for the Regents. So, if that makes any sense at

7 all, I would feel that compositions shouldn't be similar becaus

8 I don't think their ITlissions are similar.

9

MIKE HENRY: Are these terms staggered?

10

JIM MULLINS: Sir?

Czl

11 i=
.'"o".".

MIKE HENRY: Are the terms staggered?

~ 12 ~

JIM MULLINS: They were staggered, yes and are stag-

~ri gered.

If you changed anything of that nature you do just as

! 14 .... the Constitution presently calls for . If you're going into a

'z"

15 .:. four year term you don't want it staggered then you'll bring

Cl

'"::l

16

~...
Q

people

in

as

their

present terms expire "and then keep

them

under

four

Z

17 : which would in all probability, I haven't looked at the permen-

18 btions, but I would guess it would continue to stagger it.

19

ANNE HAGER: Okay.

20

JIM HULLINS: All right. On the Chancellor's position

21 in the Consitution I do not feel that he should be included as 22 a Constitional officer. I think that he is appointed by the 23 Regents. lIe is their Administrative head, he is that person 24 who is the Chief Administratoc of the Regent system. To give

25 him Constitutional authority as far as I'm concerned doesn't

PAGE 7

make good sense anymore than I think the State School Superten-

2 dent should be in that guise.

3

N-mE HAGER: Something that I was curious--I real de-

4 finition, I don't think we've had it between the chairman of

5 the Board of Regents and the Chancellor, their two jobs. They're-

6 not the same person, right?

7

JIM MULLINS: Oh no. One is a lay person appointed b

8 the Governor and the other is a professional educator who is 9 appointed by the Board to carry out their administrate--to ad-

10 minister their policy for the sysbem.

zCJ 11 l-
.'o."....
@;i

ANNE HAGER: And that is--
JIM MULLINS: The Chancellor.
ANNE HAGER: The chancellor and he is the equivalent

! 14 of the State Superintendant for the Board-of Education?

l-
'<"l
:J:
15 .!)

JIM MULLINS: Yes, you can make that similarity.

CJ
:':"> 16 .~..

NH1E HAGER: Okay .

1:1

Z

<l
17 ::i

MELVIN HILL: Now my question here was not so much

18 that we should make him an independant Constitutional officer

19 and give him separate authority. The question really was,

20 should some provision be put in the Constitution to state that

21 the Board of Regents shall appoint a Chancellor to serve as the

22 Chief Exective officer of the Board of Regents who shall serve

23 at their pleasure or some such statement. I'm not sure that thE

24 public is aware that the Chancellor is in fact the Chief Execu-

25 tive of the Board of Regents and that was my question. It was

PAGE 8

nbt to give hime some independant source of authority as much 2 as it was to add a clarification for the public. 80--

3

JIM MULLINS: Well, it's certainly not in the Consti-

4 tution as such, but the statutes and the authorities of the Re-

5 gents you know declare that they will appoint this person and

6 further more it then declares what his responsibilties maybe

7 statutorily. Once again, I think it goes back to a question

8 that we discussed yesterday about the general purpose of that

9 Constitution and whether we should relieve, I mean maintain it,

10 you know in general terms and let the statutes be, you know,
Czl
11 j: explicit definitions of those items and so I would still feel
..'o"....
~ 12 ~ that it would not be necessary to put him in the Constitution.
~r~! The fifth one, I .find that an interesting type of question whic 14 I think really must relate itself more to the legal researcher. Ioil ::t 15 .:I You can read through these things and have some opinions of CI :':"> 16 .~.. things that should be brought forward, but when we talk about Q Z 17 ~ the specific powers, duties of the Board of Regents as provided

18 in law existing at the time of adoption of the forty~five shoul

19 it be brought forward and included in this constitution. I

20 think first of all one has to research what those particular

21 statutes were. I understand that y'all are right now in some

22 bit of a legal debate over whether they now have the cloak of

23 Constitutionality. That is, laws that were subsumed under fort

M five and brought forward and if they do have that cloak of con-

25 stitutionality then the question is should you eliminate them

PAGE 9

or maintain the Constitution as \'I1ritten with those particular

2 statutes as part of it. And the research that \.oJould be necess

3 ary in my opinion is to see whether we have obsol"?te statutes,

4 things that are no longer applicaule, you knO\'l, to the opera-

5 tions of the Regents or State Board of Education, whatever you

6 are looking at and if so, eliminate those. If it's not necess

7 ary and tlle statutes that have subsequently been developed \Vii'

8 adequately handle that question then perhaps that should be

9 sufficient. So I guess what I'm doing is taking sort of a mid

10 die of the road in sayinf, that the research that tells Hhat

"z
11 ;::
..'o"....
@;I

statutes are there, their applicability to present operation and whether they should be Constitutional or not \vould be determined by the local researcher and if so then I would say thct

! 14 !;; -e( :z:
15 Q
"'";;) 16 .~..
Q
Z
-e(
17 :

that

they should not be brought forward. ANNE HAGER: Are they protected from beinp; repealed? JIH HULLINS: I think that is their debate. ANNE HAGER: That's what they're trying to say becausE

18 I wondered vrtlY you couldn't just say as provided by law, but

19 if there is a certain cloak then you have to add the other phrase

20

BELVIN HILL: Right. He sent out earlier to the mem-

21 bers of the Committee and I Hish I had been able to get this tc

22 you so you could have had the benefit of it, but \le sent a lis t ,

23 not just a list, but a copy of all of the la\.oJs which this re-

24 fers to. It's easier with the Board of Regents than with the

25 Board of "Education bec2Use it is very clear that we're talking about

PAGE 10

32-101 to--

2

JIM MULLINS: I read through those.

3

ImLVlf::L.HILL: 32-142 and well Henry feels that is in

4 fact what we are talking about so it's just a question of going 5 through each of those to see which ones need to be brought for-

6 ward. Now the one on the lump sum allocation is one that is

7 very important to the operation of the university system and

8 one that they would not want to loose. The Board would not wan

9 to loose under any case and they would like to see it given

10 Constitutional status directly. It has --

Czl

11 I-
.'ol1."..

ANNE EAGER: 32-116?

@;~

debate

MELVIN about its

HILL: Yes. status, the

32-116. Just to eliminate this feeling was, well let's just brin~

14

~
I-

that

position

forward

and

include

it

as

part

of

the

Board

of

'"

:J:

15 .:> Regents provisions in the constitution. And then the question

Cl

'":::l

16 ~... was, hThat other things are there in here? I spoke wi th Henry

Q

Z

17 : and he had said there was a couple others that he would like to

18 see. but I don't believe he felt that they were of the magnitud

19 of the first one. The lump sum allocation is the most import-

20 ant, but then 32-141 relating to sale of property in the uni-

21 versity system and 32-142 conveyances how executed, 32-143 use

22 of proceeds from these conveyances and 32-145 condemnation of

23 private property. Those--they wouldn't have to be brought for-

24 ward exactly as is, but language that covers those would pro-

25 bably be also helpful and then he felt that we could eliminate

PAGE 11

this reference back to these old laws.

2

JIM MULLINS: Yes, yes. Well, assuming that one want

3 to override the debate and meet those specific things the Re-

4 gents feel are very important and german~ to their operation.

5 I donlt have much argument with that, yet if one pursued the

6 debate and found that these statutes did not have the cloak of

7 Constitutionality then they would stand on their own as statutes

8 which explained the manner in which, you know, the Board of Re-

9 gents would be operated and where their money would come from

10 and how it would be given. I know that when George Simpson had
11 5CzI his problems with the present Board of Regents and Simpson was
.o".".
12 ~ very much liked by the General Assembly and sometimes not liked
~~- ~ by it , but more liked than disliked. And in that process when
14 .~.. they did eliminate the gentleman from his position there was a
'<"l;
:&:
15 ~ cry to say, weIll just line item you people. Now, that would CI 0<: ~
16 ~ certainly bring to bear concern about the lump sum provision
oz
<l;
17 : because the General Assembly can, as we know, change its statutes

18 but it is very difficult to change its CJnstitution except

19 through the Constitutional referendum. So if they got themselv s

20 incapsulated wi thin the Constitution there would be greater 21 safety, yet at the time same time I think my feeling goes back 22 to the original statement so I I m consistent on this point that to 23 get this specific in the Constitution in my opinion is not that 24 necessary. There are times when we see the need for organiza~~ 25 tional change. Not for the reasons just given, but there are

PAGE 12
needs ~\Tith the state of time and I think statutorily it's much 2 easier to do, much easier than going back to people on these 3 matters. So if they didn't have the cloak of Constitutionality 4 I would be in favor of continuing them as statute. It has \JOrl<5 ed for these many years. I don't see that ""e have much diffi6 culty in the future for it. And I think it goes back, once 7 again, Hel, to this basic difference. Hhen one looks at the 8 University System with the span of its responsibility, the Re9 gents as an appointed Board and I think that is necessary be10 cause I don't think the whittIer on the corner of the Courtl~use
can elect that person into that position to make the kinds of decisions he must make. Most of those fellows don't know the difference between ~ugronomy and t~e Junior College program. As a result they are not as qualified as a voter to handle the missian that these particular people that they would elect would have to have. In meeting the mission, they need the dollars. The lump sum provides them the opportunity even though it may 18 corne on a base formulae of equivalent fulltime students. That 19 money then can be redistributed in the manner that the Regents 20 see best to carry out the overall mission of each of the insti 21 tutions under their particular p:uidance. And I think it's tllere 22 the difference must be enhanced. Because the University of Georgis is a 23 flagstaff institution of the thuversity System with its broad graduate pro24 gram, Veterinary Science, Medicine, Law, and all of tIle other acad25 emic and professional areas requires a great deal of differencE

PAGE 13

between one to the other. If you're in Chemistry, as an ex-

2 ample and you're going to require electron microscopes that

3 costs up into the five hundred thousand dollars per unit, if I

4 took a course in Graduate Education and Teaching Methodology I 5 can get by there with an eraser, a crayon or rather what do yOL

6 call it--chalk and a classroom and maybe a mimeograph machine. 7 So there is a lot of difference in terms of the money that nee s

8 to be allocated to the type program. And I think Verne Craw9 ford right now in one of his task force is looking at the ques

10 tion of going to prograMatic funding, say as opposed to the

9 ; ;11

"z
j:
..o~....

EFT.

You've got a lot of argument between institutions like

Georgia Southern feels that they've got high EFT, but they don't

get the amount of money that a EFT would bring to that institu

! 14 tion, but the difference is their institution doesn't have the I:zii:
15 ~ programs that vJOuld call for that extra money as say Georgia
"~
:>
16 .~.. Tech would. So, Georgia Tech is going to get more money. And Q Z
17 ::'i I think that is something that the Regents vlill continue to do

18 if they are allowed to under their present system of Govern-

19 ments and I think that the statute is still protective enough

20 even if not in the Constitution.

21

SIBLEY BRYAN: I can assure that the State Board does

22 not want to have Constitutional provisions for line iteming in that budget.

23

JIM MULLINS: I'm sure they don't either.

24

ANNE HAGER: \-Jell, \'7ho is- goinr, to make the final de-

25 cis ion on that? Would it be the Supreme Court or --

PAGE 14

1'1ELVIN HILL: About \'I7hat the status of these lmvs is?

2

ANNE HAGER: Yes.

3

HELVIN HILL: A court when it vias presented with the

4 question. It's never been presented and it, to some extent, i

5 is an academic debate because there is no challenge to it, but

6 this is an opportunity to clear it up. We have the same probl

7 in the Board of Education provisions where laws as of a certai

8 date are frozen and it's not a good draftin~ procedure to refe -

9 ence back to laws because it creates this very problem so

10
I!I Z
11 l-
."oI>.".:
9;1 ! 14 !;; <:z: 15 01) I!I I>: ;;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :<;

going to make an effort in here to address it. We don't have definitive answer though as to whether they're Constitutionall protected. Fie had a debate last time between Friedman and Hen ry Neel about it so I'm not sure of it.
JI11 MULLINS: Were they on different sides? HELVIN HILL: Not after Henry explained his position. ANNE HAGER: But, you are always going to have laws you're bringing forward.

18

HELVIN HILL: He won't be repealing a single law. The

19 only question -- I mean all of these laws will continue.

20

ANNE HAGER: Will continue, right?

21

MELVIN HILL: So we ~lOn' t be repealing anything in

22 these lump sum allocations. Provis ions will continue as a s ta -

23 utory matter. If we didn't have this provision in here, we'd

24 not carry gorward this provision about effective at the date 0

25 adoption of this Constitution or the Constitution of Forty-fiv

PAGE 15

Then the General Assembly could amend this and --

2

ANNE HAGER: 011., I see, I see now. But then a deci-

3 sion does have to be made about how you're going to leave it

4 whether that's going to be blanket or whether -- or else you

5 put it in the Constitution where they can't change it. That's

6 what you were saying. It's a lot harder to change it in the

7 Constitution.

8

SIBLEY BRYAN: Are we not going to try to avoid sayin~

9 in all statutes in affect under the forty-five Constitution?

10

MELVIN HILL: Yes.

11 ;"z::

SIBLEY BRYAN: We want to -- if we make a decision to

.'o.."....

@;i avoid that language then \'Je have to decide '\That we are going tc put in the Constitution and what we are going to leave out of

! 14 the Constitution.

l;;

<I(

:I:
15 ol)

ANNE HAGF.R: You'd have to put it in to protect it

~

~
16 ~... then .

aQz
17

JU1 MULLINS: Seeing that the other side of debate,

18 one would assume that these statutes are certainly not under

19 the Constitution, but because of the nature of hO\J that Consti

20 tutional question was given in forty-five then it might be

21 assumed when the people said in all laws and statutes thereof,

22 you know, do have that cloak Constitutionality. Until the ques

23 tion is asked and that question, you know, could be asked by

24 the General Assembly. They get made at Verne Crauford and Lamar

25 Plunkett and decide \\Tell by Joe we'll line item them. Of courSE,

PAGE 16

you know we've got case law that protects that already. If so

2 then you might have a challenge and you may then have a Judi-

3 cial determination on that issue. I don't know that it needs

4 to be cleaned up by putting it in the Constitution, but a

5 Statute that explains what the role and responsibilities are

6 for the Regents and then how they are going to get their money

7 to carry out that mission. I think that is the role of the

8 statute and that is my only point.

9

~1ELVIN HILL: The Board would recommend keeping the

10 exact language we have before it would recornrnend what you just

e ; ;11 ;"..=oz..:.. proposed. That's our problem.

The Board of Regents will not.

I mean either this lump sum appropriation has to be put in and

14 .~.. we've got to keep the exact same iteros we had, which is not

'"

%
15 .:

something we're inclined to do either from a staff standpoint

"=;;)
16 .~.. or the Committees'themselves. I think there will be an effort

zQ

17 : made to clean it up one way or another. We can always fall

18 back on what we have.

19

JIM MULLINS: As soon as you make your recommenda-

20 tions you Immv, you have another whole debate when it goes

21 downstairs. It's a long ways from conclusion.

22

ANNE HAGF.R: Is it sort of like the sea. Ir comes

23 and goes in waves in "tlanting to change it or is there

24 you knm>J, from lump 811m to line item?

25

I just haven't been in on debates with that or does

PAGE 17

it just depend on Hho's in charge or

2

JU1 MULLINS: Hell, I think anytime that you challengE

3 the University System relative to how they get their money and

4 what they do with it, it always depends on the Chancellor and

5 the Constitution or the Regents at that time and their attitudE

6 toward appropriations people and the General Assembly in gener

7 al. So if they come in saying, "NoT,J here is what you' re going

8 to give me by damn!", excus e me. Then T,Je have the 1 ine item 9 talk coming out and as long as they are coming over and explair-

10 ing and justifying what it is that they need, then the General

11 "z~ Assembly normally enjoys that and gives them, most of the time, o "-
@;IIII what they want and a little more. And Verne Crawford at this time is in very high regards and so are the Regents. As you

! 14 .... know Lamar Plunkett used to be one of them dOT,Vl1.stairs and he i~

'<"t

:E:

15 ~ very smooth and capable.

"aI:
;:)

16 ~ III

ANNE HAGER: But it could be a precarious position

C

Z

<t

17 ::; if -- what someone like him --

18

JIM ~ruLLINS: Well, in reality I'll say that it's not

19 precarious. You just said the argument and debate -- to areue

20 and debate is one thing, but to do is a.nother. This is not go

21 ing to come about and I think just as recently as last year 22 you had Court challenge in other states where Legislatures werE 23 going to take away the ltrn~ sum approach to funding Regents ane 24 Systems and put it on a line item basis and they lost this bat 25 tle. They have I think it is the third time that that bat-

PAGE 18

tle has been lost. So there is at least some case law now that

2 gives some direction even though it's not impinging on what onE

3 would do in Georgia. At least there is a precedent.

4

H"ELVIN HILL: "Jell, the las t time when !1r. Friedman

5 spoke he said that it's a. "dynamic relationship" between the

6 Board and the General Assembly. There is a tension there that

7 is always going to be there and that it is probably to the best

8 bene -- it's to the best interest of both that it occur and

9 this lump sum allocation has been part of it, but he said the

10 way it's drafted and the way it's provided for now, it keeps

"z
11 i=
.'o"..

~

1M
12 ~

~rl
! 14 ...

'<"
::I:

15 ~

"'";:)
16 ~ 1M Q

Z
< 17 :

the debate rather short because everyone seems to agree that this is the way it is and must remain under the present system
JH1 MULLINS: So, it's interesting. SIBLEY BRYAN: To me, the question is, is it -- you say it might not stand the test of time, but the question is, is it something that will stand the test of time? For the reasons you say we should fund the University System in a lump

18 sum for the foreseeable future because of the nature of the

19 provision. Then I think it is appropriate to be a Constitu-

20 tional item.

21

JIN HULLINS: Could be.

22

SIBLEY BRYAN: If it is good management and always

23 will be, it's like -- it's good management to always have a

24 Board of Regents of always appointed, of always for those term

25 and always know their basic things. If funding is that basic

PAGE 19

then I think that you can put it in the Constitution. If it

2 is not then you can put it as a Matter of statute. But for it

3 to be a vehicle then the argument is that the Boa.rd of Regents

4 says, "I T/Jant it to be in the Cons ti tution so you Hon' t have tc

5 argue about it anymore." The Legislature is saying, "I ".Tant

6 that to hang over their head. We've got control over it. Af-

7 ter all they appointed 'em seven years out of seven", So I

8 don't know which - - it I s going through my mind which side is the

9

JIM MULLINS; Hell, I think that is part of the pro-

10 blem that y' all are having to wrestle with and I'm not ~1.elping

you that much with the problem except I agree on the front sidE

of what you say, that the unique nature of the University Sys-

tern does, in my opinion, at least require the lump sum, you

know, allocation for the reasons already given. Now, on the

other side it's a philosophical point of whether or not we

should start puttinp, in how it is to be funded within the Con-

stitution. You know, if we can say for Public Education it

18 will be and that includes to a degree your Regents because the)

19 are the educations being provided. At the same time, it's my

20 feeling that to be specific in the Constitution is going beyon<

21 the purpose, in my opinion, of the Constitution. I think the

22 statutes give definition and that's my only point and I say it

23 is a philisophical point. If it went the other way I'm certair-

24 ly not going to fuss or try to do anything other them support it.

25

MIKE HENRY; I think one argument that may be in favor

PAGE 20

of either putting it in the Constitution or not allowing it to

2 be a Constitutional statute is -- Do you "'ant the Supreme Cour

3 of Georgia to make your public policy when it comes time for

4 that provision to be interpreted? I would think that it "'ould

5 be up to the people to set in their Constitution what their pu' -

6 lie policy is or give it to the General Assembly and allow the

7 to set public policy, but don't leave it in this quasi-Constit -

8 tional status and hanging over their heads or have it have to

9 go to the Supreme Court and allow those seven people to make

10 public policy. It's just not the function of the Judiciary an

11

"z
i=

that's

where

it's

going

to

end up

unless

you

clarify

it;

I

'o.."....

~ 12 ~ would think.

@r~

JIB MULLINS: That's a possibility. Now, there is

! 14 another thing too, we've often, you know, done just as a point

I-

':z":

15 0:1 of inquiry; when we hear people come and ask for changes in lay

"'";;)

16 .~.. or ask for Constitutional Amendments to be given for referendu

oz

17 :: purposes, \'le like to first ask \'I1ho wants 'it and why do they

18 want it. Then we start looking at the nature of that organi-

19 zation and the problems they have experienced and the concerns

20 that may be coming forward. It gets you into a rather interes -

21 ing accountability philosophy. If I applied that to this sit-

22 uation, you might say that here the Regents are with the statute and the

23 statute gives thEJTl this lump sum funding, which the tradition has had sort

24 of a plenary authority to do it. the way they \vanted to do it.

25 They only had two things they had to assure and that is that

PAGE 21

you had an efficient and well organized operation as a result

2 of their decision whatever those two things would be. Now if'

3 they're now concerned about it, why would they be concerned

4 because even though there have been arguments over the years at

5 one time or another nothing has ever been presented to change

6 it. It's just been, you know, a place for argument. Now, if

7 they're concerned about it to the point of getting the protec-

8 tion of the Constitution on the issue, it may be also a way to

9 bring out the supports of accountability within the Regents.

10 It may ~Jell be that they need to come over to the General

11

"z
j:

Assembly

and

stand

before

the

Appropriations

Committee

and

'o.."....

@;i justify exclusively what it is they are asking for and how they plan to utilize these dollars. See, it wasn't too many

! 14 ... years ago ~Jhere they would say ~ve want some money for this,

'~"
:I:
15 Q that and the other and they would get it and then not use it

"'"::)
16 ~... in that direction and claim that they had the Constitutional
zo

~
17 ~

authority to divide it the way they \Janted to.

There is anoth

18 er statute in one of these that you didn't name that says if

19 they do allocate, for example, ten million dollars for a par-

20 ticular building at the University of Georgia Student Center,

21 they have to use that money allocated to that particular appro

22 priation for that purpose. And so, sometimes one might be

23 able to give them more protection than what they need and

24 then greater problems arise and then that would mean if you

25 had a Legislature that was of a mind to all they would simply

PAGE 22

do, they may not control hOH you spent it, but they can control

2 how much you get to spend and then we have more problems than

3 what we really wanted to have. Now, that's just political

4 realities as opposed to ,,,hat we should or shouldn't do. So

5 I'm playing a little philosophy on it and that's another rea-

6 son I think the statutes are so valuable. The statute hasn't

7 been changed and the method by which the Regents are given

8 their money and allowed to spend their money has not been

9 challenged except in argument by a few. So I don't thinle you

10 have the problem and therefore I don't think that ,,,e 'vant to

"z
11 j:
'o.."....
@;j

create a new set of problems by doing somethinp, perhaps we haven't done before.
ANNE HAGER: All right. So, have you talked about

! 14 ... BEN or HUD?

.<:crII 15 olI

JIM }lliLLINS: Well, I read all of those from the book

"'";;;)
16 ~... here and I think I 'viII have to go back to my original s tate-
.azc
17 :;: ment on five. I think that the legal research that shmvs

18 whether or not you have obsolete statutes to be eliminated,

19 but if it means brought forward under the Constitution, I

20 wouldn't think it should be brought forward under the Constitu

21 tion. I think a statute should stand the test of its OvJ!l

22 writing and for its O\VTI purpose. This number six is a I

23 think there is t,vo definitions that I ne.ed to be aware of from

24 the perspective of this Committee. ~Jhen you say, "Should all

25 state supported institutions". and I'm sure that means that

PAGE 23

it would different than if you sa.id, "all institutions that re

2 ceive state support". Now as an example we support DeKalb

3 Community College liberally, but they're not in my terms of

4 definition a state supported institution because they do come

5 under the DeKalb Board of Education and they do have one mill

6 obligation from that county to the support of that institution

7 and they do have tuition, etc. So I don't say that they are

8 a state supported institution, but we are giving a lot of statE

9 dollars. So if your definition means that, then I would pro-

10 bably say, "no". But, then again \V'hat about post-secondary

11

"z
i=

institutions?

Do we say that a Vocational Technical School,

.I.ol..l..:

@;I w~ich is education after grade twelve is higher education or de we mean by higher education Junior Colleges, four year collegs

! 14 and Universities? So, I think it depends on what you think

l;;

:I:
15 ol) about what those terms mean as to whether they should all be

"Ill:
::;)

16 .~.. under; and if not, which ones are not under? I'm not familiar

17

oz :

with it.

18

MELVIN HILL: The question relates to DeKalb County

19 College and it's more a -- the questions that came up in the

20 last meeting to Doctor Friedman vJaS whether he felt that it wa~

21 a matter of public policy, a good procedure to allow counties

22 or localities to create a new college or institution. However

23 here we are thinking colleges rather than vo-tech schools. It

24 'tV'ould not be vJithin the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents"

25 whether this kind of thing that happened with DeKalb College

PAGE 24

should be allowed to proliferate. If it would. And that "JaS 2 really the genesis of this question.

3

JIM MULLINS: Okay. Now, seven I think, relates to

4 vlhat you say. I feel this, that, "No, independent school

5 systems should not be able to authorize". You knovv, '.Je ran

6 into this thing two years ago at the General Assembly down in

7 South Georgia where they ~lanted to create a college dOvm there.

8 I don't feel that that should be within the authority of an

9 independent school system to authorize such a structure.

10

HELVIN HILL: Or a county school system?

"z
11 j:
...oa:
l>.

JIM MULLINS: Or a county school system. Absolutely

@;I not. I think each of our school systems with their unique position and missions have enough problems handling that as op-

! 14

...
'"

posed

to

looking

toward

developing other

institutions

of educa-

:r

15

~
"a:
:::l

tion on a higher level.

I don't think that is their role.

It

16 .~.. oz

is not their mission .

17 ::;

SIBLEY BRYAN: They do run the vocational schools on

18 occasion.

19

JIM MULLINS: They do and there is a question about

20
that.

21

SIBLEY BRYAN: Definition is a problem.

22

JIM ~ruLLINS: As you well know, we have four differ-

23 ent systems of governance for Vocational Technical Schools.

24 As a result we have different quality of delivery in each of

25 those schools and we have different sets of problems in each

PAGE 25

of those schools that raise even other questions. Hhat if that

2 local school system that created it, all of a sudden decides

3 they don't want it anymore and then they are not supporting it,

4 which is true in two instances. All that school is receiving

S is state funds and whatever federal funds they may be able to

6 draw now. And they're 8iving less of an opportunity to the

7

students

as

a

result

of

funding

limitations,

deteriation - ...- ~....' ~'-

..--.~

of

8 buildings, etc. So, you have a problem there. If you've got

9 the state operating two -- one North and one South -- they get

10 along pretty well for the most part because all you have to do

is get a Legislative Committee to go down and look at them and

under the state section of state operated school sections of

the budget we could throw money in there pretty easily and

they generally get it. I think there is a problem in referencE

to that whole business. You might ought to just hit these

three together, six, seven, and eight. DeKalb first. DeKalb

was created under a law, that I think is no longer, you know, 18 in operation and I don't think you can develop another school

19 in the manner in which that one was developed. Now, I may be

20 wrong on that so the legal people will have to be sure about

21 that one. DeKalb is a community college now with this un22 ique situation -- owned by the Dekalb County Board of Educa23 tion, supported by one mill 10calJy, supported by funds under 24 a special law that's a rather interesting thing from the 2S Georgia General Assembly each year. They come back each and

PAGE 26 every year wanting more and more money and we are studyin~

2 them right now at their request of a Special Board. I don't

3 think that you could subsume that particular college, but I

4 think you can keep others from being created.

5

ANNE HAGER: The Board of Regents does not have any

6 powers over DeKalb Junior College?

7

HIKE HENRY: Can you put conditions on that funding?

8

JIM MI.JI.LINS: Well, the funding. Oh yes the funding, you knOv-T.

9

ANN HAGER: Is that line itemed?

10

JU1 MULLINS: It is line itemed for than. Absolutely. And

Czl
11 j: see, we also do tuition equalization grants. That isn't ,vhat this is.
e ; i.'o0".... There are sane who are saying, "hlhy don't you put us on the same basis as you do the other private institutions who are getting tuition equal-

l 14 ization grants?" Those are grants that prevent us from having 1:z;;:
15 01) to expand the University System by sending students and paying Cl '~"
16 .~.. part of their education money, like six hundred dollars per Q z
17 g full time student. So DeKalb right now is getting far in the

18 excess of that, maybe twelve hundred and seventy-two dollars

19 per student already. They feel that on a full time equivalency

20 relationship under the tuititon equalization plan that they can

21 get more money than that. I think that they've got it figured

22 where they can get around nineteen hundred and tv-lenty-One dol-
n lars per student if they went to that. We've found that their

24 figures have been \l1rong several times and T.l1e jus t haven't spotted

~ that one yet. I do feel that all state supported institutions

PAGE 27

of higher education should be under the Regents and that's why

2 I ask the question about state supported. To receive some statE

3 support does not make you state supported, that's what I'm say-

4 ing.

5

ANNE HAGER: ~ut, you feel like anymore that would be

6 created from now on should be?

7

JIM MULLINS: Well, yes and I don't think that the

8 school system should be able to create them. They should be

9 created through the recommendations of the Regents and by the

10 General Assembly.

"z
11 j:
.."o....'
@;i DeKalb

MIKE HENRY: What are the advantages to the people of County to have their own community college?
JIM BULLINS: \\I'ell, their asking that question now

! 14 !;; themselves.

:<z:l

15 oI:l
""';;;)

HIKE HENRY:

I'm a resident of that county. Well,

16

~...
o

but

what--I

mean

they would

still have

to be

accredited,

I

Z

<l

17 ::; think or they v.ould still have to meet certain standards to

18 make sure that once you graduated from DeKalb Junior College

19 you could go to University of Georgia or you could go to some

20 university.

21

JH1 MULLINS: They are accredited That's not a prob-

22 lem.

23

ANNE HAGER: Your private institutions have to meet

24 the accreditation too.

25

JIM MULLINS: Only if they subscribe to them. Now,

PAGE 28

if tl1ey're going to get state dollars they have to do that.

2

ANNE HAGER: Is there chance someday the Board of Re-

3
gents might take over that college.

4
JIM MULLINS: Only by the college declaring to give

5
it up.

6

ANNE }iAGER: \rJe got into this at that other meeting.

7
There is no provision giving, isn't that right,the Board of

8
Regents the power to --

9
JIM MULLINS: Absolutely not nor should they have it.

10

ANNE HAGER: No, I don't think they ought to take it,

CzJ

11 j:
.0~.... but if DeKalb College comes to them and says, "would you please

12 ~

~@._r -~ ~

ii: you know we don't want to operate this any longer, we want to

~ turn it over to you." Are they somewhere legally able to do

! 14 !;; that or-%

15 .!)
CJ
'":)
16 ~

JIM MULLINS: No. In fact that question arises in

Qz the same issue of the vocational school under the local Board

17 :
of Education. Suppose they no longer want it. There is no way

18
for the State Board then to take it over, but there are numerou

19
ways it can be handled; in fact there are three or four ways

20 that can be done. One is very difficult where two system con-

21
solidate and as a result they handle it. Another is through

22 a contractual agreement, that could be handled. So, there are

23 ways it can be done if there is desire for it to me done.
24 COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I need to change my tape.

25
Thank you.

PAGE 29

JIM MULLINS: The last question, I think relates some

2 bit to this. When you say should tbe Constitution encourage

3 cooperation between the Board of Regents? I don't think the C 4 stitution should ever encourage cooperat~on. I think it should

5 provide for, you know the governance of handling certain kinds

6 of things. Now, it would be my opinion of all the arguments

7 that have been generated regarding vocational education and how

8 it's to be governed by an entirely separate third board created

9 by all kinds of animals or whether or not there should be com-

10 bination of boards and such. It brings us almost to this ques-

CzI
11 o..jc..o:..: tion, the Governor and his Liaison Committee has, I think it
@;i is, three members of the Regents and three members of the State Board to get together and not just talk about vocational tech-

14

~
l-

nical

education.

They talk about any concern that they have.

'"

:I:

15 ol) But, if you want to do something Constitutionally, then empow-

CcoI:

::>

16 .~.. er that so called Liaison Committee to deal specifically with

aQz
17 the question of vocational technical education and have their

18 decisions plenary and biriding'upon both boards from which they

19 r:epresent. In other words don't go back to the full Board with re~

20 commendation. They come to that as a represenLative of the Re...:

21 gents, as representative of the State Board and they are then 22 empowered to make the decisions for vocational technical ed23 ucation. You have both parties, I think that you can come out 24 with something that gives the State Department articulating fro 25 secondary to post-secondary and then that gives the control

PAGE 30

again back to the Regents in an manner of controlling post-sec-

2 ondary education, which is more in their realm than it is in th

3 State Departments' realm. The State Department doesn't fUlly 4 know what to do with post-secondary education and normally does

5 not do a _lot wi th it. So, --except to ask for more of them.

6

AlTNE EAGER: It was Doctor Freund, I guess who men-

7 tioned the contractual agreements not only between the Board of

8 Regents and the Board of Education, but the private institution 9 and suggested maybe some wording he said, "One of their re-

10 sponsiblities should be to work with all other similar institu-

I:l

11

Z
l-

tions

whenever

possible

to coordinate

their

efforts."

You stil

e ; ;.'oQ.".. wouldn't agree with that? JIM MULLINS: Well,

I think Doctor

Freund has some

! 14 tremendously good ideas, but there is one thing you've always

l-

UI

<l

IS

:r
.:.

got

to

look

at

when

you

consider

the

various

territories

of

I:l
'";:) 16 .~.. different segments of the Goverment either within the executive

Q

Z
17 :<:ll branch or between the various divisions of Goverment. They

18 will agree as long as they like what's happening and sometimes

19 they only agree to disagree. So as long as you keep it on that

20 type of a encourage cooperation and agreement, it's not going

21 to work. It hasn't and it won't. Now, when you talk about wha

22 the Regents and the State Department have done in terms of othe

23 schools recently, like Bainbridge, like Brunswick, like DeKalb,

24 here you have vocational schools in conjunction with junior ~ colleges. All right, you have the same kind of situation pri-

PAGE 31

vately over at DeKalb, that's four and you now have an agree2 ment that has just been signed for the fifth one; that's in

3 Clayton. Now, it makes good sense that's that where it should

4 be housed in certain respects. But, at the same time, with

5 that kind of contract, when you house on the universities sys-

6 tmens' property then the complete governance is now under the

7 Board of Regents. So, four of those five are Regent controlled

8 The department contributes, you know ,their share of the operation

9 of that particular vocational wing. They have no control or

10 say so over this operation, hiring, or etc. That then comes un-

ez)

11 i= der the administration of that institution. So, in essence you
'o.."....

~ 12 ~ are getting it and the trend must appear to be in that directio

~/~! when you consider you've got five of them and several years ago 14 you didn't have any of them.

t-
on ~ :I:

15 .:>

ANNE HAGER: It seems impossible almost to say then

Cl
'";;) 16 .~.. that either the State Board of Education or the Board of Regent~

Q

Z

~

17 : should operate all of those. I mean you can't really separate.

18

JIM MULLINS: Yes, there is some problems either way.

19 The State Board of Education with its primary mission of ser-

20 ving elementary and secondary education also, to, have to vi~ 21 politically for dollars, you have maybe twenty three hundred 22 and fifty five superviors of vocational education and you have 23 maybe thirty something directors of vocational technical educa24 tion. '.I.'he numbers alone tell you where the emphasis is going.

25 The difference in the Governors' structure for' where they

PAGE 32

may control specifically to and then have overriding say so in

2 several others does indicate that vocational technical educa3 tion would not be a primary motivation for the Department of

4 Education. We found that to exist in several instances. I 5 don't say that in criticism, I just say that in the organiza-

6 tional make up, not people just the make up of the organiza7 tion and the obligation that organization has.

8

ANNE HAGER: But, there is no way that you can put it

9 all under the Board of Regents, is there?

10

JIH HULLINS: All of what?

"z
11 j: g( o "w-
@;I

l\.TTNE HAGr.',R: The vocational technical schools? JIM MULLINS: Well, I'm not--
ANNE HAGER: Or do you think they should be?

! 14 ...

JIM MULLINS: Well, I'm not a Constitutional schollar

'z"

15 ~ I don't know how you would work that out.

"g(
::>
16 ~ w Q

ANNE !{AGF.:R: Do you think they should--

Z 17 ::;

SIBLEY BRYAN: Are you saying educationally, you should

18 work under the Board of Regents instead of the Department of

19 Education?

20

JIM HULLINS: Well, there are some problems with vo-

21 cational technical education under Regents because you know

22 ever so often the Regents think of themselves primarily, you

23 know as p.c'ademicians in vocational technical education, 24 you know ,comes under a whole new category. They may also make 25 it a red headed stepchild. So, you've got that kind of a diff-

PAGE 33

iculty.

2

SIBLEY BRYAN: Well, you also have the difficulty of a'

3 great deal of vocational education being done on the secondary

4 level, in which case you would want a continuity of the pro5 graming into the post secondary level. If you put one under

6 one and one under the other, it's going to be hard to let

7 the Regents run the high--the comprehensive high school.

8

JIM MULLINS: Well, you don't won't to do that. Now,

9 see comprehensive high schools are secondary.

10

SIBLEY BRYAN: Then you are faced with the problem, if

"z
11 o..ja..::.. you say that flatly and then you are faced with the problems
@);~I of splitting vocational education then to secondary and post secondary as you do, you know the academic side.

! 14 ...

JIH BULLINS: vJell, I think , you know really this,

':-z"<:

15 olI Sible~ is my whole point. That's why we are saying that it's

"a:
:;)

16 .~.. in your Constitutional declaration in eight rather than saying

co

Z

-<

17 : agreed. Give them the plenary power to control. Y.ou have.

18 three State Board members, you have three Regents and those

19 three people--six people can sit down and discuss this with

20 th~~ staff support of how you get into articulation of curric-
~.
21 ulum from the secondary to the post secondary. I'll tell you
22 that today we don't have it and it's all under one right now
23 or mostly under one and it's not there. You have many other 24 problems because of the governance. structure. So you've got a 25 chance to strike a blow at governance right here. I'm not

PAGE 34

saying that's the best answer, ~ut I do know that going to

2 a third board--we had a little controversy on that back awhile

3 ago, didn't we? So, I don't think the third board would be ac-

4 ceptable to anybody and yet, here you're taking members of ex-

5 isting boards and you're bringing them out almost like a liaiso

6 as the Governor invisioned, but instead of letting them just

7 coorperatively discuss it, give them the power to decide it.

8 I think then that might be more acceptable.

9

MIKE HENRY: Is the Legislature aware of this problem

10 and could they not perfectly legally set up the board to over-

11

5Czl
see

the

voc-tech

education

in

this

state?

Are

they

just not awa

e

91"!!-!t -' .o.. 12 ~ of the problem or--

~

JUI MULLINS,

Oh, they are very much aware of the

14 ~ problem. In fact, t~~ir studying the issue and the reports tha

':"r 15 I ol) was mentioning to you--or alluding to I should say are legis-
Cl
'";;;)
16 ~ lative reports. They've been in this thing now about four year.

Q

z

17 : Now,

there

.
1S

one

thing

that

the

Legislature'

has

as

its top pri-

18 ori ty and that is the enhancement and improvement of vocational

19 education on both the secondary and post secondary levels. So,

20 their primary obligation and those of the staff that serve them

21 is to see vocational educations' improvement. They want to do

22 it through the appropriate bodies that, you know have been or-

23 ganized to govern and to serve in these areas meaning the State

24 Department of Education and the Regents. Of course, that means

25 local boards where they, themselves have developed. We also

PAGE 35

have area boards and--so you've got some strange organizations 2 out there, some working better than others. When you start tal}3 ing about curriculum articulation and even knowing whether the 4 programs that we are offering in our vocationsl technical schoo s 5 or the cluster approaches within our comprehensive high schoo s 6 are effective to the purpose for which they are set. There is 7 very little data, very little follow up that can give that kind 8 of supporting evidence and that's another difficulty. Now, you 9 have on the federal level, you've got reports coming down sayinc
10
all it's cracked up to be."

DR. CRIM:

Just on that particular point, I think

so that we will have one system and so that
18
we can assure an equal level of quality does not necessarily
19
obtain. I just wanted to toss that up and any way that you
20
slice it that you're going to have vocational education and it
21
will just me kind of a outcome of how people feel about it, 22
the local circumstances: here, take the city of Atlanta whereaE
23
we have very few blue collar opportunities. It just never wil 24 take on the same level of significance say as the university
25 or academic pursuits allbeit that it is very necessary. I mean

PAGE 36

Atlanta Area Tech is a very popular institution and it's always 2 loaded in terms of its enrollment, but those are persons who 3 have, for the most part have gone out and come back and want to

4 do something particular.

5

SIBLEY BRYAN: Excuse me, but educational community

6 is taking on a big job when they decide they want to technicall

7 and vocationally educate people. So much of it is done, proba-

8 bly ninety per cent of it is done in the places of business or

9 the place of the final job anyway. Even with all of your area

10 tech vocational schools and so forth, you're probably not pro-
Iz:l
11 ~ viding but ten per cent of the people with ten per cent of the
e ---I..o.... 12 ~ skills for the whole work force. There is a great danger in it
in my mind for the educational community to say," okay, we can

14

1
)- satisfy

all

the

needs

for

the

industry

through

our

tech

schools

l:;r;

15 ~ voc tech schools and so forth." It can't--there's not a single,

I:l
'~"
16 ~ for instance, one of the big jobs, technical jobs in the state

Q
z

17 : as big as we're in is dying and finishing a fabric. I don't

18 think we have a single technical school that's teaching that at

19 all nor would we want to put the facility in, but there is a lot

20 of people on it. That is just a far out example of a very high-

21 ly technical thing that you wouldn't attempt to do in the schoo

22 room. And so--you can get in a big mess with trying to decide.

23 I think the main question you have to do is whether you want it

24 under the State Board of Education or whether you want it under

25 the Board of Regents. I think the federal money is by definiti n

PAGE 37

isn't it,--didn't we come out in the last meeting that it is

2 des~gnated as the State Department of Education shall be the

3 funding agent for federal vocational funds?

4

JIH HULLINS: They are ones who have been designated

5 Well, on that basis I--you know you can argue either way and I

6 think Lonnie was really coming out with that particular point.

7 You see it's not that clear cut. As we said, we've got four

8 different systems of governance in vocational education and you

9 have now the State Department with the comprehensive high schoo s.

10 YOu know, they want to polifierate still another hundred and

11

"z
i=

seventy

two

of

those

things

or

two hundred

and

forty

two

of

0.."..'..

@ r12 .~"..' them. Now, those schools all have to have clusters hecause the .iz=.. are going with the cluster approach, philsophy now. Those clus V on

14 >- ters are a identified as what goes in them and what kinds of

15

lo:z-n:
~

materials

and what

kinds

of

people

and what

kind

of

certificate

""':;)
16 .Cz.D. etc. You know, we'll be in those schools to deliver the pro-

Q

17

Z
"'CD

gram

and

yet

they

haven't

arrived

at

a

philosophy

of

what

they

18 are trying to do, explore or prepare a person to enter into the

19 job market. Now, you may be able to go both ways, you know, I

20 don't argue that, but we hear the philsophy one time, one way

21 and another time another depending on what you are trying to

22 justify. So, there are difficulties there. Now, the only poin

23 I was making, if you brought three members of the Regents and

24 three members of the State Board under a vocational technical

25 body that would plea plenary in determining, you know the opera

PAGE 38 tions of vocations I technical education. I think that you woul 2 get a greater assurance of articulation of curriculum from one 3 level to that of the other, which now you do not have. It is 4 completely missing unless a voc-tech director wishes to talk to 5 a college person. In Carrolton, let me just you an example of 6 what I'm speaking of; Carol County Tech has been trying now fo 7 two years to work with West Georgia. Now, they've got some 8 faculty committees, they can't agree on anything therefore they 9 have no agreement be~ween West Georgia and Carol Tech. Where 10 does Carol Tech send its students to work on Associate kinds
=z~
11 of degrees and exchange programs? To Floyd Junior College. No
io
w~
~~. ~tt:::n:e:::C:oi:U:::n: ::W~eY::j::::tr::o::lm::i::i:~an
! 14 Quick start programs are also involved in this kind of thing. ~ ~ x~
15 ~ So, they are going to build a building to do the quick start
~ ~ ~
16 ~ program for this record plant. Now, the technical school will
oz
~
17 : supply much of the instruction and things of this type of na18 ture. The State will build the building, buy the equipment, an 19 will train the people and provided for the instructors. The 20 company just comes in, which is part of the, you know enticemen 21 to come in here. Well, that doesn't sound so bad until you fin 22 out that Carol Tech, you know was authorized an extension on 23 their school where they have programs that aren't in these othe 24 areas needed and people are waiting on this. They've got it 25 dry-walled where it won't be until 1983 until they will be able

PAGE 39

to get the additional funds to complete the building and to

2 equip the building and to offer programs. In the interim, we

3 are putting out a lot of money to do a study to write the plans 4 for Gwinnett County to build a structure in Gwinnett County, 5 which is eighty thousand square feet larger than is justified 6 by the local needs assessment or by any other plan of reasonabl 7 consideration. Now we are going to talk about building one out 8 in Clayton and we haven't even completed doing the things we've 9 already committed to. So you see there is a lot of problems in

10 here because of problems of that nature. Now we're getting

11 "~ ready also with appellation funds in Carroll County to develop

@_. ~ ~

f 12

o'~"
~

a

comprehensive

highkch001.

But there is clusters.

There has

been no talk between West Georgia, Carroll Vocational Tech and

! 14 the school system about what kind of exchange programs, what
~
'" 15 ~ kind of excnange of facilities could be used for greater cost effec-
16 ".'~".. tiven~ss and meeting the various needs of that area. Those are Q z
17 ~ some of the things, I think even the Governor now has begun to

18 become aware of and is interested in seeing something being donE. 19 So I am saying that the Legislature can't handle that entirely 20 and I don't think the State Board can handle that entirely and 21 don't think that the Regents can handle that entirely nor can 22 local Boards of Education handle that entirely. But if you had 23 some kind of a uniform governance system to grapple with those 24 questions and to write the policies, then I think you'll probab25 ly find a greater uniformity in direction and that problems would

PAGE 40

begin to ease a bit and m~ybe you would just creatd a whole set

2 of new ones. But at least those would be to ~ome answers.

3

SIBLEY BRYAN: I can't support what Doctor Crim says

4 if--it sounds like the problems that you are saying we have as

5 result of the governance and that doesn't follow to me if all

6 of the vocational is under the State Department and under the

7 Board of Education. They should be able to then be in the best

8 position to mediate those differences. The only thing that you

9 have been talking about that is not under the same roof at some

10 point, is West Georgia.

11 5z~

JIM MULLINS: No, no, no, no, no, n~ I'm sorry I jus

o

~

~~ ._~ -12 ~~

gave you school,

an how

example you can

of how have a

you could have a voc-tech school,

comprehensive high how you can get in-

! 14 to an additional expansion of facility through a quick start

~ ~ ~
%

15 ~ program--

~ ~ ~
16 ~ w Q Z

SIBLEY BRYAN: Those three--and all of those are un-

~
17 g der the Department of Education.

18

JIM MULLINS: No.

19

SIBLEY BRYAN: Under the vocational education, are

W they not?

21

JIM MULLINS: No.

22

SIBLEY BRYAN: Aren't they through the State Depart-

23 ment? Whatever comes through the region--

24

JIM MULLINS: The comprehensive high school is under

25 the, you know the local governance structure, you know the loca

PAGE 41

board which is answerable to the policies of the State Board.

2

SIBLEY BRYAN: Exactly.

3

JIM MULLINS: All right. West Georgia is under the

4 Regents.

5

SIBLEY BRYAN: You didn't mention that point. West

6 Georgia is the only one that is not involved in that. The quic

7 start, if Carroll Tech and your comprehensive high school are all

8 under the same roof, are they not?

9

JIM MULLINS: I'm not sure Carroll Tech--no, Carroll Tech

10 is an area tech, I think. I'm not sure about that. I'm not

"z

@;;11

...
..oll..C...

sure

about Carroll Tech.

SIBLEY BRYAN: Well, it's as an area tech--

Jn1 MULLINS: Some techs are.

! 14 ...

SIBLEY BRYAN: --nical school?

':"z:

15 .:I

JIM MULLINS: Some techs are and some techs aren't.

~

~

16 ~...

SIBLEY BRYAN: Doesn't it eventually report to the

gaz
17 State Board of Education?

18

JIM MULLINS: Not directly. The State Board of Ed-

19 ucation will provide M & 0 monies and will provide for salaries

20 and things of this nature, will set certain overriding policies 21 but they are still reflective of the area Board that is going 22 to give control to those factors and the local monies that come 23 in to carryon those programs. So, it's not an entire State 24 Board, you know controlled program. See, if you've got a local 25 Board that operates the thing, the State Board can't come in

PAGE 42

and tell them, you've got to support it. They can only give

2 them the monies that they are allowed to give them through the

3 appropriations from the General Assembly. A lot at times,

4 the State Board then calls themselves nothin~ more than a flow-

5 through a~ency.

6

SIBLEY BRYAN;, If that remains true, then \;Jllat good is

7 the Board of Regents and the State Board's three people fro~

8 each gping to do in resolving that situation?

9

JUl HULLINS: Hell, I think I probably said that to

10 a degree. I said I don't know that it will solve it cornplete-
Czl
11 j: ly. I said it would give you more uniformity and direction and ..'o.."..
@ ; j you may solve some problems. I don't knO\v \lhat ne\'l problems you might create, but you will at least solve problems that
! 14 have been with us a long time that have not been addressed. I':<"zl:
15 olI See, when the Department did the Zimmermans' study, it 1rJasn' t
Cl
'";;;) 16 .~.. their study entirely, even though they did \-lrite the RFPs on it .
CI Z <l
17 : But they "lant to live by it and that study "JaS outdated before

18 it was even published and as a result of that they want to live

19 by it because it's the only plan of action that they have, you

20 see. It's reached a great deal of controversy anu resistance'

21 in the General Assembly. I think it \vi11 continue to have those

22 problems. No\-! , I don't knmJ that bringing together these D-JO

23 Hoards \'Vi.ll solve all of those issues. I don't want to appear to

24 be that naive, but at the same time we're going toi1.8.ve to have sane \vay in

25 '\Jhich these Board's can talk to eac:l other, other than agreeing to

PAGE 43

disagree.

2

DR. CRP-1:

But, still Jim you're pushing the same"

3 point and I think Sibley is doing the same. Since thirteen in

4 California, as you know the State is now funding even local

5 school systems up to eighty percent. With the funding the

6 control has gone along with it so that local school systems hav

7 less to say about what goes on. similaJlly with--even with the

8 area vocational schools, Metropolitian Atlanta has a very dif-

9 ferent kind of job market than say Carrolton or some--or Bruns-

10 wick or some other place. As you have indicated with compre-
11 ~"z hensive high schools that they are going to go tb go to clus-
f...
~---. I12 ~ ters and they could--now, that has been one of the problems, sa with vocational education through the years because they have
14 ~ identified those occupatic)nal clusters from 'dashington. These
'<:"z: 15 q are those which we will fund and uniformily through out the
";'")
16 ~ Uni ted States when, in fact you may have no need for that particular"
zQ
17 :< occupation in your local area. My point is, is that I don't

18 know if you were to have those three representatives from each

19 group with accountability only to those groups making final and

20 binding decisions a very far distance away from where the action

21 really is, I could think--I would think on that, that you woul

22 create you a new set of problems that would take away--perhaps

23 some the uniqueness and, I mean allbeit that at the local leve

24 you bungle--you know you bungle your way through a lot of 1:.."lirigs.

25 Still, indeed is that you have the opportunity or at least the

rr--------------~-------.

_

PAGE 44

choice to kind of adapt the progr8JT1C1ing to fit, to better fit the

2 needs of that local community. Like here in the city of Atlant

3 all right, we're TTansportation, we're Commerce, what have you

4 and we have a better chance of adapting those programs at Tech

5 to fit the needs. I mean, you can't--computer programs, we just

6 can't give enough of them because of the demand, say in our

7 area for them. This is a point that somehow we need to make

8 and I'm really very fearful every time we talk about some kind

9 of centralized control, not because I'm fearful from the point

10 of the local Boards, but in terms of the service delivery. I

z~

11 ..~j..:.. mean on that end, do we have the opportunity to really have the

~ @r ~given /~)

12 !':"! flex-- I mean the flexibilty for providing for the needs in that ~
community.

! 14 1;;

JH1 r1ULLINS: Yes. Well, I would, of course ,we were

<l

:t

15 ~~only addressing the question of, you know these representative

'":;)

16 ~~ people on a Board making decisions, where they are both making

z

<l

17 : them now, but separately. The point that I would hope is exact

18 ly what you are talking about. You see what you are saying rig t

19 now is what's not happening. Example in, at Athens Area Voca-

20 tional Tech or Athens Technical School belongs to Clarke County 21 They put out a need assessment. They found they needed a--will 22 just say, I forgot what it was, but they needed a Nursing Train 23 ing course. They needed maybe eight thousand square foot new 24 building to do that. The Department says we are going to give

25 you eight thousand new square foot building and we are going t

PAGE 45

pay for it through these allegated funds, but you can't put a

2 Nursing program in there. You going to have to put a--let's

3 just sayan Automotive Mechanics' program. They say, but we

4 don't need a Automotive Mechanics' program. Across the street

S we've got a proprietary school doing that. We've got three

6 other, you know organizations down here doing it and our com-

7 munity survey indicates we don't need anymore mechanics in At-

8 hens, what we need is nurses. We don't have any nurses and we

9 have got people that want it. They said it doesn't matter. Thi~

10 report says, "you can have one of those." What did they get?

They got automative mechanics. The same thing happened right

down here below Columbus and the same thing is getting ready to

happen right dOWD in North Carter. So, we've got those kinds

of problems. Now, that's because you have one group making a

unilateral decision, is part of it. I don't kn6~v this otller is ar

answer to it, but I do think that a lot of the articulation ques'"

tions that we presently have are not being met.

18

SIBLEY BRYAN: There is another problem in that same

19 area. What the student wants to learn has a lot to do with what

20 course he signs up for.

21

JIM MULLINS: Sure.

22

SIBLEY BRYAN: And the point is that auto mechanics

23 is probably the most popular in the state simply because they

24 are more people that want to take. Forget the job market and

2S they are plenty of others--

PAGE f;.o rr------------------------------------------,
3IH l1ULLINS: 'P1e local needs Ctssessment addresses

2 that, Sibley. That's \oJ;1at I'TTi saying. There 7,N'as nobody dOl'Yn

3 there that wanted it.

4

SIBLEY RRYA~1: I'm not saying that particular case

5 but I'm saying there are cases where you have very popular cour-

6 ses because t~cy are highly visible. Everybody O\ffiS an auto7 mobile. Everybody sees that vIe've got to -~JOrk on them. Every-

8 body is intrigued looking under the hood Ctnd so you've p,:ot a 9 lot of people that want to get into that and they hear they can

10 make good money and so forth. There are other things that are

1z:1

11 5hidden in a factory or a building somewhere that are not very o

. :v

12 ~visible and people don't kno\! too much about it. If you put a

e _. ~course in for them, they "ouldn' t sign up for it simply because

14 ~they vlOuldn't have any familiarity to kno',J 'Hhat it \-7as. So, you

."

-:<rl

15 oll
1:1

vocational education is a very complicated thin~.

Ill:

~

16 .~..

JH1 HULLINS: 011, sure it is.

Q

Z

-<l

17 :

SIBLEY BRYA11:

and my feeling is that it should be

18 under one overall state body, 'Nhich I think is the Board of Ed-

19 ucation where it is right now. Haybe because the Board of f';ov-

20 ernance structure is one attempting to have some local control

21 over primary and secondary education that the vocational should

22 be there because it is more of a tailored situation as Doctor

23 Crim pointed out. If you try to get the

~lhere the Sta te

24 Department ,'lOuld he happy \'Ji th the Board of Regents having somc-

25 thing to do 'V-Jith vocational education it's been ,ken they IDuld have

PAGE L~7

been willing to Hrite a contract "tvith the Regents to provide tha

2 service in a particular area for a pa.rticular thing because itt's

3 more economical or, you know, there are other factors, not just

4 the governance of ~ml good a program T.iJe' re going to give because

5 uc uant a different kind of program just -- more of a thing that

6 is easier to do or more economical to do.

7

J11111ULL1NS: Well, we probably wouldn't agree with

8 this statement, but I think what we've said is the greatest jus-

9 tification for probably a third board, uhere you have represen-

10 tation, you knrnv, from your State Board, from local Board, from

~

11

"z
~your

business

and

industry

sector,

from your

Chamber

of

Commerce,

.o..

12 ~from, you know, the other people who are involved in roakin~ sure

~ ~that --

the area in which a shcool is located does in fact reflect

14 >-the needs. Sec, right nov. we don't have much understanding of

$

:I:
15 ~what the needs are. Be don't generally survey those kinds of

16

"~ ~'" things

and

develop

.
programs

based

on

it.

I think what Lonnie

. zI:l
17 m~ sald was the fact that if the clusters come do~vn and tnis is

18 what you get your money for vnlether or not you need it, you

19 build it. Sometimes, that's not just the State Boards' problem,

20 if the State Board wants the money they've got to do what it

21 takes to get money. None of this is a criticism, but there are

22 problems, as I vJaS sayinp.:, in articulatinp: curriculum and deter-

23 mining \vhere schools are to be located and deternining vJllat

24 courses \vill be offered and also determining \Jhether or not ,,7e

25 cannot, excuse me, \"nether or not "liJe should be usinp: the faci-

PAGE 48

lities that we built in light of the fact that we're not going

2 to have this much capital outlay coming down the road soon.

3 If you have gone to new mechanism for funding capital outlay

4 programs and local schools See that didn't include building

5 voc-technical schools. It didn't include libraries. It didn't

6 include comprehensive high schools so those have still got to

7 be three separate things outside of a hundred million dollar re

8 quest that we are going to get for just renovating and building

9 pUblic schools, you see. I don't think that money is going to

10 be there. Now, if it is not there, we need to be thinking abou

lz.'l

11

...i=
oa<r..:

how

can we

best house

important

programs

that we

all

believe

in

@;I We've got comprehensive high schools in place. We have junior colleges, four year institutions and university institutions

! 14 and we have proprietary schools and vocational technical school I':z":
15 0) all in the same locale and none of them are talking to one al.'l <r: ::l
16 .~.. nother. Each one of them are asking to expland their facility Q Z
17 : to offer something that maybe the other one can offer better or

18 is already offering. So, there is not only articulation, but

19 there is duplication of service, duplication of people, dupli-

20 cation of equipment, duplications of dollars and I think we nee

21 to be a little more cost effective in how we approach our total

22 programatic delivery system. That's really the whole basis of

23 it. I would have to say, I don't know that having three members

24 of the Regent and three of the Board would do that. But, if

25 the reaction to that question was, should a statement encourag-

PAGE 49

ing. I would say I wouldn't vJant to put a statement in the Con-

2 stitution encouraging somebody to cooperate. I would put one

3 in there giving them the plenary pO\ver to discuss that issue and

4 to make it binding back on both of the Boards from which they

5 represent, you knm" from uhich they come on that issue. If it's

6 just to encourage cooperation the Governor has already done that

7 by telling them to meet and their meeting and that should be

8 sufficient.

9

ANNE HAGER: Okay. Now number nine llere?

10

JI11 MULLINS: That one right there, I didn't quite 1..111-

"z
11 ~derstand i t .

In fact I was over at the University the other day

e- ~means .o.. 12 ~and I asked some people there, you knmv, what do you think that to you? They didn't quite understand that one either, at

14 >least for -- you know,to make any kind of intelligent reaction.

l;;

<

:I:

15

oc"r:l)The

only

thing
-

that

I

feel

to

a public institution today is

:;)
16 ~already contracting with private institutiollS. The State Board

Q
z
17 g< is contra~ting with private institutions. I don't know that

18 there is anything in the Constitution that \lould prohibit it

19 and if it is not and again I'll have to, you know, yield to the

W legal people, but if there is nothing prohibiting it, I certain-

21 ly don't think ''Ie need to put anything in allmving it, if i.1e are

22 already doing it, handle it through statute.

23 I
24 that?

ANnE HAGSR: tJouldn't it come under statute nost of

25

HELVIN HILL: Yes, I think so. It 'das really just

PAGE 50

generated at the discussion that we had last time.

2

ANNE HAGER: Yes, they mentioned some specific contracts.

3

SIBLEY BRYAN: Not to prolonp; it, but I've had some

4 discussions ",here we can in the same vocational areas. That

5 was the discussion, I think 1~lere we can't

6

JIN MULLINS: Pay tl1e propietary schools?

7

SIBLEY BRYAN: Yes.

8

.In'!:" MULLINS: 'Hell, you could through statute. I t.'l.ir1k,

9 if you are goinp; into the tuition equalization kind of prograrll,

10 if it were felt necessary then you could probably operate it on a

11

"z
o~contractual

basis

if it were

to

be

approved

through statute hy

(@~) ~I ~

12 "~~" tne General Assembly. It ",ould be a question of decidinp; 'C,]hat

~ ._- you ,vant to do and getting it in. I \vould think that could be

14 ~done. Number ten, I do knm] that \'1e had that as a Constitution-
':z":
15 :al referendum in the past and I haven't heard any of the Presi-
Ill: :;)
16 I~D dents complaining too loudly to any of our Legislative Commit-
z
17 ~tees and, therefore, being as the people approved it, I don't

18 see that we should disapprove it at this time. It doesn't bot-

19 her me and so I don't have any real feeling about that one.

20

HELVIN HILL: There was a movement as part of the

21 revision effort in 196 -- 1978 when they revised Article X to

22 put an authorization for this to be created by the General

23 Assembly and then a companion statute to do it so that there

24 was more flexibility if they wanted to change it in anyway.

25

JIB HULLTNS: Yes.

PAGE 51

HELVIN HILL:That was approved as part of the revis-

2 ion of Article X in 78 so it wasn't really a question of \'\7heth.;.

3 er to eliminate the program, but whether it should be contin-

4 ued as statutory rather than Constitutional for the same rea-

5 son the flexibilty that you mentioned earlier so that was the

6 nature of the question.

7

JIM MULLINS: Okay. So, maybe it's to be continued

8 as a Constitutional revision as opposed to being statutory.

9 Well, if it could be statutory, I would prefer it more statutor~

10 than I would Constituional.

e"z
11

ANNE I-lAGER: The wording probably needs to be--does it

.ol>...

12 ~ need to have this in here about it is hereby ~ authorized and

~--- ~ th~ directed to established, hut not later than the beginning of

14 ~ Fall. of 1977? Does that need to be in there any longer?

'<:"zC:l

15 ~
16 ".:~'>.". o Z <Cl

MELVIN HILL: I--no. ANNE HAGER: So, if you leave it in, it probably needs

17 : to re--

18

MELVIN HILL: Oh--yes.

19

ANNE HAGER: _. \tJiittcn?

20

JIM MULLINS: Well, in eleven and twelve I can sim-

21 ply say I'm not bothered by either one of those. I think they

22 can stand as well alone and maybe being as they have, they

23 should.

24

A:~:NE HAGER: We thank you for your comments. Are ther ~

25 any questions?

PAGE 52

JIM HULLINS: Hell, it is ahmys a pleasure to come

2 and exchange vievls and I appreciated tile opportunity. As al-

3 '.flays. Thank you. NOvl all y' all have got to do some work.

4

ANNE HAGER: Yes.

5

JIT-! NULLINS: Pontification time is over. See y'all

6 later.

7

SIBLEY BRYAU:: Thank you.

8

ANNE HAGF:R: I guess if you have this in mind too ,1-1el,

9 to start at the beginning and go 6wough and see if '.ve have some

10 general consensus for the Committee on these items or --

CzI

11 j: o<r:

HELVIN HILL: Yes, and I might -- as we do that, T

Go

~ @ ~II 12 ~1;.Jould like to point out vlhat Henry Neel had suggested as vJell. /j-E---e d 1..dn ' t -- 11e \Jasn 't1a) 1e to malce '1.t, b ut T.. spok"e "li.ntlh 111..m and

14 ~I I have taken some notes on 11m-J he thought about some of these.

III
:z:

15 011
CI <r:

ANNE HAGER: Okay.

~

16 ~ 1azM

HELVIN HILL: tIe is the Executive Secretary of the

17 :Board of Regents and he had met wit~ us earlier so you might be

18 interested in his thoughts. So, we could start at question one

19 and just v.JOrk on through and see

20

ANNE HAG:J<:R: All right.

21

BELVIN HILL:

if the Committee has a consensus.

22

ANNE HAGER: I'm in agreement to leave it be t:1e T:7aY

23 it Has, if the other two members are. Both of those first ques-

24 tions, as far as I'm concerned.

25

HIKE HENRY: No note, right?

AN1\W HAGER: Unhullh did he have any other cOrnr.lents?

PAGE 53

MELVIN HILL: He agrees that they should be left, as

2 is. He feels there is a good balance now on the Board, a good

3 representation, it works very well. On number two, what method
4 of selection the members of the Board would be used if this

5 was not used and he can't--

6

ANNE HAGER: Yes, I know.

7

MELVIN HILL: --think of a better method of selection

8 so he thought it would be good. T\Tell on the terI'l, unlike 'Jim,

9 who felt we should go back to a four year term or not back, but

10 down to a four year term, Henry felt that there should be a one
11 ~"z ten year term for members of the Board of Regents. He felt tha
.'o."..
12 ~ under the present system they can be reappointed forever and
~--- ~ they did have members that have served as long as thirty years.

14 > He feels that a person after--fourteen years is too long. They
Iii
<l( :I:
15 ~ loose their interest, they loose their enthusiasm and the four-
"'"::l
16 ~ teen is too long and he feels that seven was too short because he
oz
<l(
17 ::; said there is thirty three institutions and i t is a lot to lear~.

18 It takes three or four years to learn the job and before they

19 can make a positive contribution to the Board, meeting only onCE

20 a month. So, anyway Henry's feeling was that--and now that the

21 Governor can succeed himself, he can put--anc,of course, if you

22 reduced it to a four year term it would be the same difference,

23 but he can, he will appoint all the members of the Board in an

24 eight year term. He feels that would be resolved by having a

~ one ten year term. So, that was Henry's feelings.

PAGE 54

ANNE HAG:SR: I don't know. tacking an a ten year tenn --

2

MELVIN HILL: With no right to succeed themselves ,

3 they would be limited. In other words, now they--I'm not sure

4 how many of them are reappointed, but I would suppose a good

5 percentage serve at least fourteen years. 80,--

6

SIBLEY BRYAN: You almost--if the guy wants to get

7 off, you almost do him a disservice if you don't reappoint 'him 8 don't you? You've got to kind of reappoint him once to show

9 your appreciation.

10

ANNE HAGER: I would tend not to change it unless you

11

z~
j:

reduce

the

number

of

years,

but

I

don't

know

about

the

rest

of

o..a..:..

(@}~i you, how you feel. MELVIN HILL:

I liked J'im' s argument-. I lik.ed the

! 14 four year--

I-

':"r

15 .:

ANNE HAGER:

Yes.

I would either stick with seven or

~ a:

;;)
16 .~.. go down to four . I don't believe I could go on with ten. I

Q

Z
17 : don't know.

That is a long time.

If you get someone in there

18 who's not competent or something happens, you Immv; it's iike the

19 Judge and the Supreme court or something. You know when they
. 20 d .;..e , you get r;.....d of them I mean ten years is a long time--

21

MELVIN HILL: And seven years--

22

ANNE HAGER: --for somebody to be seven is a long timE,

23 for somebody to be appointed, even if they can't succeed them-

24 selves. I think you have to, you know, have to think of some-

25 body doing a good job, but you have to think of somebody that

PAGE 55

possibly might not be doing a good job too.

2

NELVIH HILL: Hhat about a five year term? Should the

3 Governor, if he did not succeed himself -- as it is, if they

4 only serve a four year term -- well, I guess a Governor would

5 only be able to appoint.

6

ANNE HAGER: gut, they are staggered terms too. So,

7 see he would get an opportunity to appoint a number of them

8 during a two year term if he succeeded himself.

9

SIBLEY BRYAN: I like the idea though of a longer

10 term because the Governor could be not that good just like the

11 "z~Regents member could not be that good. He could appoint a

Go
~ 12 ~bunch of political people into the Board of Regents.

~.- ~

ANNE !lAGER, And he probably ,<ouldn' t get re-elected

14 ~if he wasn't performing.

<:zl:

15 01)
"a:
~

SIBLEY BRYAN: Yes, but you Hould be stuck ':-lith a

16 '~" Board for four years of six years or something and you would

z

~

17 "'have a problem there.

18

ANNE HAGER: :It vJOuld be better than ten years.

19

SIBLEY BRYAN: Well I'm saying by having a seven year

20 term, he Hould not have that opportunity so many times as op-

21 posed to a four year --

22

ANNE HAGF:R: I vlOuld be, and again, I don't knmJ

23 whether I'm really an authority enough, but I would recommend 24 leaving it at seven years.

25

VICKIE GREENBERG: Should the total term be limited?

PAGE 56 should they be able to succeed themselves more than once?

2 Should there ba a limitation placed in the Constitution?

3

ANNE HAGER: I don't think I uould even get into that.

4 It doesn't say now, does it?

5

lffiLVIN HILL: It's unlimited.

6

ANNE HAGER: No, it is unlimited.

7

HIKE HENRY: Hel, with fifteen members at staggered

8 terms for seven years apiece is that --

9

ANNE HAGER: At least two of them come --

10

HE~E HENRY:

do several of the terms come up at one

I!I
11 ~time?
e ; j.'oa"...

ANNE HAGER: Yes, tvJO of them come up at one time. HIKE HENRY: Two of them come up at one time.

! 14

ANNE HAGER: Un hunh.

!;;

:I:
15 ~

MIKE HENRY: I see.

I!I
16 .~'~.".
oz

~~m HAGER: So even a one ten1 Governor can get at

17 :least, you knovJ, some of them.

18

SIBLEY BRYAN: I think you probably want, and I'm stat

19 ing the obvious, to make sure that it's not a political appoint

20 ment to the extent that you can.

21

ANNE HAGER: vJell, they obviously are political ap-

22 pointments. The Board of Education are political appointments.

23

HIKE HENRY: Yes.

24

ANNE HAGER: Whenever they are appointed by the Gov-

25 ernor, you can't --\-Je're just very fortunate that this last tim

PAGE 57

even the appointment of t~e :;;tate School Superintendent, you

2 know, - - He picked someone \I1ho T,']as very capable. That's a very'

3 political thing.

4

HIKE HENRY: To the extent that you can blunt that

5 evil though, I \vould think --

6

SIBLEY BRYAN: NO'] , that's not necessarily an evil. I

7 mean that's the accountability factor. Somebody has to he ac-

8 countable. After all these folks are [;oinp, to be appointed,

9 somebody has to be responsible to the people and that's that

10 connection.

"z
11 j:

l1ELVIN HILL: The Board ~,.,ould oppose, s trotlgly oppose,

e - I...ollIC 12 ~a reduction from the seven years, I'm sure. ANNE HAGER, I would tend to leave it.

14 ~

MIKE HENRY: I think that also vlOuld assure somebody

t;

:<zl:
15 ~accepting

it,

too.

I mean, just think if you were offered a

"llIC
~
16 iseven year term on a voluntary thing. It might be two days

zQ
17 :<levery month from your business -- if you are a halfvlaY decent

18 kind of person, you've got to think hard about \vhether you are

19 going to do that.

20

ANN:~ HAGER: If they get reimbursed --

21

SIBLEY BRYAN: Four years, you might say, well I'll

V22 five it a try, you know, and not be quite as committed, I don't

23 know.

24

ANNE HAGER: r.Jell, I think you need the time just to

25 familiarize yourself \'lith the workings of it and the instituion

PAGE 58

and I don't think you could go with really less than seven, you

2 know seven years.

3

MELVIN HILL: I wouldn't argue that hard against it.

4

ANNE HAGER: Yes.

5

COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I going to need to change

6 my tape.

7

ANN HAGER: Okay.

8

COURT REPORTER: You're

9

SIBLEY BRYAN: Good,I tend to leave it the way that

10 it is.

A1~E HAGER: Let's just leave it seven. We all seem

to agree then. Tell, Henry, another year. Okay, let's see the fourth one about the Chancellor. He recommended no. Is

that-SIBLEY BRYAN: I had no checked.
ANtlE HAGER: I had no checked for four too. We all a-
gree with that. What was--did Henry have any comment, parti-

18 cularly on that?

19

rllELVIN HILL: \-7ell, no. Absolutely not.

20

N~ili HAGER: Well, good. We agree.

21

MELVIN HILL: He felt the Chancellor should not have

22 any--even appearance of independent authority and if he is not

23 even mentioned in it then it's obvious that he's not an --

24

P,NNE I-lAGER: Yes.

25

MELVIN HILL: --appointee of the Board.

PAGE 59

M~ HAGER: Okay. Number five. I get from Jim, that

2 he feels that you should not have that blanket coverage that it

3 should be put in statutory law and stand 'On its mm. VJasn It

4 that~ his main thrust? lle talked about all kinds of things,

5 but T think that' s ~vhat he really meant.

6

SIBLEY BRYAN: As much as the Board of Regents hates

7 it, I think that he is probably right, that it ought to be a

8 statutory thing even on that block funding.

9

MlliE HAGER: There will be much discussion over that

10 I'm sure.

~

III

11 ~

MELVIN HILL: What worries me is that they are going

..oa..:..

~ 12 ua: to want to retain the same language that we had. I will be ver' disappointed if we end up having to carry forward such language

14 )0 that--
I-
'"
15 ~

ANNE HAGER: Well, we are in essence saying that we

IaI:I
:;)
16 .~.. don't want to retain that language.
aoz
17 clause about 1945.

We would take out that

18

MELVIN HILL: But, I think though--

19

A"M HAGER: Oh, oh--

20

MELVIN HILL: --that they will get it back in.

21

~~E HAGER: --well, yes, sure.

22

SIBLEY BRYAN: It depends on how many--

23

A~ HAGER: Well, the Select Committee probably--

24

SIBLEY BRYAN: -- are on that final Select Committee.

25

M~ HAGER: --they won't get any further than that.

PAGE 60

SIBLEY BRYAN: That to me is the way that this is go2 ing to be decided no matter what we say.

3

MELVIN HILL: Well, that's certainly true.

4

N~~ HAGER: But, then our recommendations still go on

5 to next Fall.

6

MIKE HENRY:

That's the reason I think our recom-

7 mendations should be based on what we think is--

8

ANNE HAGER: Right.

9

MIKE HENRY: -- properly put in the Ccinstitu-

10 tiori~

11 ~"

MELVIN H1LL: I aqree with you, but I agree with you

'o"
A-

12 : as well when you said that this lump sum allocation provision
~ ~- ~~ is matter of basic governance in the university 'system and I

! 14 feel personally that it warrants Constitutional protection. Jir I'"
15 ~doesn't necessarily agree and Henry certainly agrees. When we

16

"'";:)
...~spoke

about

this,

he

felt

that

definitely

that

provision

and

=az
17 perhaps two or three of the other ones relating to Eminent danain

18 powers of the Board. Of course, they don't loose any of the~e

19 and I don't think Henry is as worried about the others as he

20 was about this one. His feeling was that if we are going to

21 eliminate that language, well, then in order to preserve the in-

22 dependence of the Board of Regents, then that lump sum alloca-

n tion should be added.

24

A~~HAGER: Well, I don't feel it should be added in

25 the Constitution. I guess the only "(..Jay vlOuld be to leave i~

PAGE 61

this blanket clause for specific things then instead of just all

2 laws, you know, existin~ at the time.

3

MELVIN HILL: Well, if you are p.oing to say provided

4 by Georgia --

5

ANNE HAGER: It's inconsistent really.

6

MELVIN HLLL:

Code Annotated 32-116.

7

AHNE. HAGER: Oh, you just put that --

8

MELVIN HILL: Then it would be kind of silly because

9 you could just go find it and so it's only one sentence or one

10 short paragraph anYVlay.

"z
11 ~

SIBLEY BRYAN: I think in t~e vlhole idea of redoinp.

.o..

12 ~this Constitution is reduce the curnbersomness of it so that \le

~--- ~have something that is indeed a Constitution and doesn't have

14 >to be changed every time we have an election on a local Amendment
t;

%
15 ~basis and that kind of thing. Isn't that one of the reasons?

"m
;:)

16 ~

ANNE HAGER: Hell, ,,,hat disturbs me too, is you don It

Q

Z
17 :usually see something like that in a Constitution.

18

HIKE HEnRY: It's certainly not good Constitutional

19 drafting

20

A.mE HAGER: That's what I'm

21

HIKE HENRY: -- to reference in statutes. It kind of

22 demeans the document, hut, you know, I don't see any problem witl

23 just incorporating a short statement that they, you knO'v, if you

24 make that policy decision that they should have this financial 25 independence so to say. There will be no problem with putting

PAGE 62

that. I think that \'70uld be a major pm,yer. Hhat it is doing

2 is protecting them from the General Assembly. If you want to

3 protect them from having the General Assembly get mad uecause

4 they have fired a Chancellor or because they have taken sor.1e 5 action ana then go on and line item them. It's just a matter of

6 \v~lO should v7ri te the hip:her education budget, t:w Regents or

7 the General Assembly.

8

SIBLEY BRYA'.\!: It's been said that accountability is

9 a bip; factor by this bcin~ a statute as opposed to part of the

10 Constition. It may force some accountability on this Board

'z"

@;;11

~
.o.'."...

that

they might not have

othenvise.

ANNE HAGl'.:R: \..Jell, I \"IOuld be in ap:reement if you all

wanted to write up say a short paragraph that you would insert

! 14 I- there and let us see the type of thing that you are talldng,

'<"l

:I:

15 0:1 about. How about that?

'';"";)

16 ~...

t~~LVIN HILL: That's fine although it would be the

o

Z

<l

17 : exact same languat)e \ve have. You IznovJ, it would be -- \'ve

18 could reduce it, but

19

MIKE HENRY: We could retain the concept, I think.

20

SIBLEY BRYAN: Let's see it though and see 'VIllat this

21 Section is going to look like.

22

ANnE HAGER: Yes.

23

SIBLEY BRYA~: To me, that's --

24

ANNE HAGER: I don't tl1ink we -- I think all of us

25 agree that they ought to be able to have this lump sum and oper-

PAGE 63

ate the l,-Jay they are. I think Vie arc jus t not quite sure hmoJ

2 to do it and if you all l,lQuld come up "Jith, with it ",ri.tten

3 down in front of us and ShOH us what you are talking ahout.

4

HELVI!~ HILL: All right. Sure.

5

ANNE HAGEF.: To eliminate this reference to the statu-

6 tory laws. All rignt?

7

SIBLEY BRYAN: For the draft for next titTle?

8

ANNE HAGER: Ye.s .

9

H.ELVIN HILL: That "Jelll be looking at. Okay.

10 We'll include that. And 11mJ about any other provisions or

"z
11 j:

ANNE HAGER: Hhat was the other one he mentioned.

..o'.."..

@;I Hf,LVIN HILL: The Government eminent domain and the powers of eminent domain. Well we could add -- ~e could pro

! 14 vide all of what he had suggested and you can ahJays just cross

Ii;

:I:
15 oll i t off.

"'";)
16 .~..

ANNE HAGER: All ri.ght. There an~ tl,JO or three that

zQ
17 g you have mentioned. Hh.y don't you take the ones that he feels-

18 okay.

19

rmLVIN HILL: All right.

20

Atm HAG1:R: lJith the understanding that then T"Je would

21 eliminate that reference back to the statutory lavJs. Okay.

22 So we are on number six. Hell, this "Jas a. hard question for

23 him to anS1.Jer. Hhat does Henry say about number six? He said 24 yes and no, it \vould just depend which ones you ~Jere referrinp; 25 to.

PAGE 64

DOCTOR CInn: Hell, he said no if it meant incorpora-

2 ting DeKalh College

3

ANNE I-lAGER: Rig:lt.

4

HELVIN HILL: Hell, Ecnry felt that hereafter this

5 should be required.

6

ANNE HAGER: \,Ilell I tllink that's \vhat he 'Nas saying

7 too. That goes along with the next one, really the next three

8 all sort of go together. We all agree on seven I guess. No

9 they shouldn't be able to es tablish colleges from nm-v on in-

10 dependent systems and he also added the other systems too, like

the county systems.

SIBLEY BRYAN: I think it is going to be hard to in-

terpret number six if you write it briefly in the Constitution.

Just because he had trouble \ITth the definition, somebody is

going to have to say, when do you stop being a system that is

getting state monies and then become a school which is not a

State supported school. I don't know hov] to say that. Haybe

18 you all could corne up ~~lith something, Hel, that "lQuld be a "lay

19 to say it.

20

}reLVIN HILL: Our proble~ is that I think DeKalb Col-

21 lege came in under a local Constitutional Amendment.

22

ANNE HAGER: Un hunh.

23

lfELVIN HILL: And I think that could happen as long

24 as we are going to continue with our local .~endments and that

25 no matter what He \l1ould say about it here, it \l1ould not prohihi

PAGE 65

a local Amendment frop.!. changing that policy. I almost feel as

2 if it's a question of six, maybe more, of academic interest.

3 The fact is in the present system, all but one college is under

4 the univeristy system and it doesn't seem to be a great outcry

5 to allO":v, you knovl, this to happen again. So, perhaps it's

6 just a dead letter.

7

Ar~1F. HAGER: Yes.

8

SIBL~Y BRYAN: The way that it is written now as I

9 understand the Constitution it establishes the Board of Regents

10 to provide the citizens of Georgia with a university and

college system. NovJ, it stops right there. It doesn't say,

take into consideration all those existing or all those pro-

prietary or see if you can get them done locally before you

spend state money or anything like that. It just gives the

charge to provide a university systeM. I \Vonder if you can say

a.nything else very clearly.

AN1'lE HAGER: \'1hy can't you just drop that about the 18 colleges? You knmJ at, "such existing systems" period and

19 drop "may add thereto colleges".

20

SIBLEY BRYAN: gut t~at is what will be done.

21

AU:~E HAGER: Okay.

22

SIBLEY BRYAN: On our part.

23

ANNE HAGER: And then we just let it all go and not

24 write anything against them doing it because there is a \lay

25 they could do it if they really wanted to.

PAGE 66

2 a statement in number six.

3

~~w'HAGER: No, I don't think so either. We just a-

4 greed to drop that out of that part about adding colleges there

5 to .. Okay. Number eight, he made that very clear. He didn't

6 feel they should be a statement in there.

7

SIBLEY BRYAN: Not a statement of bid, but a statement

8

9

.~~~HAGER: Of cooperation.

10

SIBLEY BRYAN: --of cooperation, but he did say that

~

"%
11 She thought that there should be some provisions for addressing
o...
12 ~ the issue of the governance of voc-tech programs.

~- ~

ANNF:HAGER, Like a joint Board, three from the Board

14 ~of Regents and three from the Board of Education. But, wouldn' '"
:r
15 ~ that--would that have to be in the Constitution or ~ould'that
"III
;)
16 l~D come under statutory law? It was my understanding it would be Q
%
17 g statutory.

18

DOCTOR CRIM: Yes.

19

N%lli HAGER: From what he said--

20

SIBLEY BRYAN: I disagree with what he was trying to

21 sell us. I'm sorry.

22

MIKE HENRY: I think it would probably be statutory

23 because--

24

~~ HAGER: Well, that's what he seems to indicate--

25

MIKE HENRY: Yes.

PAGE 67

ANNE HAGER: -- so that we wouldn't do anything with

2 that either.

3

MELVIN HILL: But, a statement could be included in

4 the Constitution directing the General Assembly to provide for

5 a system of governance of the vo-tech programs. I mean, you

6 know, the Constitution need not be silent on the matter. It is 7 silent on the matter now and that may be what you how you 8 want it to continue to be. Should the issue even be addressed 9 at all, that is the question.

10

ANNE HAGER: I had seemed to feel like it shouldn't be

11 "5z addressed at all. It should be in the statutory law. I don't

@;i.2.. see why they need the vo-tech statement in there anyway. is just myself.

That

! 14

t1IKE HENRY: But if they need the authorization to

Ii;

0(

15

z:
Q

establish.

I think that -- I mean that language could possibly

16

":a:t
~...

be

cleaned

up

when

they

authorize

the

vo-tech

and

all

that.

azQ
17

DOCTOR CRIM: \~o has authorized the vo-tech?

18

ANNE HAGER: Why wouldn't you then have to authorize

19 the Board of Education to do all the other programs. I don't

20 see why you single out the vo-tech.

21

VICKIE GREEllliERG: There is no authorization

22

ANNE HAGER: Yes, I know there isn't.

23

VICKIE GREENBERG: -- in this Article for vo-tech. It

24 only provides for -- there is Section Nine on special schools,

25 but that is not an authorization. That just allows --

PAGE 68

MIKE HENRY: Yes--may establish--

2

VIanE GHEENBEFG:

That just allows the Boards or the

3 Counties may establish special schools and it provides for the

4 funding of those schools. That says that the--that those parti

5 cular schools are under the State Board of Education.

6

MELVIN HILL: The point is that we heard from a num-

7 ber of sources that there is a problem in the governance of the

8 voc-tech program.

9

SIBIEYBRYAN: I agree with that.

10

MELVIN HILL: And the only question for us is whether

11

5Iz:J
the

Constitution

needs

to

or

should

address

that

issue.

It can

o...

@-- ~ ~

12 ~ remain silent or you have an opportunity if you feel that it is

important enough within your jurisdiction to recommend that it

14 ~be addressed and that the General Assembly be specifically au-

':"r

15 ol) thorized to create a Board-Ia:=J

:l
16 ~

ANNE HAGER: Yes, I would go along with that. Rather

zQ

17 : than write in the Constitution how to--

18

MELVIN HILL: --anything about the specifics, but an

19 authorization for the General Assembly to create a Board to do

20 this.

21

HIKE HENRY: Mel, don't they.have that authority?

22 Don't they have all inherent authority unless thi=y are limited by

n this document?

24

MELVIN HILL: Well, except for the Board of Education

25 giving some independent authority and the Board of Regents giv-

PAGE 69

ing some independent authority that would make it clear that

2 the General Assembly could create a new Board that would have

3 some of the present jurisdiction over the Board of Education.

4
5 Board.

SIBLEY BRYAN: I don't think they would want a third

6

MELVIN HILL: Well, do you want the General Assembly

7 to have the authority to create such a Board if they decided--

8

ANNE HAGER: Well, couldn't they without it being in

9 the Constitution?

10

MELVIN HILL: No, no.--

III

Z
11 i=

ANNE HAGER: They could?

o<r:

r>-

~--. I12 IO' <r:

MELVIN HILL: --see what I am saying is I think that

the present Constitution gives the Board of Regents jurisdictio

! 14 in this area. It gives the Board of Education Jurisdiction 'in

I-
'" 15 ~ this area and what we are talking about is kind of in between.

III <r:
16 .~~.. The voc-tech is to some extent under both of them now.
azQ
17 not clear that--where it belongs and--

It's

18

~~ HAGER: Okay.

19

SIBLEY BRYAN: I disagree with you there b~cause all

20 the voc-tech is under the State Board. Now, they have chosen

21 to contract with four or five--with four colleges and now a

22 fifth one to provide certain voc-tech services. At the accept-

23 ance of that particular institution and the Board of Regents

24 and they have been willing to give up their direct control over

25 that to contract with that school to do it. I think that is a

PAGE 70

perfectly reasonable--

2

MELVIN HILL: Well, maybe we are going back at it the

3 other way then. May be there should be a statement specifing

4 that in the Constitution.

5

SIBLEY BRYAN: I would rather specify that voc-tech bE

6 under the Department of Education.

7

N~lli HAGER: Well, why don't you draw up something again

8 and let us consider it then.

9

MIKE HENRY: It's in the present Constitution. It

10 says that schools established pursuant to this provision shall
11 5"z be operated in conformi'tr.; 'with regulations. prormilgated try the
@ ~. ~!,l.o... State Boarll:rovfrNEdHurclaLtion . pursuant tdo provisions 6f the 'law.

~

nI~

. .. :" But create pursuant to a contract

14 ~between the counties in the area. You know, if you read the '~"
%
15 ~earlier part of that, it doesn't really cover--

~

;:)

16 ~
'Q"

ANNE HAGER: It doesn't mean between the two Boards,

Z

17

~
III

Regents

and--well,

okay.

Why don't you corne up with something

18 and then we'll--

19

SIBLEY BRYAN: Really what you have gotten into in

20 is the State Board ~ allowed these different areas of govern-

21 ance to corne about. They can't do anything about it anymore.

22 It's an area Board thing, it's local amendment thing and that

23 all just kind of--

24

MELVIN HILL: Well, as a matter of fact, to be perfect-

25 ly frank with you, the committee on local systems has been giver

PAGE 71 the responsibilty for revising Section Nine which relates to 2 special schools. They are going to be ~ng this whole issue

3 of voc-tech up at their next meeting. So, perhaps we can just

4 kind of delegate to them.

5

~~WHAGER: Okay, see what they--

6

MELVIN HILL: And see what they come up with.

7

ANNE HAGER: --come up with. All right.

8

MELVIN HILL: It only came up here because of its'

9 peripheral issue to the Board of Regents.

10

Am~ HAGER: Post secondary. Okay.

\!l Z
11 i=
.".o....
@;I no.

MELVIN HILL: So-N~lli HAGER: All right. What did Henry say?

Number nine, I think he said

.! 14

tJiELVIN HILL: Henry said, "it's not related to their

15

':"r
,l)

H
problems.

He didn't have any feeling about it.

\!l
"~ 16 ~...

SIBLEY BRYAN: I think that is one of the problems

17

Czl :

with

the

State

Board

then

it

is

with

the

vocational

area

rather

18 than it is with the Board.

19

A~lliHAGER: Number ten seemed to be yes. There was

20 not any problem with that.

21

SIBLEY BRYAN: Except Jim felt that--

22

M~~~HAGER: It could be statutory.

23

SIBLEY BRYAN: --it could be statutory. That is the

24 question whether you would recommend that the Board of Regents

25 be authorized to create this program and--

PAGE 72

Ll\UNE HAGER: vJell, I think if it can be statutory, it ought to

2 be. I think we are trying to streamline it and take out the statutory

3 laws. That was one of the things that we talked about in the

4 beginning, so if you can take it out legally, Constitutionally

5 it's all right. I can't see there being a big move to change

6 it anyway if it is put in statutory. Maybe the age would be

7 about the only thing. They might change the age.

8

MIKE HENRY: I think it is a gratuity unless it is in

9 here and if you look back here in Article X, I guess it is on

9~

10 retirement and scholarships, you have several pages here on
E"z
11 scholarships and that's basically what it is. When they revisee 2
_. ~ 12 :~ that Article , I think they gave the General Assembly just a kine of broad authority to provide for those type of scholarships,

14 ~ didn't they ,Mel?

'.:z": 15 q
":':">
16 ~

MELVIN HILL: Yes. MIKE HENRY: And this would be something that would

Q.z
17 gproperly be under there--

18

ANNE HAGER: In eleven and twelve, they were both no.

19

MELVIN HILL: Well, now Henry felt that, you know,it

20 really didn't matter. I don't think that Jim would care. ThesE

21 are questions more on the nature of housekeeping. Article - - I

22 mean Section six is a very short provision that relates to grants

23 requesting donations and they could be, you know--Section six

24 could be subsumed just by shifting paragraph one to the Board

25 of Regents and paragraph two to the Board of Education and not

PAGE 73

having a special section on them.

2

AnNE HAGER: Okay.

3

MELVIN HILL: We just thought that would be better

4 from an organization standpoint. Then Article Ten might be a

5 bigger question, but Article Ten on scholarships and retirement

6 and it's a strange combination anyway -- retirement and scholar

7 ships -- but we were thinking that maybe we could move the

8 scholarship provisions over to Article Eight and the retirement

9 provisions to Article Nine and get rid of Article Ten, because

10 it really is a very strange animal in Constitutional Law.

11 ~"

Well, it wouldn't bother me if you can

'o."..

@_. ~ 12 ~ do it and not change the intent of the Article.

~

~

Dr. Crim? Is everything okay.

How about

l 14

DR. CRU1.: I think so.

~
'" 15 :~I:

ANNE HAGER: There are only a couple of other things

16

"'"::l
~

that

in

reading

this

that

I

had

jotted

down

that were

now

on

1M Q
17 =Z this sheet. One of them was about a statement beginning, "The

18 purpose of education in Georgia regarding the Board of Regents",

19 but in the beginning of that of Article Eight it does state,

20 "System of Common schools". Were they going to change that.

21 I know there was some talk initiallY when we were all in one

22 large Committee to change that wording.

23

MELVIN HILL: That wording will be changed.

24

ANNE HAGER: Will it like incorporate the Board of

2S Regents or do you think something should be put -- to me what-~

PAGE 74

MELVIN HILL: It's probably, you see

2

ANNE HAGER: It covers all education in Georgia.

3

11ELVIN HILL: The title is really a misnomer in the

4 first place. It really relates to a provision of adequate ed-

5 ucation for the citizens rather than common schools, Hhich is

6 not mentioned. We feel that just got carried fOTh7ard by an error.

7

ANNE HAGER: So it \vould include the Board of Regents'

8 students or citizens or I mean I don't think we need two

9 of those was what I was

10

VICKIE GREENBERG: I think it's definitely an overall

11

"z
j:

statement

on

the

educational

policy

of

the

state

and

it

covers

e ; i..'o."... post-secondary and elementary and secondary. citizens.

Speaks up for all

! 14

rillLVIN HILL: The only thing I'm thinking of though is

!:z;;:

15 ~ that it says thflt the provision of an adequate education shall

"'":::>
16 .~.. be the primary obligation of the state of Georgia, the expense

Q

Z
17 : of which shall be out of the public funds or some such state-

18 ment. And we do not intend to imply that the post-secondary

19 education be provided by public funds totally. Do we? I mean

20 we are talking about free tuition for primary and secondary but

21 not free tuition for the State Board, so I'm not sure I'm fol-

22 lowing the question. What exactly --

23

ANNE HAGER: I mean in here I think one of the things

24 Mr. Friedman recommended was a statement about the overall pur

25 pose of the -- by the Board of Regents.

PAGE 75

VICKIE GREENBERG: Well isn't that right -- isn't it

2 the first sentence of Section Four, Government Control and

3 management of the University System of Georgia?

4

ANNE HAGER: I think he was thinking more in terms of

5 providing an adequate edu -- you know something like that.

6 That's just what I got out of there. That was just something

7 that I had jotted down and I didn't know whether you wanted to

8 address that or if you felt there was a need. I don't particu-

9 larly feel there is a need. It was just one of the recommenda-

10 tions.

11 z~ ~

MELVIN HILL: The only thing I remember from his

o
w~
~--- I12 ~ statement was this statement in the ~'s provisions was about the best statement he could see and I don't remember him

14 ~ saying he wanted something in there.

~
~
15 ~%

David Morgan said he thought there should be some

~

~

16 ~ broader purpose stated.

w

Qz

17 ~

ANNE HAGER: Maybe he was the one instead of Friedman.

18 But I think we've covered just about everything else that I had

19 made notes on when I read that.

20

MELVIN HILL: Okay. Well we'll try to draft up some-

21 thing based upon the Committee's feelings on this provision.

22

ANNE HAGER: Okay.

23

MELVIN HILL: And we'll let the Vo-~ech problem go

24 to the other Committee for their resolution and it will all be

25 coming back to the Full Committee so you will be seeing it

PAGE 76

again and have the benefits of some discussion about it.

2

ANNE HAGER: T-low about setting a date for the next

3 meeting? Giving yourselves enough time to do all the work. We

4 come here and make a lot of work for you everytime.

5

MELVIN ~ILL: It's our job. I'd suggest the week

6 of the 11th or the 18th.

7

DR. CRIM: Of August?

8

MELVIN HILL: Of August, un hunh.

9

ANNE HAGER: Either one is alright with me.

10

DR. CRIM: Let's see the 11th is

~

Czl
11 i.oaG=.o:.
12 ~

MELVIN HILL: It's a Monday. DR. CRIM: Second Monday.

~r~

MELVIN HILL: Yes. Or the 14th. The 14th is a

! 14 Thursday. That's free for us or Friday the 15th.

I-
til <C(
:r
15 ~

DR. CRI~: That's -- the 14th?

Ca:l ::>
16 ~

rmLVIN HILL: Or the 11th. We have a meeting already

Cz

17

<C(
:

at

10,

but

if

you

prefer

afternoon

meetings

we

could

uh

18

ANNE I-lAGER: Afternoon suits me.

19

DR. CRIM: 8/12 then?

20

ANNE HAGER: The twelfth?

21

MELVIN HILL: Or the 11th, was 11 free?

22

DR. CRIM: The 11th, that's a Board Meeting date.

23

ANNE HAGER: August 12th. Is 1:30 all right?

24 It suits me.

25

MELVIN HILL: We've had a --

PAGE 77

DR. CRIM: Is that it?

2

fu.~NE HAGER: I think so. I ' l l just adjourn the

3 meeting then.

4

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.)

5

6

7

8

9

10
"z
11 j:
e ; j."o<."L. ! 14 I'~" :I: 15 ~ ":":"l 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 :::

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PAGE 78

C E R T I F I CAT E

2 I, Mary Lou Stokes, GCCR B-36l, do hereby certify

3
that the foregoing 77 pages of transcript represent a true and

4
accurate record of the events which transpired at the time and

5
place set out above.
6 7 8

"- i/ Jfojfjl~,~" Stokes, GCCR #B-361

9

10

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VIII Subcommittee Meeting Held on July 17, 1980

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 7-17-80
Proceedings. p. 2
SECTION IV: BOARD OF REGENTS Paragraph I: University system of Georgia; board of regents.
Composition and term of office. pp. 2-10, 53-58 Jurisdiction and relationship with State Board of Education. pp. 22-52, 63-75 Appropriations. pp. 10-22, 59-63

._,.-- - - - - - , ...... ........ ---~-------~

_~-~-~---

PAGE 1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
:I
~rl ~ 14 I
Ii
1~ ..
III
l'I 11i

STATE OF GEORGIA COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VIII
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA
SUBCOMMITTEE 1, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT

2U
21 Room 40l-A State Capitol
22 Atlanta, Georsia
2J Monday, July 28, 1980 9:00 a.m.
24

PAGE 2

PRESENT:

2

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

3

CHAIRMAN CHARLES W. MEREDITH

JOHN M. GRAHAM, III

4

CHARLES GREEN

ODELL OWENS

5

WILLIAM PRESSLY

TOM VANN

6

LeANNA WALTON

7

ALSO PRESENT:

8
9
10
i~
11
12 =
@rl i14 I 1S ~ lit Ii:I 111
1'1

MELVIN B. HILL, Jr. VICKIE GREENBERG MICHAEL HENRY ELDON BASHAM JENNYE GUY MR. WATTS
DR. McDANIEL, State School Superintendent

18

1~

20

21 2:! 23 24

25

PAGE 3

P R d C E E DIN G S

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Let me call the meeting to

3 order.

4

Good morning. I apologize for being late. I had an

5 administrative council meeting t~is morning at 7:30, it's a

6 matter that took us a little past 9:00. Also I had trouble

7 getting into the capitol this morning, I had to show three

8 pieces of identification, get searched and everything else, 9 it took five minutes.

10

Anyway, we are going to continue the process

started two meetings ago in which we have invited visitors

to come in and speak to our decision agenda.

This morning our first speaker happens to be a

member of the committee, but I understand he's going to be

speaking as a member of the State Board of Education and not

a member of this committee.

I understand Dr. McDaniel is coming at 9:45.

18

MR. HILL: Yes, that's true.

19

I would like to introduce to the other members of

20 the Committee -- I think they know each other '-- but for the

21 record that Ms. LeAnna Walton who is on Subcommittee 2 and

22 Dr. Charles Green who is on Subcommittee 3 have joined us

2J as well this morning to hear from Mr. Vann and Dr. McDaniel.

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. The young lady here?

25

MS. GUY: Jennye Guy from the Urban Studies

PAGE 4

Institute.

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. That's the chair up

3 there. You're not going to exercise that option and remain 4 where you are?

S
6 am.

MR. VANN: If I~have that option I'll stay where I

7

The members of the State Board of Education

8 addressed the decision agenda that we had on June 24th, 1980. 9 The one you have this morning has some questions added to it 10 which they did not consider.

The members have expressed their individuaL views

on this decision agenda of June 24, 1980, and asked me to

communicate their views as a member of the State Board of

Education to this subcommittee.

There are ten members of the State Board of

Education, one from each congressional district. The

membership of the state board has Mrs. Pat Sherlock who is 18 from Decatur, Georgia; Mr. Jim Smith who is from Cartersville, 19 Georgia; Mrs. Sarah Oberdorfer who is from Fulton County; 20 Mr. A. J. McClung who is from Columbus, Georgia; myself who 21 is from Thomasville, Georgia; Roy Hendricks the chairman of 22 the board who is from Palmetto, Georgia; Asbury Stembridge 23 who is from Macon, Georgia; Ms. Carolyn Housman who is from 24 Athens, Georgia; Mr. Hollis Latham who is from Cherokee 2S County; and Mr. Larry Foster who is from Jonesboro, Georgia.

PAGE 5

The question "Should the constitutional mandate of

2 an adequate education for the citizens be changed?"1 all

3 ten members of the State Board of Education believe no change

4 should be made in the mandate of an adequate education for

S the citizens.

6

On the question "Should the provision stating that

7 an adequate education for the citizens shall be a primary

8 obligation of the State of Georgia be changed?", nine members

9 of the State Board of Education believe that the provision

10 stating that an adequate education for the citizens shall be

a primary obligation of the State of Georgia should not be

changed. One of the members believes there should be a change

without expressing any view on what the change should be.

The third question, "Should the state be required

to assume a greater responsibility for the financing of

public education?", there were eight members of the State

Board of Education who did not think the state should assume

18 a greater responsibility for the financing of public educa-

19 tioD; two members said the state should, with one of these

20 advocating a one-cent sales tax statewide and a reduction in

21 local participation.

22

The fourth question, "Should the state be given more

23 authority to set minimum educational standards for private 24 schools?", there were six members of the State Board said

2S that no more authority should be given, and there were four

PAGE 6

members who said that more authority should be given.

2

If more authority were given, all members said the

3 minimum standards should be set by the State Board of

4 Education and the standards should be uniform.

5

"Should Section VIII of Article VIII on freedom of

6 association be retained in the constitution?" There was

7 some discussion really among the board as to the meaning of

8 this, but five members of the State Board of Education said

9 that this should be removed from the constitution, one saying

10
I:l Z
11 j:
e ; io.'"".". ! 14 Iu:zt: 15 .:l I:l '";:) 16 ~... 17 :cz=

however that unless it was clarified it should be removed without stating what the clarfication should be, and four members said it should be retained, and there was one member who abstained.
The sixth question was "Should the State School Superintendent or the members of the State Board of Education be elected officials?", and there were seven members of the State Board who said that either the State School

18 Superintendent or the members should be elected. Three

19 members said that neither should be elected.

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Could you repeat that?

21

MR. VANN: Seven members said that one or the other,

22 either the school superintendent or the state board members

23 should be elected, and there were three members who said that

24 neither one should be elected, but all ten members believe

that the present method of selecting of the State Board of

PAGE 7

Education should remain. I guess you could say

2

MR. HILL: How many? All ten?

3

MR. VANN: All ten members.

4

DR. PRESSLY: Say that again.

5

MR. VANN: All ten members of the State Board of

6 Education said that the present method of selection of the

7 State Board of Education should be retained, should not be

8 changed.

9

MR. OWENS: Would that in essence then say the whole

10
1:1 Z
11 i=
..oIl..l..:
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ I':z": 15 01) 1:1 Ill: ::> 16 ~... Qz 17 :

process should not be changed? You said seven, which is -I'm just clarifying this --
MR. VANN: You know, there was a seven-to-three vote that said, a seven-to-three expression, there was no official vote by ,the state boa~d -- the essence of what was said is that they believe the method of selecting the State Board of Education should remain the same and the superintendent should be elected is the essence of what was said.

18

MR. OWENS: Thank you.

19

MR. VANN: However, you recognize, going to (b)

20 there "Should the method of the selection of the State School

21 Superintendent be change.d?", and that was an even split.

22

MR. HILL: I'm not surprised at all.

23

MR. VANN: Five members of the State Board said

24 that he should be appointed, and two of these ,added it should

25 be with the advice and consent of either the Governor or the

PAGE 8

Senate.

2

MR. GRAHAM: The subconnnittee may be in the same

3 posture of an even split.

4

MR. VANN: Well, I won't make any comments at the

5 moment.

6

MR. OWENS: I was just bringing it to the attention,

7 it seemed that the-first statement that you made on that was

8 that it was the concensus that one or the other should be

9 elected.

10

MR. VANN: You realize that's the posture of the

question.

MR. OWENS: Yes. Then you turn right around, then the next time ten of them said how the board should,be elected and then they split on the other.

MR, VANN: That's right.

MR, OWENS: It's not consistent.

MR. VANN: Of course, the question is rather

18 confusing. You realize if you answer the first thing without

19 reading the second, you can come to an anawerthen, and when

20 you read the next two you realize your responses may affect

21 your answer to the first one. We didn't go back and review

22 it. This expression was made you know, each member

23 privately had the question sheet as we all sat there, and

24 each of them responded to it in writing,

25

We had discussion, but this is the expression of

PAGE 9

an individual member, and when you ask the first question and

2 read it the basic thing was that they felt that one of them

3 should be elected, and then they felt that the state board

4 should not be elected but appointed, and then they split on

5 whether the state superintendent should be elected or not,

6 or appointed.

7

Theoretically, you know, the bottom split should

8 have ueen seven to three instead of five to five, but when

9 you deal with politics sometimes theory don't work.

10
.."z
11 j:
.oA...
@;i ! 14 ... '"<l( :z: ..15 .:I "j 16 .~.. Q Z <l( 17 :

The seventh question which is not in the same order
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Just go ahead and worry about the original.
MR. VANN: The question "Should the composition of the State Board of Education be changed?", which was the seventh question on the June 24th list, all ten members of the state board of education believe no change should be made in

18 the composition of the state board of education.

19

DR. PRESSLY: Where is that on this sheet?

20

MR. VANN: It isn't. Well, it may be on the very

21 back. Let's see.

22

DR. PRESSLY: Here it is, Number 12, way down on

23 Number 12.

24

What was the vote on that?

25

MR. VANN: All ten members believe the composition

PAGE 10

should not be changed, which currently provides one from each

2 congressional district by appointment of the Governor.

3

The eighth question was "Should qualifications for

4 members of the state board be provided for in the constitutiOl 7"

5 Nine members of the State Board of Education stated that

6 qualifications for members of the state board should not be

7 stated in the constitution, with one saying it should.

8

Two of the members, however, stated it should remain

9 as is. I think that the sense of this issue was that the

10 individual members addressed it, was that the qualifications

."z
11 ~
.'o"..
9;1

as now stated should remain as they are, which I think there are some qualifications in the constitution.
I think generally the members of the State Board of

! 14 ... Education,strongly favor retaining the present constitutional

':~"r

15 .:> provision for the State Board of Education.

":'>"

16 ~...

A majority favor removing the freedom of association

az

~

17 : provision; however, as you notice the members of the state

18 board were evenly divided on changing the provisions for the

19 State School Superintendent.

20

The members responded to these questions individuall

21 as contained on this particular decision agenda, and in the

22 discussion preceding the individual decision making on their

23 decision agenda it seemed to be the sense of the members of

24 the board that the system of selecting the board and the

25 superintendent had been working successfully now and that it

PAGE 11

has worked success~ully since its adoption in 1945, it really

2 ought not to be changed, and particularly it doesn't need

3 changed just for the sake of change.

4

There was a unanimous belief on the board for

5 retaining the present basic education provisions of the

6 constitution for making it the primary obligation upon the

7 state of Georgia to provide an adequate education for its

8 citizens.

9

I would be glad to respond to any questions.

10 There are a number of other issues addressed on the new

decision agenda.

MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Vann '--

MR. VANN: Yes.

MR. GRAHAM: The other witnesees that have been

before our SubcoDDIlittee have been in agreement about

maintaining the basic constitutional language I believe of

an adequate education the primary duty of the state and so 18 forth, and have added a suggestion that in that same provision

19 that -- have suggested that an equal educational opportunity

20 clause ought to be added there.

21

I wondered if you had thought about that on the

22 Board of Education, had thought about adding making it 23 adequate and also to specify in our constitution that equal 24 educationalcpportunity ought to be provided, or do you feel 25 that might be provided elsewhere in the constitution?

PAGE 12

MR. VANN: Well, of course, when you sayan equal

2 educational opportunity I'm assuming that we're speaking of

3 the same type of equality that is provided by other sections

4 of the constitution, and personally I don't see any basis for

5 expressing it in this particular provision.

6

As a matter of fact, if it is expressed here it may

7 take on more meaning than you intend. I'm not sure, if it's

8 expressed in this section of it. You-certainly wouldn't

9 remove it from the other provisions that provide equality.

10
I!I
..Z
11 j:
?5: ...o 0.. 12 ~
~r~ 14 .~.. ':4"r ..15 ol) I!I ~ 16 ~... Q Z 4 17 :

What I mean is you wouldn't take it from the equal protection clause of our constitution at all .
MR. GRAHAM: Looking at the constitutions say from Tex~s and Virginia and Florida and others, they have put in there generally on their statement of public education that it should be the responsibility of the state to maintain a system of free public elementary and secondary schools that provide equal educational opportunity and an adequate educatio

18 for the citizens of the state, sometfting like that. We're

19 just finding this in other constitutions.

20

MR. VANN: I guess what you're .saying is you would

21 expound upon it on the theory that it doesn't provide for it

22 now. I couldn't agree that it doesn't provide for it now.

23

MR. OWENS; What is that danger of that problem of

24 confusion that could be created through this process, a

25 possibility you might have had in mind when you made the

PAGE 13

statement?

2

MR. VANN: When you aay equal educational opportunity

3 it has several meanings. I don't -- I would rather have

4 somebody to express what they think it means.

5

What I'm saying is that if the constitution has in

6 other provisions that equal protection of the law is an

7 obligatiQn of the state, then if you make a s~ilar statement

8 equal educational opportunity in the education section, does

9 it take on a new meaning of some type or does it mean the

10 same thing that the other sections mean?

"z
11 j:
..'o."...

DR. ,PRESSLY: As I see it, it would be a danger of

@;I this kind of interpretation. Suppose one community has a vocational school and another community doesn't have a

! 14 t;; vocational school, somebody could rise up and say they've got

:I:

15 .:I to build one to give equal educational opportunity to every

"'"::l

16 ~...
az

student in the state of Georgia, and they might not be able

17 : to build one. I think that kind of thing comes into this,

18 that you might be guaranteeing something that you can't

19 supply, not in any sense except in the sense of educational

20 opportunity, that is the type of education.

21

MR. VANN: I think Dr. Pressly probably expressed

22 it.

23

For instance, you know, there are some issues before

24 the State Board of education now that are arising in our

25 quasi-judicial capacity of appeals from local boards that

PAGE 14

involve the training of handicapped children in some

2 communities in our state and some areas. The number of

3 children served are not large quantities, and they have come

4 together in a consertium of two or three counties to provide

5 this service, and as'a result some child has to travel further

6 than other children to reach this type of thing, -and it might

7 have to travel outside the county, and one of 'the issues is

8 that "I've got to have that service zLn my own local school

9 system."

10

I don~t know -- you know, when you say equal

educational opportunity, if this means the same thing as

equal protection of the law then there's no use expressing

it; if it means more I think we ought to have some type of

discussion about what we mean before we put it into the

constitution.

MR. GRAHAM: Another question that, either for

yourself, or if you know the consensus of the Board of

18 Education, what does the word "adequate" mean?

19

MR. VANN: I think it is generic and probably means

20 that it's the obligation of the state to do it, but it's up

21 to the General Assembly probably through the legislative
"
22 process to provide it.

23

MR. GRAHAM: The General Assembly has passed a law

24 outlining various and sundry things. Would you say that that

25 law that they have passed would be the General Assembly's

PAGE 15

definition of what they feel is adequate?

2

MR.. VANN: You mean the program for adequate

3 education?

4

MR.. GRAHAM: Yes.

5

MR. VANN: I would say it expresses the current

6 opinion of what an adequate education may be.

7

For instance, we adopted a minimum fOmldation

8 program before we adopted an adequate program these are

9 just the names attributed to this legislation but both of

10 them apparently recognizing improvement or perhaps even

increasing what adequacy might mean, but I think it's the

real basic generic type of statement in the constitution that

leaves some of the issues up to the legislative process.

In other words, if you're going to write what's

adequate in the constitution, and that may be changing, then

the legislative process doesn't have any meaning whatsoever.

MR. GRAHAM: In some of the constitutions, instead

18 of the word adequate you'll find the word high quality, the

19 words.

20

MR.. VANN: Well, I suppose there's a difference

21 between quality and high quality, but that's somewhat of the

22 same type of situation I guess as to whether you use phrases

23 like adequate, quality, high quality. As legislatures pass

24 items that do it and courts consider it, I suppose there are

25 meanings and definitions that would come out.

PAGE 16

As far as I know, I don't guess any court in

2 Georgia has expressed what adequate means, but ordinarily a

3 court would only express it perhaps with relation to the

4 legislation being considered, to the issue before it.

5

MR. GRAHAM: I think you're right. I think every-

6 body is going to look at the legislature as defining what

7 adequate is, but I just wondered if the State Board of

8 Education had a concept that might be different from the

9 legislature.

10

Czl

11

...ioo=r:
Q.

~ 12 ~

@r~

! 14

I-
':"r

15 .:l

Cor:l

;;)
16 .~..
zo
17 ~

MR. VANN: Let me say this, that an adequate program for education in Georgia, the legislation as I read it places a major responsibility upon the State Board of Education to provide what is adequate in connection with the sections that are presented, because really almost all of them start out saying that the State Board of Education shall, and therefore I would say there is a great deal of responsibility upon the State Board of Education within the

18 confines of what that legislation states.

19

Now, some of them, the State Board of Education

20 might well desire and take positions to enact, but we live

21 in a situation likewise where if they're not funded you can't

22 go through with them.

23

MR. GRAHAM: They're not adequate if they're not

24 funded.

25

MR.. VANN: That's what the situation is on some

PAGE 17

of the adequate programs expressed in the APEG law.

2

MRS. WALTON: If we get APEG funded, we'll be all

3 right.

4

MR. VANN: I think it's probably a very good

5 expression of adequacy, but I would be one to say that

6 adequacy could change for the better ten years from now,

7 it might need more expression of some other type.

8

It might be determined that it would be adequate

9 to put a vocational school in every community in Georgia,

10
"z
11 t:
..Iol..l..:
e;~ ! 14 !;; -:zc: 15 .:l "Ill: ::> 16 .~.. a-zc 17 :

but it might not be required at some time in history. DR. PRESSLY: I think we all kind of shy away from
the word adequate. It's good and it's vague, but it doesn't sound like enough, and yet quality to me overdoes it. I think you could argue just as much there as you can about the adequate side.
I feel we might as well settle for adequate . MR. VANN: Well, some may say adequate is weak in

18 its connotation, but some might say it's strong, and that is

19 the type of thing that a constitution perhaps ought to

20 express.

21

MR. GRAHAM: Going back to the State School

22 Superintendent, Dr. McDaniel, if the board is divided on the

23 question of whether he should be elected or not, and he

24 presently is elected, does the board feel that he reports to

25 the board, or does he report to the voters of the state?

PAGE 18

MR. VANN: I think the board feels he has a

2 responsibility to both. I think he is elected by the people,

3 and I really feel like the state superintendent of schools

4 has a major responsibility for leadership of education in

5 Georgia. and I think that his leadership can have a great

6 impact upon the state board. The state board is made up of

7 laymen theoretically. you know. it's made up of laymen. and

8 therefore in the field of education some of the professional

9 things need to be addressed by professionals. but laymen need

10
"z
11 j:
@;;a.o...:.. 14 ~ ~ VI :<z:l 15 ~ "a: ::> 16 ~... zQ 17 ~

to say that this is what ought to be done. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: But if the superintendent is
elected, then there's no assurance you would always get a professional. and if you got a laYman who was elected as superintendent of the state board of education then you have a problem. you have all lay persons responsible for providing education for citizens of Georgia. How does the board feel about that?

18

MR. VANN: I don't know, but personally, and I

19 think the board generally. would probably feel this. I think

20 they would probably feel one of the great strengths of

21 education lay in the fact that it is administered by laymen.

22

I'm sure there are other states in the United

23 States where state boards of education might even be required

24 to be professionals. I understand maybe South Carolina is

25 this way, I'm not sure. but still there has been a great

PAGE 19

growth in public education in the United States from its

2 inception, and I think the lay leadership has had a part in

3 it, and I think professional leadership has had a part in it,

4 but I think the two working together is the thing that works

5 and not anyone of them taking the leadership.

6

In other words, I think it's a combination of lay

7 people and educational professionals that can really come up

8 with the things to do that provide adequacy in education and

9 quality too.

10
zCI 11 i=
.'oc"....
r~@~1i4 ~ l;; ~ % 15 ol) CI '";:) 16 .~.. Q Z ~ 17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH; So then you are saying in fact the process that brings together a state board and a superintendent should somehow bring together the lay person and professional; is that what you're saying?
MR. VANN: You know, the educators are people who are trained in the field of education, Lay people may be trained in many various fields, but the process of bringing all of these together is likely to bring a better result

18 than if you just have educators strictly dealing with

19 education. 'because it just seems to me you've got a better

20 process if you are involving people who have various diverse

21 and different backgrounds and knowledge and information,

22 even sometimes if you get some bad ones that way.

23

MR. GRAHAM: Dr. Jim Mullins, who was here last

24 time, executive director of the Georgia Education Improvement

25 Council, made an interesting suggestion in this whole area

PAGE 20

of who's elected and who's appointed -- what did we call the

2 term, quasi-election -- having the state school board members

3 elected from their districts by caucus of the boardsof

4 education in that district. and perhaps maybe caucus with the

5 representatives and senators from that district also. and

6 then have the state school board members appoint their

7 superintendent.

8

Would you respond to that?

9

MR. VANN: Yes. I read that. and that's interesting

10
zCI 11 j:::
.'o."....
~ 12 ~
~ri ! 14 ... :'z": 15 oll CI '";;;) 16 ~... oz 17 :

and one of his comments was that the state of Washington does this, but as far as I'm concerned that doesn't lend any validity to it just because the state of Washington does it.
My own judgment about it is that. you know. at the present time I suppose theoretically the state board of education is placed in the executive branch of government and the state school superintendent is placed in the executive branch of government. and if I had my personal preferences

18 I would rather see an elected-by-the-people lay state board

19 of education and an appointed superintendent.

20

I have been in a system where this has been the

21 manner since its inception in 1900, and it seems to have

22 worked well, but my own judgment about the election statewide

23 of the state board of education is that you're going to limit

24 those who can run for it unless you're going to make it a

25 full time paid position. and I have my reservations about

PAGE 21

that although that is a possibility, but I guess what you'd

2 say is you'd make it a full time elected political position.

3

If you're going to use that process, it seems to me

4 like -- he was suggesting a caucus of local school board

5 members in every congressional district in connection with

6 each one, and then he was suggesting from that would be a

7 choice of three persons who would be elected at a legislative

8 caucus of the members of that congressional district from

9 one of those three.

10
..Czl
11 i=
..o....
@;i 14 !... '" ::r:: ..15 .:I " :;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :;

To me this is -- At the present time the Governor appoints with the advice and consent of the Senate Theoretically this is one of the traditional ways of appointment of executives under our system of government and was the one initially, or is used in our United States government, and theoretically in my opinion this is ~- the statement was made by Mr. Mullins that this would make the state board members more responsible to its constituents,

18 and I don't know what he meant by constituents. If he meant

19 local board members, then I think this would be a mistake,

20 but if he means the people generally then I'm not so positive

21 that it would result in this.

22

Frankly, I think it probably politicizes the positio~

23 more than it is now. If it were elected, it would be the most

24 political of allj if it were full time paid and elected it

25 would be even more political. You know, I'm not certain

PAGE 22

that is bad, but I guess what I'm saying is I think it ought

2 to remain in the appointment area of the government and the

3 executive branch of government with the advice and consent of

4 the Senate, and that the other process would be removing it

5 from this field and placing it in a more pol~tical arena,

6 and I don't know whether the results would be better or not.

7

I guess I would say again if the engine is running

8 you don't have to fix it. I guess that's the best way to

9 phrase it.

10
Czl
11 ..joa..::..
@;j 14 ~ IU> :<rII 15 .:. Ca:l ;;) 16 .~.. Q Z <II 17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: As a point of order at this time

I would like to -- since Mr. Vann is a member of the committee

and we plan to continue our discussions after we have heard

from Dr. McDaniel, that we hold any additional questions for

Mr. Vann until that time, and I'll now turn to the

superintendent and ask him to

Would you like to come a

little closer, sir?

Would you like to introduce your staff?

18

DR. McDANIEL: Yes. Eldon Basham is with me and

19 Eleanor Gilmer, two of the members of my staff.

20

I appreciate very much the opportunity of visiting

21 with you folks a few minutes today. and I will be glad to

22 respond to the written questions or to your oral questions, 23 however you would like to proceed.

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: The process, the procedure has

25 been that we have asked the visitors to comment relative to

PAGE 23

the agenda, and then we will have questions afterwards.

2

DR. PRESSLY: Charles, wouldn't it be a good idea

3 to let each of us introduce ourselves to Dr. McDaniel so he

4 knows who he I s speaking to?

5

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Right. Okay.

6

MS. GREENBERG: I am Vickie Greenberg, staff

7 attorney.

8

MR. VANN: Tom Vann.

9

OR. PRESSLY: I am Bill Pressly.

10
"z
11 ioa..=..:..
@;i ! 14 IIII :z: 15 ~ "a: ;;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

MR. GRAHAM: John Graham. MR. OWENS: Odell Owens. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Why don't you tell him your affiliation? DR. McDANIEL: I think I know everybody so far. MR. HILL: I am Melvin Hill with the staff of the Select Committee . MRS. WALTON: I am LeAnna Walton, Albany, Georgia.

18

MR. GREEN: Joe Green, ,Superintendent, Griffin,

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I am Charles Meredith, I' m a

20 chancellor of the University Center, Chairperson for the

21 subcommittee.

22

DR. McDANIEL: All right.

23

In looking briefly, then, maybe what I would like to

24 do is answer the fifteen questions and then have you come back

25 and explore any of these that you desire.

PAGE 24

Number 1, "Should the constitution mandate an

2 adequate program?" My answer is no. The question is, what

3 is an adequate program of education.

4

Number 2, "Should the provision stating that an

5 adequate education for the citizens shall be a primary

6 obligation of the state?" The a.nswer there is yes; I do think

7 that there needs to be the provision that some local

8 participation in funding is provided for. The primary word

9 suits me fine there.

10

~

Czl 11 i=
."o0.1".:
12 ~

~)~

14 ~

t;;

z<l

15 .:

Cl 01: ::>
16 .~..

Q

Z <l
17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. I want to make sure that I didn't mislead anybody on my last statement. We have exercised the option of asking questions as you proceed, so I want to make sure that we --
DR. McDANIEL: The third, "Should the state be required to assume a greater responsibility for the financing of public education?", yes. Not necessarily greater for some systems, but I do think there are some equalization features

18 that ought to be written in, and consequently this would mean

19 a greater responsibility.

20

Number 4, "Should the state be given more authority

21 to set minimum educational standards for private schools?",

22 my answer is yes, at least standards that equal the public

23 schools.

24

I have asked some of the groups of private schools,

25 suggested that they do this themselves, suggested that they

PAGE 25

discipline themselves or set their own standards, and I hope

2 that that'swhat they will do.

3

Number 5, "Should the section on freedom of

4 association be retained in the constitution?" No, I think

5 that is unnecessary.

6

Number 6, "Should the method of selection of the

7 state board of education be changed?" I do not -- The

8 answer is no.

9

5(a), or 6(a), "Should the method of selection of

10
"z
11 ;:::
..Iol..l..:
@;i ! 14 Ii; :~r 15 oll "Ill: ;:) 16 .~.. 1:1 Z ~ 17 :

the state board of education be retained in the constitution?" Yes.
Number 7, "Should the method of selection of the state school superintendent be changed?" Yes, and I think that the superintendent should be appointed by the board.
Number 7(a), "If appointed, should the state school superintendent be named in the constitution?" I do, yes .
(b), "If elected, should the state school superin-

18 tendent serve the same term as the Governor?" My answer is

19 yes.

20

Number 8, "Should appointments to the state board

21 of education be for seven years?" Yes. That is the current

22 term.

23

Number 9, "Should the Governor continue to be

24 prohibited from being a member of the state board?" Yes.

25

Number 10, "Should the method of filling a vacancy

PAGE 26

on the state board continue to be stated in the

2 constitution?" Yes.

3

Number 11, "Should the constitution continue to

4 provide that the board shall have such powers and duties as

5 provided by law and existing at the time of the adoption of

6 the constitution of 1945?" Yes.

7

I would also like to be sure that there is a fairly

8 specific listing of the powers and duties of both the board

9 and the superintendent.

10

Number 12, "Should the composition of the state

\:J

Z

11

;:::
o<..r.:

board of education be changed?"

No.

~r~! 12 :::
~~

Number 13, "Should qualifications for members of the

state board of education be provided for in the constitution?"

14 I-

Yes.

':z":

15 oll

Number 14 --

\:J

<r:

:;,

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Would you stop right there for a

Q

Z

17 : minute?

18

DR. McDANIEL: All right.

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: You're.making here reference to

20 the qualifications, those that are already in the constitution,

21 or were you suggesting that additional qualifications should

22 be added and, if so, which ones do you think --?

23

DR. McDANIEL: I think those that are .already there

24 ought to be listed, then we ought to look carefully to see

25 whether or not there are additional qualifications. I'm not

PAGE 27

sure that there are additional qualifications that need to be

2 added, but if in the wisdom of you folks and those of us who

3 look at it but I do think that ought to be in the

4 constitution, I don't think it ought xo be left to the General

S Assembly.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Those qualifications, the ones

7 that mayor may not be added, should they be designed do you

8 think to ensure that the composition of the board would have 9 persons who would have some specific knowledge of education?

10

DR. McDANIEL: Not necessarily. I think they need

to be well rounded, well educated, but I believe in a lay

board and I'm not interested in trytng to make it professional

educators, but I do think we need to have knowledgeable people

in various walks of life.

Number 14, the answer is yes. I think the

qualifications of the state school superintendent should be

provided in the constitution.

18

I really have no opinion on 15. That can be yes

19 or no depending upon the conditions, and I have no specific

20 thinking about scholarships, loans and grants being in the

21 article.

22

Now I would be glad to discuss any or all of the

23 questions.

24

DR. PRESSLY: May I aj{ a question?

2S

DR. McDANIEL: Yes.

PAGE 28

DR. PRESSLY: I certainly agree with you that I

2 think it would be tremendously helpful if the state superin-

3 tendent were appointed by the board. I also like the idea

4 of letting the selection of the board be done just exactly as

5 it is now, but we do have a question that keeps coming up in

6 our committee that I can't answer, and I would like to know

7 what your answer on this is, and that is that we perhaps need

8 to be more closely related to the will of the people and we

9 keep trying to come up with some way that we will not be

10
.."z
11 j:
'o."..
~ 12 ~
~r~
14 !.. ':"r 15 ~
"'";;;)
16 ~... I:l Z
17 :

going into an appointive situation all the way, and we have been working on something trying to see how the state board of education should -- perhaps you have seen the paper of Mr. Mullins -- I personally would really like to see no change, and yet I can't deny the fact that we're moving further away from the will of the people, the direct will.
DR. McDANIEL: That is the dilenma, and I have faced it, and I'm willing to have the superintendency continue to

18 be elected if that's the best way or if that's the way the

19 people want it.

20

I have great concern about the election of state

21 board members, I think it would make it a much more political

22 officej I am not sure who would want to run for state board

23 member from the First Congressional District and would be

24 willing to pay for the campaign and be willing to go out and

25 ask people to please vote for me. I'm afraid that we would

PAGE 29

get people who would not be the caliber of individuals that

2 we would really like to have.

3

Now, some states have this and they have come out

4 all right, but I like the appointment procedure better.

5

DR. PRESSLY: I feel we have been extremely fortunat~

6 in the state of Georgia because the state board of education

7 and the state superintendent have worked together in harmony

8 through the years and we haven't had any great problems, but

9 I can foresee a day when we might have a state superintendent

10
"z
11 i=
.'~"..
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 I':"r 15 ~ '"" ;:) 16 ~... Q Z 17 ::

of education that did not at all please the state board of education, and I think the state board of education ought to select that man so if they are displeased they can say "Get out of here."
DR. McDANIEL: I agree. I basically believe the state board of educ'ation ought to set the policy, and one of the most important things they ought to do is to select the superintendent, and he ought to do what is needed to be done

18 and, frankly, if he does not satisfy the group then he ought

19 to be released.

20

The same thing is true of local superintendents.

21

DR. PRESSLY: At the present moment the state board

22 of education to me is denied its ultimate authority.

23

DR. McDANIEL: Well, you have two different kinds

24 of authority. In effect I'm an independent character, I

25 have been elected by the people

PAGE 30

DR. PRESSLY: Exactly.

2

DR. McDANIEL: -- and if I do not agree with what

3 the state board -- you know, if I really wanted to take

4 issue I could take issue and say, you know, "I think you're

5 wrong." We could come to a very serious conflict if I

6 decided "Well, I'm the one that's elected by the p~ople, and

7 you folks are just appointed by the Governor."

8

MR. OWENS: There would be nothing they could do

9 about it.

10
\:l Z
11 i=
..'o"....
@;i ! 14 ... '<:"zl: 15 .:J \:l '";;;) 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 ~

DR. McDANIEL: Nothing. We could really come to -MR. VANN: They could make it mighty uncomfortable. DR. McDANIEL: Very uncomfortable. MR. OWENS: In other words, they couldn't fire him. MR. VANN: I have a question. Dr. McDaniel, don't you see the role of the state school superintendent, even
though we have an elected or appointed or any other type of
chosen school board, as the leader for education in the state

18 of Georgia?

19

DR. McDANIEL: Yes. Yes, I do. Here is the one

20 person who has been selected to be somewhat the spokesperson

21 of public education in the state, and fortunately or

22 unfortunately I hold that position now, but I think whoever

23 holds that position ought to be the man out front or the

24 person out front for public education.

25

MR. VANN: Isn't this traditionally true throughout

PAGE 31

our educational process in Georgia at the local level that

2 the school superintendent assumes the leadership position

3 and theoretically the board and the superintendent together

4 lead education in the community?

5

DR. McDANIEL: Right .

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: The process that we have now

7 could very well lead to the state superintendent of education

8 being uneducated, very well.

9

DR. McDANIEL: It could.

10
"z
11 j:
...IoI:
Go
g~r:1~4! to :'z": 15 .:l "II: ;;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: There are no qualifications in the constitution tha:: state that a person has to be a professional educator, not that that might -- I'm not saying it's bad or good, but if the superintendent is going to be the leader and the spokesperson for education it would seem to me that person should be someone who is knowledgeable about education and that the constitution should ensure that that kind of person always gets in that position as opposed to

18 leaving it to chance.

19

I think we have been fortunate to have persons like

20 Dr. McDaniel and his predecessors to run, but there's no

21 guarantee for the future, and I think that's why we're sort

22 of --

23

MR. VANN: At the present time the constitution

24 doesn't provide anything probably except his age and

25 citizenship and

PAGE 32

DR. McDANIEL: He must have three years of 2 experience teaching.

3

MR. VANN: But that's provided by legislation I

4 believe. Therefore, that type of qualification has been left 5 to the legislature rather than expressed in the constitution, 6 and that's not unusual.

7

In order to be president of the United States you

8 just have to be a certain age and a certain residence --

9

MR. GRAHAM: I wouldn't believe that we ought to

10
1:1 Z
11 j:
.'o."....
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ I'<"l: :l: 15 .:I 1:1 '":;) 16 ~... Q Z <l: 17 :

limit the superintendent to a citizen of the state of Georgia or something like that if we get to an appointed basis. so we can get the best man in the country, orthe woman,
DR. McDANIEL: Some states do this. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: ~ question, Question Number 14 you answered yes to "Should any qualifications of the state school superintendent be provided for in the constitution?" Other than what's already there, what qualifications

18 do you think would be appropriate here?

19

DR. McDANIEL: Either in the statutes or in the

20 constitution, and as far as I'm concerned the constitution,

21 there need to be some educational qualifications established.

22

MR. GRAHAM: Dr. McDaniel, in Question Number 11

23 "Should the constitution continue to provide that the board

24

c~
shall have such powers and duties as provi:.;._, by law and

25

.....'
existing ... " and so forth, in answer to that question you

/

PAGE 33

said yes, and I think you then made the suggestion that the

2 constitution ought to specifically designate certain duties

3 for the board and for the superintendent.

4

Would you be willing to suggest to us in a letter or

5 some form what you think some of those specific powers and

6 duties might be?

7

DR. McDANIEL: Yes, and I am not absolutely

8 familiar with what all is included in the constitution of

9 '45, but I think that if there are problems ahead the problems

10
"z
11 j:
.'2"..
@;I ! 14 ~ <l( :z: 15 ~ "'";;;) 16 .~.. cz 17 :

will be because either by statute or by the constitution there is an omission of some of the specific things, the role to be played by the board and the role that needs to be played by the superintendent.
The~e' s where you have problems when it is not clearly understood what the two roles are.
MR. GRAHAM: I guess I would be remiss also if I didn't pick up on your suggestion that there were some

18 equalization problems in the state.

19

Are you suggesting that the constitution ought to

20 address those problems?

21

DR. McDANIEL: Well, I think the constitution ought

22 to provide that there be some equalization features, whether

23 or not they're spelled out. I think the constitution ought 24 to be sure, ought to provide that every child is treated

25 fairly and equally, then as far as the statutes are concerned

PAGE 34

maybe they are the ones that ought to tell us whether or not

2 DEP. is the answer or --

3

MR. GRAHAM: Your equalization was talking about

4 opportunity of education, not financial?

5

DR. McDANIEL: Not financially. Finance is one of

6 them that might be written into the law.

7

MR. GRAHAM: We have an equal protection of the laws

8 provision in the Georgia constitution now, not found in the 9 education section. Mr. Vann and I discussed that earlier 10 and wondered if that wouldn't satisfy you. or would you like

to see specific language in education?

DR. McDANIEL: Theoretically I am greatly concerned

that a student in a rural county where the tax base is very

low has a much more limited education than his cousin who

lives in Cobb or DeKalb or Thomasville where the tax base is

much higher and music and_:art and other things are provided.

and somehow we're going to have to -- in order for me to feel

18 good that I'm going to be responsible1br all one million

19 children and their education I'm going to have to feel just

20 as good about the youngster who lives on the edge of the

21 Okefenokee Swamp as I do the one who lives on the edge of the

22 Druid Hills golf course.

23

MR. GRAHAM: Would you defIne adequate?

24

DR. McDANIEL: No, sir. I'm afraid I couldn't.

25

MR. GRAHAM: Do you think the legislature attempts

PAGE 35

to define adequate in the APEG law?

2

DR. McDANIEL: I think that was an attempt to

3 define adequate, but we all recognize that there are many

4 inadequacies in the APEG law and, of course, we haven't

5 funded even those adequacies that are there.

6

I think if it were funded it would be much more

7 adequate than it is now.

8

MR. OWENS: You made a statement -- to move away

9 from the topic of discussion, because what you said was a

10 little bit away from it too when you were speaking about what

"z
11 i=
e;1'o.."....

is in essence the equalization, the power equalization, that (
the child at the edge of the Okefenokee Swamp as compared to one that may be in some of the more affluent metropolitan

! 14 ... areas. That is a concern of mine too. Have you given that '"-e( :z:
15 :~: a whole lot of thought as to how that can be rectified other ::>
16 ~... than this equalization idea that has been before the Q z
17 g legislature?

18

DB.. McDANIEL: Yes, I have given ita good deal

19 of thought and I'm not sure that we'll ever be able to

20 completely eradicate this unless we come to a state system

21 and allow no local communities to do what they want to do.

22

For instance, if we funded the state system up to

23 what we considered fairly adequate levels, if a community or

24 a school district decided they wanted to, you know, put in

25 computers, they wanted to do some other things, unless you

PAGE 36

prohibited them from doing so conceivably then it would 2 become inequitable again, and so I don't think any of us

3 want to say that in X county you can't do something extra

4 if you want to, and that's about the only way you're ever 5 going to be sure that Ware County and Union County and Cobb

6 County all have the same education, have the state system,

7 and at least at this point in time I'm not willing -- I think

8 we lose more than we gain to say that you could not add to

9 locally if you wanted to.

10

DR. PRESSLY: You could have kind of a compromise

system so there is a minimum that you must reach in every

county.

MR. GRAHAM: District power equalization is only

one of several approaches being used in the country to this

problem.

DR. McDANIEL: That's true.

MR. GRAHAM: It's not funded yet in Georgia, but it

18 would be an approach that could be tried.

19

DR. McDANIEL: For instance, I found in Russia last

20 summer that their teachers that taught away from the cities

21 drew a much higher salary than those who lived in the cities.

22 If you taught in the boondocks, the state salary would be

23 more than if you taught in DeKalb County.

24

I don't know that that would ever work here, but

25 it does make it at~ractive for those who want to make more

PAGE 37

money to go where transportation is more difficult, you know,

2 things may not be quite as attractive as living in a

3 metropolitan area.

4

Let me address one other thing that was mentioned

5 earlier having to do with the fact that the public wants more

6 and more opportunity to select, and I think all of us

7 recognize this. I said to a superintendent this morning

8 I think that if the public really had its way right now it

9 would like to elect high school principals, I think they

10 would like to be in on the selection of more and more folks.

"z

11

~
..o0....:

Whether or not this is wise,

that's left for maybe the future.

~ 12 ~ I personally feel better when the board is elected or

(@)r l selecied in an indirect manner by a group that is representa-

! 14 ~

tive of the public.

O:zI:l

IS .:l

For instance, if the county commission could select

"0:
~

16 ~... the board, or even the grand jury selects the board, or often

Q
Z
17 : you have individuals -- if I go to you, or if I'm a prominent

18 citizen in the community or -- it doesn't matter whether I'm

19 prominent or not, if I go to you and say '~e really need you

20 to serve the city of Palmetto" or the county of Clayton on

21 the school board, you know, the business has been good for

22 you, or your profession has been good for you, you owe some 23 civic rent back to this community and you need to serve on

24 this board for a period of four years or seven years, I

25 think you get a better person willing to serve there than

PAGE 38

you would just to open it up and let whoever happens to have

2 enough money and enough friends and enough popularity to get

3 themselves elected to the school board.

4

That is a personal feeling that I have. I have seen

5 in recent years some great school board members elected, but

6 I have also seen some people who are on the board to get rid

7 of the superintendent or to change, to build a new building

8 in my community or to get the bus routes changed, or to do

9 some specific things, so I think that even though the public

10
CzI 11 ;
'o.."....
@;i ! 14 I':"z: 15 ~ CI '"::l 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

may be clamoring to elect the board I think you have a more stable board and you have probably a more responsive board to the total needs of the community rather than just the immediate needs of some citizen if it can be indirect rather than direct.
I'm not sure that anyone else in the country shares that attitude, but I pass it on to you .
I would say one last thing, then I'll ask you if you

18 have any other questions. You must remember now how state

19 school superintendents have been selected for the last

20 generation. The last real open election was in the early

21 thirties when Dr. Collins defeated Dr. Duggan in an open

22 election. That was kind of a played down election.

23

But when Dr. Collins decided to leave, he did not

24 wait until the end of his term and throw it open to the

25 wolves, he resigned and the Governor selected Dr. Purcell

PAGE 39

who came in and served a year and then ran. When Dr. Purcell

2 decided that he had had all he wanted, he did not wait until

3 the end of his term and have an open election, he resigned

4 and the Governor appointed Dr. Nix.

5

When Dr. Nix decided that he was going to leave, he

6 didn't serve out to the end of his term and let it be an open

7 election, he retired and resigned and the Governor appointed

8 McDaniel.

9

Now, McDaniel at some point in time is going to have

10
"z
11 j:
...ollC
A.
~ 12 ~
~.r~! 14 ... '<"l % 15 ~ "llC :::l 16 .~.. zQ
17 :

to decide whether or not to have a wide open election and serve until the last day of his term, or is he going to. retire and resign and let the Governor appoint someone else and let them get their foot in the door.
I think that is an interesting item for you folks to think about as you think in terms of appointment or election .
DR. PRESSLY: It seems to me the whole series of

18 superintendents here have decided that the superintendent ough

19 to be appointed, and have virtually seen to it, and I would

20 agree with them.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: There's one other question we

22 have asked each of the other persons who has come before us,

23 and that is Item 2 which says "Should the provisions stating

24 that an adequate education for the citizens be a primary

25 obligation of the state of Georgia" be changed. There was

PAGE 40
------- ._----------,
some discussion as to whether or not the constitution or the

2 existing statutes gave sufficient power to either the board

3 of education or to the superintendent to ensure that an

4 adequate education was in fact provided, and I think we came

5 to the conclusion that tha: does not exist.

6

Do you think the constitution should be specific

7 in -- I guess this goes with the item you mentioned about

8 powers and authority of each of the two, but could you speak

9 on that point? You touched on it earlier about equalization.

10
III Z
11 i=
..'o"....
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 I'<:"zl: 15 01) III '";;;) 16 ~... co Z <l 17 ::;

DR. McDANIEL: I had an idea and then kind of lost it.
MR. GRAHAM: I think the question we have been talking about is if you have a recalcitrant local system, what do you do about it?
DR. McDANIEL: Oh, yes. Thank you. That's one of the things I need to talk about .
I think that included in the constitutional revision

18 ought to be a provision that some authority be provided

19 somebody, and I recommend the state board of education, to

20 take whatever action is necessary in order to be sure that

21 there is a quote adequate program in every community.

22

Conceivably, and we're not talking about any

23 specific county, but conceivably the local board of education

24 selected however it happens to be selected might decide that

25 it does not want to levy any taxes other than the required

PAGE 41

local effort, that it's not going to repair the roof, that

2 it's not even going to have a principal maybe, that it is

3 going to just do only the bare minimum. Now, the only

4 provision that exists now is for the state board to cut off

5 funds, and the idea being that by cutting off funds I presume

6 that the citizens then uprise and do something about it.

7

There is one other avenue, and that is for a

8 citizen to file suit -- isn't this correct? -- and maybe

9 the federal court would take over or some court take over the

10
I:l Z
11 j:
c..o..r..:
~ 12 ~
~J~ ! 14 I'"z"l 15 ol) Ic:r:l :2 16 .~.. Q Z "l 17 :

operation of the school system, but I think that after a school system has demonstrated time and time and time again that it is unwilling to provide at least the minimum standards that there must be some opportunity for someone else to step in.
I have tossed around the idea of the General Assembly taking it over, but thatis not the group; the group to provide leadership and direction is the state board.

18

Now, this of course is con~roversial, you know, it

19 does takeaway local control, but I think this is a last resort

20 measure.

21

MR. GRAHAM: Is this theoretical, or do you see

22 this as a distinct possibility?

23

DR. McDANIEL: This is a distinct possibility,

24

MR. GRAHAM: Is it a possibility that exists today

25 without any names being mentioned?

PAGE 42

Are you worried about that in any particular school

2 system today?

3

DR. McDANIEL: Well, really, no, but I think it

4 could -- with the deterioration of some things I think it coul~

5 very easily.be a situation that could say exist two years

6 from today.

7

MR. GRAHAM: It is possible to have a local board

8 of education run and be elected on a ticket of lowering

9 property taxes?

10
1.7
..Z
11 j:
.oG.o.
~ 12 ~
~)~
! 14 !-:;r;
..15 ~ 1.7 ;:)
16 .~..
zQ
17 ~

DR. McDANIEL: That's right. That's exactly, and the superintendent run on that same basis.
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Any further questions or comments?
MR. VANN: I would like to ask one question of Dr. McDaniel.
DR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir MR. VANN: My judgment about something is that we

18 OUkht to try to find out the deficiency in it if we want to

19 change it, and you were commenting about the superintendent

20 and a board's relationship, particularly if they were both

21 appointed or one appointed and one elected, or the superin-

22 tendent is elected and the board is not -- you served for a

23 number of years in various superintendent positions, and I

24 don't know whether you have served all types, elected and

25 appointed --

PAGE 43

DR. McDANIEL: I have.

2

MR. VANN: You mentioned deficiencies. You don't

3 need to express them here, but I would like to get you to

4 write out what deficiencies you're speaking of.

5

DR. McDANIEL: Primarily communication and having

6 written down everybody's job, at least everybody's

7 responsibility.

8

MR. VANN: Do you think a constitution should be

9 that specific?

10
13 Z
11 ic=r:
.2..
@);~i ! 14 ... ':"r 15 .:l 1cr3: ;:) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ::;

DR. McDANIEL: I'm. not sure the constitution, but it needs -- either the constitution or the statutes need to be fairly specific.
This I would say of my counterparts, the chiefs of state offices, this is their greatest concern right now in working with their board members because there are some boards who frankly want to administer and do administer where it is not fairly specific, where they're almost full

18 time board members and they visit schools and they want to

19 hire folks and fire folks, you know, they want to become the 20 day by day administrators, and if that is what we want boards

21 to do, fine, let's just say it somewhere so that the superin-

22 tendent then will know what he's supposed to do and what the

23 board is supposed to do.

24

DR. PRESSLY: I can speak from the private school

25 sector that this is one of the greatest dangers that exists

PAGE 44

that members of the board of trustees want to go beyond the 2 policy making level and become administrators. and the one

3 thing we have to make very clear in every school, or try to. 4 is that there be a clear demarkation between policy setting

5 and administrative. and this is what I judge you're saying 6 exactly in the public sector.

7

DR. McDANIEL: Yes.

8

MR. VANN: I would like to make one comment. In my

9 judgment that's human nature. I don't believe if you put it

10
"z
11 t=
2.".".
@;i ! 14 ... ':"r 15 ~ """::;) 16 ~... Q Z 17 I:

in the constitution you're going to change that. MR. GRAHAM: Dr. McDaniel, I have two questions. One, Dr. Pressly, concerning the private schools.
the authority to set some kind of standards and enforce them on the private schools .
We discussed at the last meeting that a method of doing this would be through some sort of licensing of private schools.

18

Have you given any thought to an idea of how this

19 might be accomplished, how you might get jurisdiction over

20 a private school?

21

DR. McDANIEL: We have considered it. and it is a

22 very sensitive area; it would be very sensitive in the General

23 Assembly.

24

My main activity so far has been to meet with the

25 private school groups and say, you know, "You need to set up

PAGE 45

your own standards," and then once you meet your own 2 standards then there will not be nearly so many questions, 3 but if you do not have standards, if you do not police 4 yourself then someone is liab!e to cane in and want to take 5 over, and I think -- you know, if we had a fire in a building 6 that they didn't have a permit for or something else of that 7 nature, and bring it to the attention of the public, then we 8 might have the clamoring to have certain kinds of standards 9 that all schools were provided, that were provided for all 10 schools.

I think it would be very difficult for the General

Assembly or the public to say that private schools had to

meet certain standards and they were monitored by the state

school superintendent, but I do think in order to be sure

because we have peculiar kind of folks in public schools and

private schools, I just think somebody somewhere along the

line needs to be sure that every child whether it's a public

18 school student or a private school student has a reasonable

19 opportunity for an education, and how that can be done I'm

20 willing really to leave to you folks.

21

DR. PRESSLY: We have no problem here as I see it

22 with the privat~ schools that are, for instance,members of

23 the Georgia Association of Independent Schools because they
24
voluntarily said that they would meet the standards of the

25 accrediting association, Southern Association, and do so.

PAGE 46

DR. McDANIEL: Right.

2

DR. PRESSLY: That's not our problem.

3

Our problem is with the great mass of the little

4 ones around over the state that are not accredited.

5

DR. McDANIEL: It is certainly possible for a

6 person who has never attended a college a day in her life to

7 set up a school in her basement and, you know, never teach

8 English, never teach anything except voodoo or whatever she

9 wants, and this is a private school, and frankly we can't

10
z~
.11 j: oc..r.:
@;j ! 14 lo:-rn 15 .:l ~ cr: ~ 16 .~.. zQ 17 ~

touch them. DR. PRESSLY: If she's an attractive person, people
will flock to her. DR. McDANIEL: That's right. DR. PRESSLY: Too bad. DR. McDANIEL: That's right, has an attractive
personality, students flock in . I'm sure we have a large number of Christian schools

18 that do an excellent job, but we may have some that do not,

19 because we don't know.

20

Consequently a whole generation of youngsters are

21 coming up through a school system that really no one has any

22 control or measure of supervision over except the individual

23 maybe who is running the school, so I just think that there

24 ought to be some way to have a: least minimum standards met

25 for everybody.

PAGE 47

MS, GREENBERG: Should this be in the constitution?

2 Presently there's no provision which assures any type~of

3 oversight of the private school system since the first

4 paragraph only deals with public moneys and the obligation of 5 the state to provide for it,

6

DR, McDANIEL: I would like to see it in the

7 constitution, In what manner I'm not sure.

8

MR. GRAHAM: Dr. McDaniel, going back to that word

9 adequate just for a minute, let me suggest a small vocabulary

10 of other words and see if one or the other might be better or

worse than that.

Adequate, as Mr. Vann says, to some people means

just barely, to other people means top of the line, a generic

term.

I'll just throw out some other words -- average,

useful, progressive, superior, minimum, quality, high

quality, effective.

18

DR. McDANIEL: I'm not sure. We us e the word

19 minimum under the minimum foundation program, and we thought

20 we were upgrading ourselves when we went to adequate as a

21 better word. Actually adequate has become minimum, we didn't

22 really improve much.

23

MR, GRAHAM: What about the word quality?

24

UR. McDANIEL: That is one that is tossed around a

25 good bit. I'm not sure whether that would be a better word

PAGE 48

or not. I would just like to have some fairly high minimums.

2

MS. GREENBERG: If the state board members were

3 elected, would you still like to see them elected for seven

4 years?

5

DR. McDANIEL: Yes. I think you need a fairly long

6 period of service by state board members and it staggered so

7 that you do not have large numbers of them going out at one

8 particular time.

9

MR.. HILL: This came up with the Board of Regents

10
\:I Z
11 j:
o..'".... ~ 12 ~
~r~14 ! 1;; ':z": 15 .:J \:I III ;) 16 ~ zoIII 17 ~

provisions, but would you oppose, would you be opposed to the term being lengthened to ten years under the theory that a Governor being able to succeed himself now he does appoint the entire board over his eight-year period, whereas if they were ten-year staggered terms he wouldn't have that option?
DR. McDANIEL: I would have no objection to that, no o~jection at all to a longer term.
MR. GREEN: In relation to the private school

18 situation there is some provision whereby a local school

19 superintendent has the responsibility to see to it that a

20 child is in a school program, and if the child is in a school

21 program and it's strange, bizarre, out of the normal realm 22 of things, am I incorrect in assuming I am right the local 23 superintendent has the responsibility to see that that child

24 in fact is being taught reading, writing and arithmetic?

25

DR. McDANIEL: I don't believe the local

PAGE 49

superintendent has that authority.

2

MR. GREEN: He has that responsih[ity.

3

DR. McDANIEL: I don't believe he has that

4 responsibility. He has the responsibility to report to the

5 state department of education those who are enrolled in a

6 private school the name of the child, his birth date, his

7 address and the grade which he's in, but I think that is the

8 limit. Eldon, do you --

9

MS. GREENBERG: That's true.

10
l:l Z
11 j:::
o"......
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 ~ ':<"zl:: 15 ~ l:l ";:) 16 ~... Q Z <l: 17 :

MR. GREf!;N: Having been involved in some cases whereby I've had the responsibility to go see what's happening and had to evaluate what's happening and report back to the state department, it has been --
DR. McDANIEL: The state department required this of you?
MR. GREEN: Yes. Well, I'm not sure . DR. McDANIEL: I don't think they have authority to.

18 They may have sent you out to check on somebody, but I don't

19 really believe they have the authority, and frankly I have

20 been barred and my representatives have been barred at the

21 door of private schools, you know, l~e do not want you here,

22 we are not going to give you the names and addresses -- "

23

MR. GREEN: If there's an assumption the child is

24 not enrolled in a school as we know a school it's the local

25 superintendent's responsibility to see to it that that child

rr---------------------
is in a school, unless I miss my understanding.

PAGE 50

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We have been told I think, at

3 least we're working from the assumption that the private

4 schools did have the responsibility of reporting the names

5 and addresses of persons attending the private school to the

6 state board.

7

DR. McDANIEL: Yes, this is state law.

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: They said they would not let you

9 in, they told you they weren't going to give you the names and

10
~ z 11 j:
."o'."".
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 l'<"l X 15 ~ ~ '";:) 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 :

addresses? Did you ever get them? DR. McDANIEL: About March or April after starting
in September. MR. VANN: My memory is there's no penalty for
failure to report. DR. McDANIEL: IJm not sure I got them. I think
some other representative of the state department managed to get them, but tha~s -- you know, that's an isolated situation

18 you don't have much of that, but you do have some because

19 that is one of the reasons private schools exist, they do not

20 want to be under the control of the state at all.

21

MS. GREENBERG: There are standards for private

22 schools for the handicapped by the state department of

23 education, but they have not done anything about a great deal

24 of private schools.

25

DR. McDANIEL: I don't want to leave the impression

PAGE 51

that there is not a requirement for a fire permit, I think

2 also that regardless of where you assemble people that the

3 fire marshall could go in and require that the school have

4 an adequate fire escape and so forth because that would be a

5 different avenue than the school, but as far as school

6 program, qualifications of teachers, length of year, length

7 of day, you know, textbooks, curriculum, we really have no

8 authority.

9

DR. PRESSLY: Where does the difference come there

10
"z
11 I-
o..'.."..
@;~ ! 14 Ilit :<zl:: 15 oll "'~" 16 ~... c Z <l: 17 ::;

between the lack of authority, and yet I think the Southern Association has almost complete authority because in meeting the accreditation requirements you drop a school, it doesn't come up to your standards, and I think what we're talking about right now are the schools that are not accredited --
DR. McDANIEL: That's right. DR. PRESSLY: I would presume the ones that don't want to turn over a list of their students, that it must be

18 some kind of religious sect that's trying to hide something.

19

DR. McDANIEL: You are correct, of course, that

20 the Southern Association for Public and Private Schools have

21 a great, great number of regulations and standards that must

22 be met, but we also have a large number of very small schools

23 that are often religious affiliated, have some sort of 24 religious affiliation, and they're in a competitive business 25 and, you know, they must survive, so consequently they have

PAGE 52

great reluctance in giving the names and addresses of their

2 students for fear that someone will try to recruit them.

3

MR. GREEN: Sometimes we also think in terms of

4 responsibility and authority overlap a little bit. Sometimes

5 you can have responsibility without having the authority,

6 and sometimes you appear to have some authority but you don't

7 take the responsible position. and I think that when I have

8 reference to the private schools that I think that the local

9 school system does have responsibility for every child in a

10 local school system whether the child is attending school or

not, and that goes into the attendance requirements and so

on.

I would also like to ask this in relation to the

comment about whether or not we should be, the state board

should be in a position to look after a school system if the

local board does not look after it. You have indicated that

the ultimate authority that you have right now is to withhold

18 funds from that school system, which all of us know presents

19 some other kinds of problems. What do you perceive beyond

20 withholding funds? What would be the procedure that you have

21 in mind in relation to your recommendation there?

22

DR. McDANIEL: We would have to think it through

23 with a lot of folks, but just taking the example that you had

24 a school system in a rural area, not a single member of the 25 board had any children in the sch~ol, the superintendent had

PAGE 53

no children in the school, their main purpose was to keep

2 taxes low, as I say, they kept taxes low, they paid no

3 supplements, they offered just the bare minimum or maybe not

4 even that, they did not meet the standards, they did not have

5 one teacher in every class, the teacher had at least fifty

6 students, there was no principal, you know, and we go down

7 and counsel with them and they say, you know, nWell, we do

8 not have any more money, the board will not give me any more

9 money," and the roof is leaking and on and on, you know,

10 z~
@;;.11 j: oa..:.
! 14 t:;r 15 .:I
a~:
;:)
16 .~.. c Z <l
17 :

outdoor toilets or whatever, and after time and time and time again the group that has the authority which is the county board of education and the county school superintendent do not provide at least what we consider the minimum sorts of things for education, then I think somebody has to address the situation.
Now, what we would do I don't know. In one instance in Taliferro County some citizens brought suit I guess, I

18 believe against the board, someone was assigned there by the

19 state, maybe the court, as the administrator of that system 20 with the authority to raise taxes or levy taxes and provide 21 the school program in effect someone was assigned as 22 superintendent and board to provide the-education, and this 23 lasted for a few months until things got settled down and it 24 was transferred back once the group demQnstrated that it would 25 perform.

MR. GREEN:

~~~~._~~-----

PAGE 54

So you would prefer that the state board

2 of education have this ultimate authority and responsibility

3 rather than the courts?

4

DR. McDANIEL: I think in view of the fact the state

5 board of education is education oriented I would rather have

6 it in the hands of the state board of education than the

7 courts.

8

It can be in the hands of the court if some citizen

9 is willing to take the bull by the horns and take it to the

10
"z
11 j:
"oc..."..
@;i ! 14 ... '<"l :I: 15 01) """;;) 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 :

courts now, but then you have to hire a lawyer, you know, you have to do a lot of things in order to get that accomplished.
MR. GREEN: Do you foresee as you proceed with your design here that you would have a listing of that which is perceived as minimum or adequate?
DR. McDANIEL: Or the standards . MR. GREEN: State standards?

18

DR. McDANIEL: Use state standards, but I'm seeing

19 this as a last-ditch resort, not -- you know, not the first

20 standard you break, or maybe not even the first year. I'm

21 willing for some kids to go hurt for a while, but I think in

22 time when there is no demonstration of a real interest then

23 somebody has to move in.

24

MR. GRAHAM: I want to make sure that I understood

25 you correctly. You did not just state that the state standard

PAGE 55

provided in among themselves if you met that requirement of

2 an adequate education, did you?

3

DR. McDAl~IEL: No, but I think they could be bu~lt

4 into the kind of device that Dr. Green was talking about.

5

MR. GRAHAM: You were looking for some guideline as

6 to when or when not to

7

DR. McDANIEL: That's right, as a minimum sort of

8 thing.

9

MR. GRAHAM: Not as an adequate --?

10
"z
11 t=
..'o"....
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 I'<:z"l: 15 ol) "'":;) 16 .~.. o Z <l 17 :

DR. McDANIEL: Not as an adequate. MR. GRAHAM: Are there state standards defining an adequate education? DR. McDANIEL: No. MS. GREENBERG: Dr. Jim Mullins had made a proposal to the committee on the method of selection of the state board of education which I did not show you, but in essence it is composed of ten members from each congressional district, and

18 the local school boards caucus and select three people, not

19 necessarily members of those boards, but three people which

20 they recommend to a legislative caucus, and in turn the

21 legislative caucus selects one. Would you be --?

22

DR. McDANIEL: I would oppose this procedure for

23 two or three reasons. One, I would be concerned about the

24 fact some districts have ten school boards that would caucus

25 and others might have thirty school boards that would caucus.

PAGE 56

I don't know if that would matter, but you would

2 have different numbers of individuals selecting that person.

3

Secondly, it would then as Mr. Vann pointed out

4 relegate this to the General Assembly members, senators or

5 representatives, to select one of those three people, and I

6 do not think -- you know, I think that would make it much more

7 political. You would then owe your life, or the board member

8 would owe his life to the senators or representatives who

9 selected him, and I don't think he needs to do that, and I

10
..CzI
11 j:
.o.....
@);~I ! 14 ~ VI :<zl:: ..15 oi) CI
::>
16 .~.. Q Z <l:
17 :

would object. I think it would just make it a much more political arrangement than you now have .
If it's going to be an appointed person, then I think a staggered system by the Governor who is elected by the people is my preference.
MR. GRAHAM: ShOUld we identify him some way for the Governor to have more information like let them suggest three and suggest them to the Governor similar somewhat to the way a

18 judge might be appointed by the Governor?

19

DR. McDANIEL: I would have no objection to

20 informally the school board members of the Second District

21 meeting and selecting some names to give to the Governor,

22 but I have found that Governors guard their appointment

23 process with great armor, this is one thing they want to do.

24 I'm not sure the Governor would go along with that.

25

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Do you see us facing the posslbl

PAGE 57

situation then, agreeing onathe merits of having the

2 superintendent appointed by the board, and there doesn't seem

3 to be ap.y way out to get a board except by appointment, do

4 you think that you would rather run the risk of keeping it as

5 it is and hoping that we get a good person like yourself, or

6 do you think that the possibility of that not happening

7 outweighs the risk of the people rejecting both persons being

8 appointed?

9

DR. McDANIEL: 'When you think in terms of the people

10
"z
11 i=
.'lo".L.
~ 12 ~
~F~ 14 ~ lo-n ::t 15 ol) "'";;;) 16 .~.. oz 17 :

having to approve the constitution, eventually the people will have to tell you what they want done. I have a feeling that they're going to be very reluctant to the appointment of the superintendent without the election of the board.
I'm not sure the election of the board is the wise thing; I think the appointment of the board is the wise thing, and so, you know, you may have as much problem on one side as you do on the other.

18

It's all right with me for it to stay just as it is.

19 I prefer that it be an appointed position, and then someone

20 else will have to decide how the board is selected.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: How widely do you think it's

22 known in the general public that the relationship that exists

23 between the superintendent and the board by having the

24 superintendent elected and the board appointed, the problem

25 we talked about earlier?

PAGE 58

DR. McDANIEL: I don't think it's widely known

2 because we have never had any great arguments and fusses,

3 it's always been a fairly harmonious arrangement.

4

For instance, if you had an administrator that had

5 really gotten in difficulty with the Public Service Commissio

6 and you had all the publicity that that's had, I think you

7 couJ.d certainly

8

MR. HILL: I think a way out of our dilemma might

9 be, given the history that you have recorded of how the

10
1.7 Z
11 j:
".o0.'..
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 !... ':"r 15 .) 1.7 "';) 16 ~... Q Z 17 :

appointment process has taken place in the past, would be to allow the board of education to appoint the state school superintendent to fill a vacancy, and then to allow the election of that person at the next election, and if it's I mean if it should happen that the person fills out their term then there would be a wide open election, but we haven't had that for so long that as a practical matter that might result in exactly what this committee would like to see

18 happen where the state board would in fact appoint, the

19 people would still elect, but generally the appointments are

20 very proper, and you could have appointment by the board

21 subject to confirmation by the Senate just as you have now

22 with the Governor.

23

DR. McDANIEL: That's certainly a possibility.

24

MR. HILL: That might as a practical matter do what

25 we're trying to do but still retain the election feature.

PAGE 59

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That would count on too much

2 cooperation.

3

MR. GRAHAM: Do you think the superintendent elected

4 like you are ought to tell Mr. Vann and the board that '~es,

5 I'm elected, but I will agree that if you unanimously tell

6 me I'll retire"?

7

DR. McDANIEL: No, I would be unwilling to do that.

8

I have to get out and go to 159 counties and solicit

9 votes, folks to vote for me, and if by some fate the board of

10

~

Czl 11 i=
.."o.."...
12 ~

~J~
! 14 ~ '"<l( :r
15 ,l)

Cl
:">" 16 .~..
oz
<l(
17 :

education over there said "We don't think you're competent, we don't like you, we think you ought to retire," I wouldn't retire.
MR. HENRY: Perhaps if you had like Mel was talking about where the board selected the superintendent, and the superintendent then stood before the people every four years not opposed by anyone but on his record, and if the people didn't like his record, then you would take some of the

18 politics out of th~t, that you wouldn't have to go into 159

19 counties toget elected, you could say "Here's my t:ecord,"

20 and you wouldn't have anybody slinging the mud, and if the

21 people rejected him then the board would have an opportunity

22 to appoint someone else.

23

I just throw that out as an option, but that's the

24 way -- that was one of the options we had in several of the

25 other boards that we were considering, constitutional boards.

PAGE 60

MR. OWENS: As a state superintendent I would hate

2 to have to put anybody under that kind of structure, under

3 those conditions.

4

DR. PRESSLY: We have been talking about this now

5 for several months, and I have come to the conclusion I don't

6 see anything wrong with the state board being selected just as

7 it is today and their appointing a state superintendent.

8 I think the people still have their voice in the matter.

9 The Governor is elected.

10
~ z 11 i=
@;;.'o<".l.. 14 !.. '-"e( J: 15 ~ ~ '";) 16 .~.. Q Z -e( 17 ::

DR. McDANIEL: Just like the board of regents. DR. PRESSLY: Exactly. MR. OWENS: You just brought it up, and each time it comes up I have to make the same statement. Whenever you bring up the board of regents, now I don't see such a shining glory represented because I have a list about that long (indicating) that I'd like to talk about proble~ that I have with reference to the way the regents situation is done, so

18 if you're going to use that as a comparative idea then I

19 think you ought to perish that right now.

20

MR.VANN: Dr. McDaniel, I would like to ask you a

21 question about the possibility of intervention in a local

22 situation.

23

Would you think that the power vested in the state

24 board of education to file an action in court for the state

25 board of education to intervene and act as the local board

PAGE 61

until such time as the situation is corrected would be some

2 possible solution?

3

DR. McDANIEL: Yes.

4

I don't think it ought to be easy.

5

MR. VANN: This would leave it up to the court to

6 determine whether the situation existed.

7

DR. McDANIEL: That suits me fine.

8

Would that satisfy you?

9

MR. GREEN: Yes, sir. That would be much more

10 palateable I believe.

DR. McDANIEL: I don't believe that whoever, the

state school superintendent ought to decide, you know, zip

in and get the state board quickly to move in on somebody and

take them over. I don't think it ought to be easy, but I do

think we need some remedy, and that may be the answer.

CHAIRMAN MERJ:!;DITH: Are there any other questions

before we retire into executive session and start to come to

18 some conclusions?

19

DR. McDANIEL: Let me clarify -- I believe, John,

20 you asked me to provide you a list of something. I want to be

21 sure that I --

22

MR. GRAHAM: In answer to Question Number 11 you had

23 suggested that perhaps there ought to be specific responsi-

24 bilities of the superintendent and the board.

25

DR. McDANIEL: Yes, we'll provide that.

PAGE 62

MS. GREENBERG: And also in connection with that.

2 '!.f we retain an elected school superintendent couldn't we

3 writemto the constitution his relationship to the board

4 and alleviate the problem that everyone thinks is occurring

5 that there is no --

6

MR. HILL: Just keep doing it. I mean you can tell

7 him in the constitution that he should follow and. you know.

8 walk to the beat of the board of education. but if he's

9 independently elected he does not have to do it. he doesn't

10

~

I:l Z
11 i=
o."G."o.
12~-

~J~
! 14 t;;

<l :I:
15 ~

I:l
:":>" 16 ~...
za
<l
17 :

have to pay a bit of attention to it, and you have no remedy. so I don't think there's anything you can say or should say about that in the constitution.
DR. McDANIEL: Conceivably you could have a state school superintendent who never did even come to his office.
MR. HILL: Or any other elected official. DR. McDANIEL: Or attended the board meetings or didn't run the schools really, you know, until someone brought

18 him up and

19

MR. GRAHAM: Someone would have to bring him to

20 court.

21

MR. VANN: Or recall him.

22

DR. McDANIEL: Or recall him. that's right. There

23 are all kinds of possible abuses; I have thought of some of

24 them.

25

DR. PRESSLY: We see what you dream about at night.

PAGE 63

MR. GRAHAM: Who signs your pay check? That's where

2 the answer is.

3

DR. McDANIEL: I do.

4

(Laughter . )

5

MR. VANN: Through our authority.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: You had a statement?

7

MR. OWENS: No. I wanted to make some commendation

8 here. I would just to say that I'm rather impressed with the

9 order of thought that Dr. McDaniel has put into this and the

10
"z
11 i=
o..'"....
~ 12 ~
~r~14 !. :'z": 15 o:l "'="0 16 .~.. oz 17 ::;

way he's expressed himself on the various issues, that he has thought through it and has given it a lot of time and effort in order to rectify some of the problems he sees within it, and I would like to commend you on that.
DR. McDANIEL: I wish I had a good clear-cut solution. I don't really.
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We do too . DR. McDANIEL: Thank you very much.

18

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Thank you so much for coming.

19

We will take a five-minute recess.

20

(A brief recess.)

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think it is clear that we are

22 going to have one way or the other resolve these outstanding

23

issues, and I would like to propose two approa~hes.

24

One is that we as a committee sort of go back

25 rather rapidly if we can over the decision agenda to see

PAGE 64

where we stand as a committee, and then I think we need to

2 make sure that the decision agenda speaks to the concerns

3 that you might have on all of the various sections of Article

4 VIII.

5

I do not think we need to rely entirely on the

6 decision agenda, because some of these articles either we have

7 to say that they're okay as they stand or suggest whatever

8 modifications might be appropriate, so I see that the remainde

9 of our time today should be spent to provide the staff with

10
zCo'
11 j:
.oQ...
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 I':"z: 15 .:> Co' ~ 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

adequate information to begin drafting the document for our review at our next meeting, and maybe we ought to review our schedule.
When are we scheduled to meet next? MR. HILL: Not until August the 18th at ten o'clock. DR. PRESSLY: Not until ten that day? MR. HILL: That's right, unless you want to change it to make it earlier. I think that day may go all day

18 unless we would meet earlier.

19

DR. PRESSLY: I think we ought to set it at nine.

20 Why waste an hour.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I have no problems with nine,

22 we can get started about 9:15 or 9:20; if we say ten, we say

23 10:15 or 10:20.

24

MR.OWENS: What time are we saying?

25

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Nine 0' clock.

PAGE 65

I think it's appropriate to have -- I'm not clear

2 about how much staff you represent, but I think it would be

3 appropriate if we had -- either I could do it or somebody

4 could do it, I think we ought to write letters to the people

5 who came and brought us testimony.

6

MR. OWENS: If that's amotion, I so move.

7

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Thank you.

8

Ma. OWENS: Just common consent?

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Yes.

10

~

Czl 11 j:
co:
.oG.o.
12 ~

(~~r1~4 ~

1;;

J:
15 o!)

Ccol:
:>
16 .~..

D
Z 17 ::i

MR. OWENS: I think so, I think that should be done, for taking their time to assist us in this matter.
MR. HILL: You mean all the people, Dr. Mullins, all the people that were here?
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Right. MR. OWENS: We don,'t want to miss one that's come. DR. PRESSLY: Dr. McDaniel certainly makes a good impression, doesn't he? He's thought it through and knows

18 what he's talkipg about.

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: And he had some rather strong

20 views about it too.

21

DR. PRESSLY: That's very definite, I like that.

22

MR.. GRAHAM: Are there additional persons that we

23 might want to have address these same issues that we have

24 not --

25

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think we -- I don't think we

.....-------------------._---

PAGE 66

have heard -- the views have not been that divergent from the.

2 people we've had, and we have sort of looked toward that

3 group as providing assistance, but I think we're back to where

4 we started out, and that is we're going to have to provide a

5 statement, and I do think that it's our responsibility

6 notwithstanding what we've heard to put -forth a document that

7 best expresses the views of the committee as a group, so I

8 would say that in view of the time restraints that we have

9 and the schedules that you have already established that I

10
zCJ 11 j:
.'o."....
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ I'<"l J: 15 .:l CJ '":::l 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 :

think that we should not unless there is something that we st~le upon as we go through this that we know where there are some specific expertise we might want to draw on.
MR. GRAHAM: I was wondering if we shouldn't hear from someone from private education.
DR. PRESSLY: To tell you the truth, there's nothing they can say, because we're not going to hear from the little fly-by-nighters that are worried about it, they're not going

18 to be represented.

19

MR. OWENS: And probably wouldn't even come.

20

DR. PRESSLY: That's right.

21

MR. GRAHAM: If we're doiftg this, and we want to put

22 something into the constitution concerning that, which I'm 23 hoping we would, as justification for doing it we may wan~ to 24 hear from someone from private well, of course, Dr. 25 Pressly, I'm going to take you as being able to speak, maybe

PAGE 67

that's a good approach to it, but to say really clearly that

2 even in private education they recognize the terrible problems

3 that have been created in some of these so-called schools.

4

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Maybe we could get a written

5 statement from the Georgia Association of Private and

6 Independent Schools.

7

D&. PRESSLY: I think a statement that the

8 independent school that is not accredited must be under the 9 state superintendent or the state board, whatever you want to

10
CzI 11 j:
o..'"....
@;i ! 14 ... 'x" 15 .:l CI '";;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

say, until such time as they reach a point at which they can be accredited, because accreditation is showing they're meeting the standards.
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Then you impose by that that all schools public and private in the' state ,of Georgia must be accredited.
DR. PRESSLY: Unless they want to be under the state superintendent or the state board of education, yes.

18

I'll tell you, the independent schools fight

,

19 awfully hard for their independence, they want to feel they're

20 completely independent, but they don't mind voluntarily

21 meeting any standards. They want it to be a volunteer thing,

22 though. This way it would be voluntarily, you see. As soon

23 as they're accredited they're no longer under that, and they

24 wouldn't object to that at all so far as I know.

25

I have worked with them for my entire life, and I

- - - - ----~----

PAGE 68

don't think there would be any objection to that.

2

I think they would object strenuously to feeling,

3 though, that they are another public school that is directly

4 under the state board and state superintendent after they have

5 reached the point, but I think the state has every right to

6 say that every school in the state must give an adequate

7 education, has a right, has a responbility in fact.

8

MR. VANN: Generally I speak more as a citizen

9 than a lawyer I reckon, I'm just inclined to leave private

10
I!I Z
11 i=
e ; j...oor: Go
14 ..~.... <:rl
15 .:l
Io!rI:
;:)
16 ~ Qz
<l
17 ~

education to private education. DR. PRESSLY: The truth of the matter is that the
ones that aren't doing a good job fold up anyway, it's just a matter of time, but you've got some poor little child coming along in there
MS. GREENBERG: Also it becomes a burden on the state eventually if that student attending private school goes into the public school system whether it's on a secondary or

18 post-secondary level, or elementary level, the state is

19 responsible for bringing that child up to the level of the

20 public school student if he's not receiving an adequate

21 education.

22

MR. VANN: You know, generally -- I don't know that

23 it's been decided in Georgia, but they had this local case

24 that I don't think went on appeal, but there have been court

25 decisions that say a parent can teach his own child, and I

PAGE 69

guess what we're saying is that if somebody wants to go into

2 the business of educating children that there should be some

3 standards for it.

4

MR.. GRAHAM: This is the licesning you were talking

5 about.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Why can't we -- I mean let's

7 talk about -- let's take them in turn then we probably will

8 make more progress.

9

I guess we want to refer to the revised agenda, the

10
Czl
... 11 oa~: Q.
~ 12 ~
~Fi14 ! ~ ':<z"l: 15 ~ Ca:l :::l 16 ~ Qz <l 17 ::i

28th agenda, and See if we can't -- I don't think we need to

rehash again all of our own arguments on these things, I want

to --

Let's see, I don't think we have any consensus.

DR, PRESSLY: Don't you think most of these, the

vote will be unanimous on most of them now and we'll just go

ahead and vote on them, and the ones we're not ~-

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: What would be our instructions

to the staff on the drafting, that the draft document

18 reflect

19

MR.. GRAHAM: It should reflect the majority, and if

20 a minority member might want to draft something of their own

21 they could do that.

22

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay, Now, should the draft

23 include

What I want to do is make sure that anything that

24 gets into the draft represents the views of this committee

25 as opposed to what we have heard from people who came from

PAGE 70

th. outside, and I was trying to get some handle on how we

2 could ensure that. It may mean that while we vote someone

3 may want to make a statement on each one of these that we

4 can decide if that in essence capsules our views.

5

Is that all right?

6

Otherwise, we won't have a basis to screen out what

7 we have heard.

8

MS. GREENBERG: That's all right.

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: All right. The first one,

10
I:l Z
11 j:
@;;..'o".... ! 14 I'":"lr: 15 .!) I:l '":;) 16 ~... Q Z "l: 17 :

"Should the constitutional mandate of an adequate education for the citizens be changed?"
Let's just show -- all in favor of that -- let's jus do it by that.
MR. OWENS: Should not be changed? DR. PRESSLY: Yes or no? CHAIR}Ulli MEREDITH: If you think it should be changed indicate by a show of hands.

18

MR. HILL: Of course, the underlying question is

19 should equal educational opportunity be included, and that

20 implies yes here, so I don't even know --

21

MR. GRAHAM: Let me state when I vote yes that it

22 should be changed, I am not having a problem with the word
,
23 adequate. I think out of all of the vocabulary I would accept

24 the word adequate, but when I'm voting yes here it should be

25 changed, I'm saying it should be added to.

PAGE 71

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: You want a qualifier for

2 adequate?

3

MR. GRAHAM: I don't want to qualify the adequate,

4 I want to add the equal educational opportunity.

5

MR. OWENS: I would go along with that.

6

MR. GRAHAM: So we break this into two questions.

7

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Why don't we do this, why don't

8 we vote on it as it stands, and then for those who differ

9 you can make a statement on it, then we can come back and

10
CzI 11 .~
.o.....
~ 12 ~
~F~14 ! lV> :<zl:: 15 .:l Ca:I ~ 16 .~.. Q Z <l: 17 :

make a change. MR. GRAHAM: All right. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Should the constitutional
mandate of an adequate education for the citizens be changed? Let's just vote on this statement. All who think that it should be changed --
MR. OWENS: Excuse me. You see, if we vote on it as it is I'd say no, but to come back for a change, the only

18 way you can come back for a change is vote yes, so I mean

19 it really puts you somewhat in abeyance in trying to get that

20 change in.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. Let's try it another way,

22 then. Anyone who would like to speak to this issue before we

23 take a vote on it?

24

DR. PRESSLY: Why don't we-vote first of all on

25 just adequate education for the citizens, should that phrase

. . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ . _ - _ .. ~--------

PAGE 72

be changed, and I think we're all in complete agreement no.

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay.

3

DR. PRE~SLY: We can say no, we're not changing

4 that phrase, and the next question would be do we want to

5 add something.

6

MR. OWENS: My point there would be yes.

7

DR. PRESSLY: Would you describe what we would add?

8

MR. GRAHAM: Yes. I think that the constitution in

9 Article VIII, Section I, page 64, should be drafted in such

10
"z
11 i=
o.'l1"...
@;I 14 .~. '" :l: 15 .:. "'~" 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

a way that it includes the provision for equal educational opportunity, and I would suggest that the drafters make a provision in there that first recognizes the importance of education in the state of Georgia. I don't think that's recognized in Paragraph I .
For example, in the Texas constitution it says that knowledge, self reliance and an understanding of the democratic process being safeguards of liberty and the

18 bulwark of free and open g>vernment, the state of -- and here

19 Georgia shall maintain a system of free public elementary

20 and secondary schools that provide an adequate education

21 for the citizens and that provide equal educational programs

22 for every child of school age throughout the state.

23

Now, I want to answer Mr. Vann' s question about what

24 I think equality of educational opportunity means, to go back

25 to your firstqlestion.

PAGE 73

I think we need in education a general statement

2 of principle that pertains to the quality of educational

3 opportunity, first because it is impossible for constitutional

4 framers, i.e., us to contemplate a variety of unjustifiable

5 inequalities which might deny access to educational services

6 and facilities. We can't sit here and make up a list of

7 inequalities that are not justifiable that would deny a child

8 access to educational services and facilities that may arise

9 in the future, so I think the term equality of educational

10
e ; ;."z 11 j: .'o.".
! 14 I':-"<rl
15 .:.
":'>"
16 .~.. Q Z .cl:
17 :

opportunity or equal educational opportunity in itself is going to leave the course of legislation and the courts open there for a lot of things, but it's going to recognize that education is fundamental, that the only way there can ever be inequalities in educational opportunity would have to be based upon a rational educationally required criteria, and I want that to be very clear, I don't think that a child can be denied educational opportunity in this state because of

18 his race, his religion, his personal property wealth, the

19 personal property wealth of his parents, the wealth of the

20 school district that he happens to live in, the poverty of

21 the school districts that he happens to live in, the sex,

22 national origin, and I think our constitution needs to make

23 absolutely clear that the only way we can ever have any

24 inequalities in this state of educational opportunity would

25 have to be based upon rational educationally related

r r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

PAGE 74

criteria, and by spelling out that we want equal educational

2 opportunity we are telling them that the only time it can

3 ever be unequal is if there's a rational educationally related

4 criteria that might make it that way, and this goes back to

5 the legal provisions of what is meant by fundamental.

6

I want a court some time in the future, or a

7 legislature some time in the future to say those constitutiona

8 framers recognized it might be impossible some time down the

9 road to know what is an equal educational opportunity, but

10 they told us very clearly that education is fundamental, that

CzI 11 j:
.'oG."o.
@;I

the only way you can not have educational opportunity that's equal is because of educationally -- educational criteria based upon educational reasons, and they absolutely and once

! 14 t;

and for all eliminated any thought that anybody might have

:z:

15 .l) that the type of education a person gets in this state is

CI

'";;;)

16 ~... based upon their race, their color, their personal wealth,

Q

Z

17 : the property wealth of where they happen to live, their

18 national origin or their religion or any sex.

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We're talking about

20

DR. PRESSLY: Excuse me. Go ahead.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I understand exactly what you're

22 saying, and I was wondering if we talked about equal access

23 guarantee for all would be a lot clearer than equal

24 opportunity, equal educational opportunity, because I --

25 I'm just trying that out.

PAGE 75
MR. GRAHAM: I'm not sure in the state of Georgia 2 at all whether the equal protection laws do this. I hope 3 that they do, and I think we have found case support for 4 that and strong support throughout the country for that issue, 5 but the argument comes back and is coming back, well, if you 6 talk about equalization of educational opportunity what makes 7 it so different from the equalization of garbage collection, 8 and that depends on the wealth of the school district where 9 you live whether you get garbage collection paid for by 10 property taxes in the county or not, but equalization of
police protection, equalization of health services, equalization of other things -- I think we have an opportunity now to specify we're not saying that those aren't necessary things, but we're really saying that education is fundamental, it's fundamental to the democratic process of the state, it's the most important thing that I think a person can invest in for their own child, and I think it's the most 18 important thing the state can" invest in and ensure for the 19 children of the state, because children are being harmed in 20 this state right now because they're denied equal educational 21 opportunity, but the opportunity that exists on any number 22 of reasons, but the constitutional framers don't have to 23 spell out what those inequalities are, they just need to say 24 that this state will not tolerate this, and that's why I 25 think it ought to be added to the term adequate.

PAGE 76

DR. PRESSLY: John, I couldn't agree more with

2 everything you're saying, but to me adequate education for

3 the citizens does exactly what you're saying.

4

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Yes?

5

MR. OWENS: As we have said over and over again,

6 the word adequate in itself is difficult to define in any

7 kind of specific setting, therefore to further elucidate what

8 is meant by it and to further clarify the whole meaning of

9 what we're trying to bring out you need more of this kind of

10
1:1
.Z
11 j:
..o....
12 ~
@rl ! 14 ... '" :r .. 15 .:I 1:1
;:)
16 .~.. Q Z
17 ::;

added rationale in order to further explain what is being said .
As far as in the other part of the constitution, true, it's there. but many times, and most of you who have dealt with it in education and law, and as you said be.fore that if it's brought up in another section, in another place you say that does not deal with this, we're speaking of this area of the thing, but when this information is

18 within the area of the section or article itself dealing

19 with the specific thing we're dealing with, and this is

20 education, then it addresses itself, and if it is added or

21 doubled in another place I can see only that it adds

22 impetus to what the idea of the other place happens to be.

23

MR. VANN: It seems to me like we're overlooking

24 all of the words of this provision and we're dealing with

25 adequate education for the citizens, because. you know. it

PAGE 77

says the provision of an adequate education for the citizens

2 shall be a primary obligation of the state of Georgia.

3

Now, to me when it says the provision it must be

4 including within it -- at least I'll express it myself --

5 that the opportunity must be a part of a provision of an

6 adequate education.

7

In the first place we can't isolate adequate, we've

8 got to say adequate education. I suspect that all of us

9 would have a difficult time defining education too because

10 it covers the whole gamut of man's experience and it might

"z

9 ; ;11

I-
..'o"....

cover the gamut of man's experience in the years to come

which are different from man's experience today.

And then it says for the citizens. Now, if there

! 14 I-

is any inequality in the word citizens, what is it?

I suppose

'"

:I:

15 o!l you might say it eliminates what, aliens? But certainly

"'"::I

16 ~... citizens would include women, blacks, whites, all nationalitiel

oz

17 ::; all sexes, all persons of any type of origin. It just

18 doesn't seem to me that it expresses an inequality.

19

MR. GRAHAM: Let me go back --

20

MR. VANN: Let me say one other thing, shall be a

21 primary obligation. I think by placing the word primary

22 here in the constitution and in this provision of the

23 constitution that it's speaking about the whole gamut of

24 government, that the provision of an adequate education for

25 the citizens shall be a primary obligation, it's the first

PAGE 78

1 . obligation of the government of the state of Georgia, and

2 I really think that it expresses well -- we may not have any

3 court decisions on it, but it expresses well both opportunity,

4 both equality, and bothfue primacy of the obligation of the

5 state of Georgia.

6

Now, to me equal educational opportunity in some

7 context we're speaking of almost deals with finance. Well,

8 I would be the first to say that everybody ought to have an

9 equal educational opportunity from a financial viewpoint

10
.. 1I ";z: ..o....
@;I ! 14 t:r; ..IS .:> " ;;;) 16 ~... Q Z 17 :

whether they're poor or rich or medium and that the state shouldn't distinguish in this way, but in some respects we're speaking then of the fact that -- you know, I'm very much like Dr. McDaniel, if you want to provide this just eliminate any local dollars whatsoever or give credit for it on state, you know, just state finance the whole thing, don't give any opportunity for local systems to do anything .
It would probably be a big boon to private

18 education, Dr. Pressly.

19

DR. PRESSLY: It surely would.

20

MR. VANN: My judgment of it is that I don't know

21 what we're trying to add when we say adequate educational

22 opportunity, because you're not trying to eliminate what

23 we've got.

24

MR. GRAHAM: I think we have unequal educational

25 opportunity in the state of Georgia.

PAGE 79

MR. VANN: Is that --

2

MR. GRAHAM: Harmful,to the children.

3

MR. VANN: Are you saying then that we should leave

4 this -- how would you say that this section of the

5 constitution is put into force and effect?

6

MR. GRAHAM: I'm arguing in the lawsuit exactly

7 what you said, this provides that --

8

MR. VANN: That's right.

9

MR. GRAHAM: My question is, in the Rodriguez case

10
Czl 11 ...
'o.."....
~ 12 ~
~F~! 14 ...... :-cr 15 ol) I:l '":;) 16 .~.. oz -c 17 :

in Texas the United States Supreme Court contrary to Brown versus Board of Education and maybe in a decision that I agree with in a lot of ways has said that education was not a fundamental obligation of the federal government.
MR. VANN: Obligation of the federal government MR. GRAHAM: And I may agree with that. They said -- and I always read the Rodriguez case -- let's go back to your own state, look at your state constitution and find out

18 what education is in your state, what does it say?

19

Then I was glad to hear what you said about the

20 state of Washington because I don't much like the state of

21 Washington either because the education provision in the 22 state of Washington didn't say anything about equal 23 educational opportunity, and the State Supreme Court of 24 Washington said education is not fundamental in the state 25 of Washington, and contrary to every other state where this

PAGE 80

case has been brought up they, the supreme court there

2 knocked it down because the education provision didn't say

3 that.

4

Now, we can compromise on this to the extent that I

5 think maybe if you added the words and fundamental after

6 primary

7

MR. VANN: What does primary mean?

8

MR. GRAHAM: I argue it means first.

9

MR. VANN: What does fundamental mean? Do you put

10
..e"
Z
11 j:
e ; i..o.... ! 14 ... ':"r .15 .:> e" ;;;) 16 ~... zQ
17 :

a bottom on something? MR. GRAHAM: I think there's a distinction there,
Mr. Vann. I think we really need to recognize in an educational provision of a state constitution the importance of education, and I don't think we ought to try to read into some words what it means, I think we ought to say it.
MR. VANN: What, in the constitution? For instance, do you think we ought to say in the constitution what due

18 process of law is?

19

MR. GRAHAM: No, but I think we ought to say

20 education is important.

21

MR.. VANN: We ought tosay in the constitution what

22 equal protection of law is?

23

MR. GRAHAM: I think the constitution ought to state

24 that no child in this state will be denied an equal

25 educational opportunity.

PAGE 81

MR. VANN: I think,it states it.

2

DR. PRESSLY: I have a little difficulty with that

3 statement. I agree with everything you're Siying whole-

4 heartedly, but I think it is covered here as we were just

5 saying, but I worry about equal educational opportunity.

6 Suppose you had a situation like this, suppose a family

7 lives down in a rural community and the school in that rural

8 community as it ought to be is largely vocational, but it 9 has liberal arts courses so if a child wants to go to

10
Czl
.11 j: .'o.".
9;1 14 ~ ~ ':"r 15 .:l Cl '"::> 16 ;... Q Z 17 ::i

college he can, but those liberal arts courses are not equal to the liberal arts courses given at say Druid Hills High School. Are the people in that county going to be forced to have a school that has equal educational opportunity in the liberal arts when that is not what that community really needs? They've got an adequate one, but to sayan equal opportunity, that child doesn't have an equal opportunity with a child over in Druid Hills, there's no question about

18 it.

19

MR. GRAHAM: The situation is, and I've spent five

20 years in talking to almost every school superintendent in the

21 state and looking at children, they're saying that we have a

22 denial of equal educational opportunity and the children are

23 being harmed in this state, and whether

24

DR. PRESSLY: Isn't that because they're not getting

25 an adequate education, and we have covered it.

rr----------------

PAGE 82 -- ._--_._-----------,

MR. VANN: It's basically because of dollars.

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Let me try something out that

3 the staff drafted.

4

Paragraph I, Public Education

5

MR. HILL: I've got a copy of it here.

6

MR. GRAHAM: I think we all recognize and agree that

7 education is important. I'm just trying to see if we can't

8

DR. PRESSLY: We agree with you wholeheartedly.

9

MR. GRAHAM: -- if we can't put some more language

10
.."z
11 j:
..o.....
@;~ ! 14 IU<:zI: ".15 ~ ::;) 16 ~... Q Z < 17 ::

in here so another group some time down the line will know exactly what we're thinking about instead of saying '~ell, maybe they thought primary meant first."
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: "The provision of an adequate education for the citizens in a manner that promotes equal educational opportunity shall be a primary obligation of the state of Georgia, the expense of which shall be borne out of public funds. The

18

General Assembly shall see that this obligation is

19

met and shall by taxation or otherwise provide for

20

public funds for such purpose and may prescribe the

21

terms and conditions upon which state funds shall be

22

made available therefor."

23

MR. HILL: You see, I think the problem with what

24 you're saying is if you try to ensure it in every level

25 then you're going to run into the problem that Dr. Pressly

PAGE 83

is speaking of where if one person gets a better education

2 than someone else or has a higher level then maybe it would

3 be thought that it's not equal, so the reason that I didn't

4 say shall ensure that an equal educational opportunity is

5 provided is because we can't really be sure where that goes.

6

MR. GRAHAM: In the law if you have a provision for

7 equal educational opportunity in the educational provision

8 then the only way you could justify inequalities is through

9 some educational criteria. You can always do this. They do

10
"z
11 I-
@;;.'oa".... ! 14 !:z;;: 15 ~ "'":) 16 ~ :;) z 17 :

this in a number of cases in the United States, and the state Supreme Court says "Is it fundamental or not," and then all I think we need to say is that we shall have equal educational opportunity, and if we don't have it and it's because of something not related to education then it's wrong.
MR. OWENS: In Washington when they use the term that education was not fundamental, what definition or idea

18 did they give for fundamental?

19

MR. GRAHAM: It wasn't mentioned in the constitution

20

MR. OWENS: They didn't involve fundamental as to

21 what--

22

MR. GRAHAM: They didn't mention education in the

23 constitution.

24

DR. PRESSLY: John, can you buy the statement that's

25 here?

PAGE 84

MR. GRAHAM: I'm not sure I agree that we (ought to

2 promote equal educational opportunity. I think the provision

3 of an adequate education for the citizens in a manner that

4 produces equal educational opportunity, or is equal, or 5 provides

6

DR. PRESSLY: I don't believe we will ever have

7 equal educational opportunity myself.

8

MR, OWENS: We must work toward that idea.

9

MR. GRAHAM: Whether we have equal protection of the

10 law is a question that's argued in the courts every day.

Czl 11 ~
@;;oo....r..:

DR. PRESSLY: I don't believe that a child in the Druid Hills High School is getting an equal vocational opportunity as the child in some of our rural schools is

! 14 I-

getting, I don't think he needs it, it isn't there.

'<"l

J:

15 .:I

MR. GRAHAM: Why doesn't he need it in a highly

Cl

or:

:::l

16 ~... mobile society like we have now?

Q

Z

<l

17 :

DR. PRESSLY: That's not his field.

18

MR. GRAHAM: That's not his choice. He just happens

19 to live there.

20

DR. PRESSLY: I don't see how we can say Druid Hills

21 has got to provide this.

22

MR. GRAHAM: We're not saying this, we're saying

23 equal educational opportunities can't be denied because of

24 irrational criteria. As far as education goes, there may be

25 educational reasons why there should be differences, and they

PAGE 85

would be valid, but there can be no other reason outside of

2 education why there shouldn't be equal educational

3 opportunities.

4

!JR. PRESSLY: You know a whole lot more about the

5 law than I do, but my guess would be there could be suit

6 after suit that would say that this school or that school

7 is not giving us equal in this particular area and they must

8 do it.

9

MR. GRAHAM: If there's an educational 'reason for

10
"z
11 j:
.l'o>."..
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 ... '~ :"r 15 .:l "'"::) 16 .~.. Q Z ~ 17 :i

not, then they won't win the suit. MR. HENRY: Would you say the vocational education
they provide in Okefenokee County and the liberal arts education they provide in !JeKalb County, are you argui~g the Okefenokee County school board attorney could say that there was a rational reason for that or a compelling reason?
MR. GRAHAM: You would argue that based upon the sqciety in which they are being trained that the one rural,

18 one urban and so forth

19

I am totally opposed to equal dollars per. student

20 throughout the state, that won't work, All I'm saying is

21 we should have nothing that would ever stop educational 22 opportunity being equal unless it's educationally related, 23 and right now as the basis of a lawsuit the type of education 24 a child in this state gets depends upon theproperty wealth 25 of where he happens to live, and that's like saying count

r r - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - -..

PAGE 86

the number of telephone poles in your county and if you've

2 got more than that you get a better opportunity. There is

3 no rational reason why a child should be denied the oppor-

4 tunity just simply based upon the wealth of where he happens 5 to live.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Let's see where we are.

7

MR. GRAHAM: I don't want to argue the case, because

8 I think I could probably buy this -- I would rather go back to

9 exactly what we have here and add the words fundamental

10 after primary.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Then that would satisfy equal

opportunity.

MR. GRAHAM: It would lend more weight to it I
I
think.

MS. GREENBERG: Webster's dictionary states that

fundamental and primary are synonymous if you want to talk

about plain meaning.

18

MR. GRAHAM: Then I would take out primary and put

19 fundamental, because courts talk in terms of fundamental and

20 not primary.

21

MR. VANN: The courts would have to talk in terms of

22 primary in Georgia.

23

MR. GRAHAM: Yeah.

24

MR. WATTS: In terms of the inability to specificall

25 define what adequate is which is an underlying problem in

PAGE 87

this area of discussion, the state board it's my under-

2 standing is involved in a process that is in effect defining

3 adequate, that is the production of a set of standards which

4 are minimum standards.

5

MR. GRAHAM: The standards are not adequate. You

6 won't find anybody on the state board that would say that,

7 or the superintendent

8

MR. WATTS: That could be a vehicle by which adequat~

9 is more accurately defined than just the word adequate.

10
"z
II t-
.oo.<.
12 ~
~~F~ ~ ! 14 tv> % 15 .:J "0< :> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

I think the legislature in its legislation defines adequate better than that in APEG.
MR. VANN: The way I see it is just like I've said that adequate may mean something for today and something different for tomorrow, because it has in Georgia I guess, or else no one has attacked it.
I don't think the courts are going to sit down here and say that you've got to do A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H to

18 be adequate. I think they will look at the legislation and

19 determine whether this comes within the constitutional

20 requirement of an adequate education for the citizens of

21 Georgia being a primary obligation, and if they held what we

22 were doing was not adequate it means we'd have to do something

23 else.

24

MR. GRAHAM: Are you saying that it's impossible

25 for it to be adequate unless it's equal?

PAGE 88

MR. VANN: I think it's

No, I'm not saying

2 that, I say I think it's possible to be adequate today and

3 inadequate tomorrow.

4

MR. GRAHAM: 1bere are two issues involved.

5 Adequate is one,issue, and the other is whether or not we are

6 providing equal educational opportunity in the state. They

7 are two different things.

8

MR. VANN: If you're speaking about dollars -- for

9 instance, you used the words at one point in yours equal

10
CzI
.11 j: 'o."..
~r~ ~\ ~ 12
! 14 tOIl :r
15 .:l
CI
'";:)
16 ~... Q Z
17 :

educational programs. MR. GRAHAM: I meant to say opportunities. MR. VANN: Well,what is opportunity except
you mean access to? MR. GRAHAM: Right . MR.. VANN: You know, to me you might comply with
that by putting all the schools in Georgia in Atlanta and providing people with money to come here.

18

DR. P~SSLY: . John, what I'm having difficulty with

19 in what you're trying to get at was you're trying to

20 accomplish -- I couldn't agree with you more, I agree with it

21 a hundred percent, but I don't see is why doesn't the word

22 adequate education for the citizens assure equal educational

23 opportunity?

24

MR. GRAHAM: Why don't we say that?

25

DR. PRESSLY: I don't mind saying it myself.

PAGE 89

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: To ensure adequate education?

2 To ensure?

3

MS. GREENBERG: Could I try some language out?

4

The state of Georgia shall assure its citizens of an

5 adequate education and shall provide its citizens with access

6 to equal educational opportunities. Is that too strong?

7

MR. GRAHAM: I think that would be fine.

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Read it again.

9

MS. GREENBERG: The state of Georgia

10
1.7 Z
11 I-
.'o"
Q.
9;1 ! 14 I'" ::I: 15 .:l 1.7 :'>" 16 ~ Q Z 17 :

MR. GRAHAM: Where are you reading from? MS. GREENBERG: I just wrote it. The state of Georgia shall assure its citizens of an adequate education and shall provide its citizens with access tc equal educational opportunities. MR. VANN: I think we're trying to add some meaning to the constitution, we just must be doing that -MR. HILL: You see, the problem is, though, what's

18 being stated is that under the present language we have we do

19 not have equal educational opportunity.

20

MR. VANN: You can say the same thing just the

21 opposite, under the present language we do have an equal

22 educational opportunity.

23

MR. GRAHAM: Let me add three words.

24

MR. HILL: What John is saying about the difference

25 in wealth, and we heard testimony from Clark Stevens about

PAGE 90

the amount of money that's going into education and the

2 variation between counties, and it would be very hard to

3 based on those figures to have it.

4

MR. VANN: Maybe if the legislature under its

5 constitutional authority enacts a law that says, which they

6 have, that we must have equalization of dollars among the

7 school systems of Georgia and they don't fund it, maybe the

8 constitution requires them to fund it.

9

MR. GRAHAM: That's what lawsuits are about, but

10
III Z
11 j:
..o'.."..
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ t'" :I: 15 .:> III '":;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ::

let me suggest -MR. VANN: You know, we have a law that says some-
thing, and then I guess we're saying that the law doesn't have any meaning.
MR GRAHAM: It's inoperative is the term. But let me ask -- just look at Paragraph I on Article VIII and let me add four words to that and see if this will do the job, let it read -- first of all, let it

18 read the provision of an adequate education, then add these

19 four words "with equal educational opportunity" for the

20 citizens shall be a primary obligation of the state of Georgia

21 the expense of which shall be provided for by taxation, so

22 it would be: The provision of an adequate education with an

23 equal educational opportunity for the citizens shall be a

24 primary obligation of the state of Georgia, the expense of

25 which shall be provided for by taxation.

PAGE 91

I think really all we've done there is we've just

2 recognized in as maybe as few words as we possibly can what

3 we all seem to agree on that we do need educational oppor-

4 tunity, but we really don't have to define what that means.

5 That may be the struggle and there is a struggle now. We

6 are --

7

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Would anybody like to speak to

8 that?

9

MR. VANN: I don't think it's necessary.

10

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. We have --

DR. PRESSLY: I want to ask John one question here.

John, what's worried you is what you see in the

state now as lack of equal educational opportunity; I couldn't

agree with you more.

If the lowest counties or the lowest systems in the

state were made to come up to an adequate education for their

citizens wouldn't it be remedying that situation?

18

MR. GRAHAM: No, sir, I don't believe it

19

DR. PRESSLY: Why not?

20

MR. GRAHAM: I don't think that would eliminate the

21 issue of whether or not we brought them up to adequate, it

22 would still be equal educational opportunity, but I think

23 that --

24

DR. PRESSLY: The thing that you're really say.ing

25 there I don't believe we could ever afford that every student

PAGE 92

in the state has an equal opportunity with every other

2 student in the state in every area of education. I just don't

3 believe the state or the county or the world can afford that.

4 That's saying you've got to

5

The colleges have found they can't afford it, they

6 have had to go together in consortiums and not try to offer

7 everything to everybody.

8

MR. GRAHAM: You're overlooking the fact that we're

9 saying that the only way that they cannot have it is if it's

10
1:1 Z
11 I-
..'o"....
@~:i ! 14 I'<"l :I: 15 .:> CJ '";;) 16 ~... Q Z <l 17 :

educationally based. I'm saying that I don't want the type of education or opportunity that a child has to be based on anything that's not related to education, and that's what these words to me are telling the people in the future because they're saying that constitution recognizes education as fundamental and the only way when anybody raises an issue of whether or not they're being denied an educational opportunity equal in the state, the only way that would ever

18 be justifiable because it is fundamental is if there is some

19 educationally based criteria which justifies it, and by

20 putting these in we're saying we're not going to let you in

21 the future -- we're going to make absolutely clear once and

22 for all that noneducational criteria are going to have nothing

23 to do with equal educational opportunity, like say --

24

MR. VANN: You mean like money?

25

MR. GRAHAM: No, not like money.

PAGE 93

DR. PRESSLY: Like what?

2

MR. GRAHAM: Having education, the type of education

3 a child gets based on things not related to education like

4 sex and religion and race, national origin or the property

5 wealth of where they happen to live, orthe personal wealth

6 of their parents.

7

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Could you put those words in

8 there?

9

MR. GRAHAM: No, because I think there's a lot of

10 other things that may come up in the future we just don't

know about.

MR. VANN: Do you think this now provides that the

courts of Georgia would be authorized to say that we could

discriminate against citizens because of sex and race or

religion, this language?

MR. GRAHAM: Well, because it's not clear I don't

know.
18

Just to make this absurd, they could pass legisla-

19 tion in the future that somehow would say the type of

20 education a child's going to get in that school district is

21 going to depend on how many automobiles are in it. Are we

22 going to let schools be chosen by automobile census?

23

MR. VANN: The constitution used to provide that

24 there be separate but equal facilities for black and white

25 in Georgia, we have removed that. Certainly this would

PAGE 94

indicate the United States has said this is illegal, but 2 certainly that would indicate there was an attempt to

3 eliminate any such language having the meaning based on race.

4

MR. GRAHAM: What about the property wealth of where

5 the child happens to live? Should that be related to the type

6 of education that child happens to get?

7

MR. HILL: Not if it deprives him of a minimum

8 educational standard, but that's the problem. I mean if you

9 have a wealthy district should they be prohibited from adding

10 to their program to upgrade their system?

"z
11 j:
@;;."o..."..

DR. PRESSLY: We have covered that when we say that every child in the state shall have an adequate education, in other words up to whatever we want to describe as the

14 ~ minimum situation. It seems to do what you want done.

Ii;

:<z:l

15 ol)

MR. VANN: Theoretically you could carry it to the

""";;)
16 .~.. extreme and say that if it's the obligation of the state to

Q

Z

<l
17 :

see that the citizens have an adequate education that this

18 obligation extends to private schools, families, or to the

19 wealth of a family or

What I'm trying to say is that

20 there is no way we're going to equalize people and people's

21 wealth unless you want to go to another system of government.

22

We may be able to equalize educational opportunity

23 as you say, but I think you speak only from a dollar and

24 cents viewpoint because, you mow, we can provide that

25 everybody has got to have English and everybody has got to

PAGE 95

have a foreign language and everybody has got to have -- we

2 have to offer these particular subject matters, but even then

3 it seems to me like this type of thing would stifle the

4 possibility of improving even upon what you have. That's

5 one of the objects of

6

MR. GRAHAM: Why do we seem to be afraid of stating

7 in here we want equal educational opportunity regardless of

8 what it means? That's what we do want.

9

DR. PRESSLY: I don't think we can provide it if

10 you mean by it exactly the same quality of courses in every

area for every student in the state.

I just think that's idealistic to dream that any

state in the world could provide that. I don't believe it

can ever be done.

I don't object to the phrase except I don't think it

could be brought about.

MS. GREENBERG: Is the fear this is going to create

18 so many lawsuits throughout the state that it's going to

19 overburden the courts?

20

DR. PRESSLY: And financially wreck --

21

MS. GREENBERG: Can't we leave it to the courts to

22 determine that?

23

MR. GRAHAM: If we put i.t in, the courts would say

24 is the inequality a result of criteria related to education or

25 not related to education.

PAGE 96

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: What's in there that would make

2 them say that? I mean what's in the language that would make

3 the courts say that?

4

MR. GRAHAM: Equal educational opportunity by statin

5 that makes education fundamental, and therefore there can only

6 be a rational basis for there being inequality, and I think

7 the court would say that only educationally related criteria

8 could be used as a rational basis for justifying inequalities,

9 and all we're saying is that a person coming into court under

10
zCI 11 j:
@;;'o..".... ! 14 :tz;: 15 .:l CI '="' 16 ~... oz 17 :

this is going to have to say "I'm being denied an educational opportunity equal to others in the~ate for some reason that's not rational" like the wealth of where I happen to live, like my sex.
MR. VANN: Why can't the courts say that under the existing language?
MR. GRAHAM: They can . MR. HILL: That may clear the whole question for us.

18

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: If you feel like that, why wait

19 on the courts? If you feel the courts are going to --

20

MR. VANN: It might say no, and it might say yes,

21 I don't know what it might say. but I know one thing --

22 John, what would that language do to the suit?

23

MR. GRAHAM: Nothing.

24

MR. VANN: Nothing. Then what meaning does it have?

25 None?

PAGE 97

MR. GRAHAM: Well, I think it is going to speak our

2 intent, we just don't want people denied opportunity on

3 something that's irrational.

4

MR. VANN: In what way does this constitutional

5 provision deny the opportunity?

6

MR. GRAHAM: I think we can always improve meaning

7 by clarifying language, and I think these four words would

8 clarify once and for all what's not there now. I can't see

9 it though now.

10

~

Czl 11 I-
..o'.."..
12 ~

~r~ 14 ~

1;;
:z:

15 .:l

Cl
'":2 16 .~..

Q
Z 17 :

I know it's somewhere else in the constitution. MR. VANN: Suppose we just added here that no citizen shall be denied equal protection of the law? MR. HILL: That's being added in Article I. MR. VANN: It's not there now? MR. HILL: Not in so many words, but it is being added, will be added in the provision of Article I that will go along with this constitution, so if you wane to restate it

18 here it wouldn,'t hurt.

19

MR. HENRY: Could I ask something. What do you

20 envision a ccurt -- say that this provision was there, would

21 they have to go further than making the General Assembly

22 fund the district power equalization or --?

23

MR. GRAHAM: The court is going to say that if it

24 is unconstitutional, the system that we have, they're going

25 to say to the General Assemb~y as they have done in other

PAGE 98

states, take two or three years or whatever they decide and

2 correct it, make the financial system that meets the

3 constitutional standards, and in every case where that's

4 happened so far fortunately the courts haven't had to

5 exercise they have retained jurisdiction and come back in

6 and the legislature has found or begun to move in that

7 direction.

8

Now, whether district power equalization is what the

9 legislature would end up, or increasing the required local

10 effort or full state financing I don't know, and frankly I'm

relieved that I don't have to do more in the court case than

to suggest to the judge that there are remedies that we

already have one on the books here, and it eases his burden

because he doesn't have to legislate if he agrees that we

have a constitutional problem in the first place.

I would have confidence that the legislature would

find a way to do that and maintain local control of education

18 as the DEP does. The way the DEP is written those funds go

19 to the local systems without strings if it was ever funded.

20

DR, PRESSLY: John, is there a possibility that

21 your statement with equal educational opportunity added here

22 might ultimately lead us to -- I don't know what to call it,

23 a socialist state I guess where the state itself would decide

24 that everybody in the state must have this equal educational

25 opportunity and actually would be moving students from their

PAGE 99

parents to other systems because they couldn't afford to put

2 that opportunity in the local systems" to move the poor

3 child? Is there a possibility of that? That is what is

4 worrying me.

5

If you say adequa't,e you've got a minimum and we can

6 reach that and can afford to reach it and can offer it ,to each

7

I
child, then we can raise what is our concept of adequate.

8

MR. GRAHAM: I want to make sure we offer it to ever 17

9 child.

10
"z
11 Ia-:
.o0..-
~ 12 ~
~r~14 ! !;; :J: 15 .:l "a: ::l 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

MR. HILL: If we were to add Mr. Vann's suggestion, though, and state that in the provision of an adequate education no pupil shall be denied equal protection of law, something that no one is likely to disagree with
MR. VANN: I said no citizen. MR. HILL: No citizen, since we say all citizens shall be provided -MR. GRAHAM: I think citizen is a better word.

18

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Would you buy it, John?

19

MR. GRAHAM: Yeah.

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. Can we accept that as a

21 compromise?

22

Would you read the language?

23

MR. VANN: I'm not sure -- one of the things that

24 does disturb me is whether if this has the same meaning

25 that's added to the other provision then there's no necessity

for it.

_ _ __ .

...

...._._-_.

PAGE 100

2

MR. HILL: It's not there now, and we don't know

3 what's going to happen to it, so to some extent this would

4 ensure that with respect to education that it's there.

5

MR. VANN: If that's not clearly expressed in the

6 constitution now, it ought to be clearly expressed but not

7 just in connection with education.

8

MR. HILL: I agree with you, but at this point we

9 can't say to you that that's going to be --

10
CzI
... 11 ioo=r: 0..
a::j 14 !... ':-z<":l 15 ~ CorI: ;:) 16 ~... Q Z -<l 17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We don't have responsibility for --
MR. HILL: It's in Article I, and it's the recommendation, and there's a lot of debate because as you remember it got hung up in the equal rights provision, you know, ERA, and any time you talk about equal protection of laws it raises the sex issue, so that at least for now for this committee this may be a way out of your dilemma to just

18 state that in the provision an adequate education, no

19 citizen shall be denied equal protection of the law, and that

20 will make it very clear.

21

MR. VANN: I prefer that to what we're discussing,

22 but I'm not really ready to vote to put it in today.

23

MS. GREENBERG: I was reading your proposal, Mr.

24 Graham, from February 22nd where you have proposed language

25 for this, and you have a statement "No child shall be

PAGE 101

discriminated against in the provision of educational

2 resources on account of race, religion, color, national

3 origin, sex, personal or school district wealth or place of

4 residence."

.5

MR. ~RAHAM: That language was 'taken from Texas'

6 constitution I believe.

7

~ffi. GREENBERG: Would that more clearly describe

8 what the committee would like to see in this section?

9

DR. PRESSLY: I have no objection to that at all

10
11 ".z..
'0.0"....
~@r12 .!':".:.! j: .z.. U '" 14 .>.-. '<"l: :J: 15 .:> ":'"> 16 '.z".. c Z <l: 17 ''""

because I don't think that bumps into the problem that to me the equal educational opportunity bumps into . I'll buy that.
MR. GRAHAM: Why don't we say that no citizen will be discriminated against in the provision of educational resources on account of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, personal or school district wealth ~- I'm not sure I would leave in place of residence because if you're talking about personal or district wealth you may hit that

18 issue.

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It's a real hard one here.

20

DR. PRESSLY: It's a hard one.

21

MR. HILL: The problem then when you start listing

22 the bases on which you're not going to discriminate against

23 someone you may leave one out. that you may think of later, 24 and equal protection of law covers all that.

25

CHAIRMAN ME~DITH: Why don't we use the word --

- - - --~------"----" ---

PAGE 102

it seems to me the tradeoff here was the educational resources

2 as opposed to educational opportunity, that seems -- wasn't

3 that the difference in that?

4

MS. GREENBERG: Resources, does that --

5

MR, HILL: That sounds like a dollar, you have to

6 have a dollar for dollar in each district and that may not

7 be -- you don't want to mandate that in the constitution

8 certainly.

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We did have one statement that

10 seemed to satisfy everybody except the person who put it

forward, no --

MR. VANN: No citizen shall be denied equal protec-

tion of the law. I would prefer that to the other language,

and all I'm saying, I don't think it's necessary. I guess I

just threw it out as seeing that's what you're trying to say.

If you wanted tO$y that, if somebody wanted to

propose it --

18

t,;HAIRMAN M.t:REDITH: Would somebody read that

19 statement someplace in here?

20

MR. VANN: It would just be at the end of it, it

21 would say that the provision of an adequate education for

22 the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the state of

2J Georgia, the expense of which shallbe provided for by

24 taxation. No citizen shall be denied equal protection of

25 the law, period.

PAGE 103

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: John?

2

MR. GRAHAM: Well, the question is does the

3 constitution provide equal educational opportunity for all

4 citizens. I think that language would come close to doing

5 that, and certainly being in the education section of the

6 constitution would reflect the importance that I'm really

7 trying to make this place on education.

8

You know, there are three questions that I think we

9 need to make sure that this section meets:

10

"z
11 l-
."lol.<".
12 ~

@ ~sv

~

~F~

! 14

I-
':z":

15 .l)

"ll<
;:)

16 .~..

Q

Z

17 :::

One. does the constitution ensure equal educational opportunity for all citizensj
Two, does it prohibit factors which bear no substantial relation to the state's obligation to provide public schoolsj and
Three. does it ensure that the state has sufficient revenues to fulfill the criteria. and it does when it says provide for taxation.

18

I just wanted to make sure that whatever we draft

19 says it's a primary duty which we have. I like the word

20 adequate because we can't seem to find a better one, and I

21 like the word equal because we're stating there that every

22 citizen in our state is going to have equal opportunity, and

23 by stating equal protection of the laws I think you have said

24 the same thing maybe in more palatable language.

25

I want a citizen of this state to always have the

I

PAGE 104
rr-------------------------- ----------,
right to go to court and say "I am being denied equal

2 opportunity for education in this state."

3

MR. VANN: Every citizen I know of has got it.

4

MR. GRAHAM: And here is why --

5

MR. VANN: I mean he's got the right to go to court.

6 You didn~ exactly mean it that way.

7

MR. GRAHAM: And raise the issue that "I'm being

8 denied equal opportunity for education in this state," and

9 then be able to give his or her reasons why they think they

10
.."z
11 i=
..o.....
~;j ! 14 ~ 'x<"Cl ..15 .:I "::> 16 .~.. Q Z <Cl 17 I:

are being denied equal educational opportunity, MK. VANN: You don't think they have that right now
to go to court and raise this issue? MR. GRAHAM: They're doing it now, but I don't know
whether the court is going to state that -MR. VANN: That's different from saying the court
will say you have -MR. GRAHAM: If we say it in the constitution, then

18 it becomes not a matter of whether the constitution gives it

19 to them but a matter of whether or not they in fact have it.

20

MR. VANN: What I'm saying is you cast it in the

21 context of access to the courts, and I don't think there's

22 any question that there's access to the courts on the issue.

23

MR. GRAHAM: The issue before the courts now is

24 does the constitution provide equal educational opportunity

25 for citizens of this state.

PAGE 105

If the constitution said that, then the question

2 would be does the citizen have equal educational opportunity

3 in the state.

4

We have got a threshold question in the courts now,

5 does the constitution of the state of Georgia provide equal

6 educational opportunity for the citizens of the state. That

7 is a question that's never been decided in the state of

8 Georgia..

9

MR. VANN: Yet the major issue addressed in the case

10
"z
11 Ie..oo..-..:
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 I'z" 15 .:I "eo: :) 16 ~ Qz 17 :

is really the financing of education, isn't it? DR. PRESSLY: Yes, sir. MR. GRAHAM: The question we are stating -- the
system of financing we're saying is unconstitutional because it doesn't provide equal educational opportunity, but to go back to the threshold question, does the constitution mandate equal educational opportunity for its citizens? Where does it say that in the constitution?

18

I think the court is going to say yes, the -- I

19 think they're going to get over that threshold, I think they'rE

20 going to rule that it does provide equal educational

21 opportunity.

22

DR. PRESSLY: I can't bring myself to believe that

23 beyond a certain point the state can possibly give equal

24 educational opportunity to all of its citizens in the terms

25 you're now talking about. I don't think the state can possibl

do it beyond a point.

PAGE 106
------'--------------.,

2

I think it can meet a minimum, but beyond that

3 they can't do it, and I don't think we ought to put in here

4 something that says you must. We'll be in law courts for

5 ever, we would just be

6

MR. GRAHAM: There's nothing wrong with that.

7

DR. PRESSLY: Being in law courts 1br ever? Not as

8 far as you lawyers are concerned I'm sure, but I object

9 strenuously--

10
I!I Z
11 ~
..'o"....
~ 12 ~
@)_.~
! 14 ... ':"r
15 q
I!I
'";;) 16 ~...
Q
Z
17 :

MR. GRAHAM: Not as far as a child that lives in Whitfield County is concerned either.
DR. PRESSLY: This covers it, no citizen shall be prohibited equal protection of the law covers it.
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think we can move on, then . MR. VANN: What's this now? CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We can move on, then . MR. OWENS: We voted a few minutes ago, but some-

18 body rejected that.

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Adding your statement at the end

20 of it, let's vote on it and record the vote.

21

Okay. All in favor of the motion that the statement

22 be that no citizenshall be denied equal protection of the law

23 be added to Section I of Article VIII.

24

(Ayes.)

25

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Oppos ed.

PAGE 107

MR. VANN: I'm opposed, but only because I think

2 it's unnecessary,

3

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. It's been properly moved

4 -- I mean it's been --

5

MR. OWENS: That's VIII one isn't it?

6

CHAIRMAN MERl<.:DtTH: Article VIII, Section I.

7

MR. OWENS: I mean that's the first question?

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Oh, yes. That is --

9

MR. OWENS: That is the second part of Question l?

10
."z
11 j:
..o....
@;j ! 14 I':<"rl ..15 o!) "::> Ih .~.. Q Z <l 17 ::i

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Actually what we have said then
is the constitution -- actually we made this an (a) and a 0-
MR. OWENS: That's right. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: The adequate education statement is acceptable as correct, and we're agreed to add tpe equal protection clause. Ukay. Let's go to the second one. "Shouid the provision stating that an adequate education for the citizens of Georgia

18 shall be a primary obligation of the state of Georgia be

19 changed?"

20

MR. GRAHAM: We just answered that one.

21

MS. GREENBERG: The state school superintendent

22 was suggesting we should add it should also be an obligation

23 of the local sytems.

24

MR. GRAHAM: I think the other witnesses stated

25 Georgia was a broad enough statement to encompass all areas

PAGE 108
n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _----,
and branches of,government at all levels.

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Each one has an obligation to do

3 whatever.

4

MR. HILL: In the 1970 proposal it was stated it

5 shall be a primary obligation of the state of Georgia and its

6 political subdivisions.

7

MR. GRAHAM: Isn't that kind of --

8

MR. HILL: The original question, though, that Eldon

9 had raised long ago, and I think the school superintendent

10
13 Z
11 j:
oe.".x".:
@)~~~ ! 14 l:Vr> 15 .:> 1ex3: :> 16 ~... az 17 :

was raising again was it may imply the General Assembly as opposed to the political subdivisions, and he thoUght -- at least the superintendent today again stated he felt it would be better to clarify that it was an obligation not only of the state at this level but at the local level as well.
MR. GRAHAM: I think the problem there is when you put that in who's going to decide what is supposed to be done at what level. When you leave it the state of Georgia you

18 don't have that problem of somebody backing out and saying

19 "Well, that's their responsibility."

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Ultimately somebody in the state

21 would have to do it.

22

MR. GRAHAM: That's what maybe the constitution ough~

23 to have. I don't really think we ought to change the state of

24 Georgia; if it means the three branches of government, the

25 political subdivisions --

PAGE 109

MR. VANN: I don't think so either, but I --

2

The subcommittee dealing with the sections on the

3 local educational constitutional provision which deals with

4 county school systems and local boards of education -- you

5 know, if they were to recommend removing that or changing

6 that in someway then I might have some question about it,

7 although I would say that the term state of Georgia encompasse

8 the whole power of the state of Georgia and any subdivision

9 that it might create without any question.

9~

10
"z
11 ~
o
. _-12 ~""
i
~ 14 I-
CIt
<t J:
15 ~
"'";)
16 ~ Q z <t
17 :

I don't have any doubt about that, and if the court

said otherwise I'd be surprised.

,MR. OWENS: An. you ,saying now that i t might be

no~ interpreted that this does

include the subdivisions?

MR. VANN: I , m saying that it does. I ' m sh aying t e

state of Georgia is an all-encompassing term.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: So we have consensus on this one

right? Am I correct?

18

MR. OWENS: You might make a note there in the

19 writing and everything that this is accepted on the basis of

20 the fact we said the state of Georgia is all-encompassing,

21 it's including all these divisions, the subdivisions and

22 everything, that's the way we're looking at it.

23

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We can't put that

24

MR. OWENS: I just thought I would bring that out,

25 that might be a note somewhere.

PAGE 110

We can't put it in the constitution, but in writing

2 it we have a feeling

3

MR. VANN: I'm not sure that Dr. McDaniel, I think

4 he -- I'm not sure whether he was indicating that there ought

5 not to be local participation in financing.

6

MR. OWENS: No, I hope he didn't mean that.

7

MR. VANN: We now provide for it in other sections

8 of the constitution. That's why I say if there was any

9 changes made in that I think it might relate to this also.

10
I!l Z
11 l-
@ ~..lol..<..
6rlr12~ ! 14
I-
'0"(
:r
15 .:>
I!l ll<
;;;)
16 .~..
oz
0(
17 :

Presently I think it ought to stay like it is unless there are some changes made in the local educational provisions.
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Can we pass this one by consensus?
Is that agreeable? MR. GRAHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Three, "Should the state be required to assume a greater responsibility for the financing

18 of public education?"

19

MR. GRAHAM: I don't think that's a constitutional

20 question, I think that would be encompassed as now we have it

21 in Paragraph I when we state provided for by taxation. The

22 General Assembly must provide the answer to that question.

23

I hope we wouldn't have to provide in our

24 constitution percentages of financing.

25

MR. VANN: I think it now has the power to.

rr-----------------.----------

PAGE 111

MS. GREENBERG: You don't want a statement in the

2 constitution to that effect.

3

MR. VANN: What greater responsibility could they

4 assume than is assumed in Paragraph 11

S

MR. GRAHAM: I don't have any objection to the

6 second sentence of Section VIII on freedom of association

7 where it says the General Assembly shall by taxation provide

8 funds for an adequate education for the citizens of Georgia.

9 I don't have any problem with that portion of that. although

10 I know the reason for which that was tacked onto the

provision, but I don't think that the constitution ought to

relate itself to anything more than we have already recognized

that it's the primary obligation of the state.

MR. VANN: What I'm saying is this question really

is saying should assume a greater responsibility for the

financing of public education.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think we all agree on that

18 one. I don't think we've got a problem.

19

"Should the state be given more authority to set

20 minimum educational standards for private schools?"

21

MR. OWENS: I think they should, but I don't know

22 how.

23

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Where would it go? Do we have

24 any suggestions?

2S

First of all, we do agree as a committee that some

PAGE 112
----- -----------,
statement to this effect should be included in the

2 constitution?

3

MR. OWENS: I agree.

4

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Let's see. Do we have agreement

5 on that? If not, then we'll need to proceed.

6

MR. GRAHAM: I don't agree.

7

MR. VANN: I don't agree.

8

MR. GRAHAM: As much as I think the state ought to

9 set minimum educational standards for private schools, I

10
CzI 11 j:
o.'G".o. ~ 12 ~
~-_.~
! 14 Iut <:r
15 .:J
CI
~ '" 16 ~...
Q
Z
< 17 :

think in Article VIII, Section I, when we say adequate education for the citizens has done it.
MS. GHEENBERG: That section is titled Public Education,' and I would assume that that would negate any control over private education. Why don't we entitle it Education?
MR. VANN: Because it would cover the gamut of higher education too.

18

Maybe it ought to be at the top of both of the

19 sections for common schools and higher education, but you:'re

20 saying that the words system of common schools, free tuition--

21

Am I reading from the current constitution?

22

MR. HILL: Yes, that's right.

23

MR. VANN: I thought I was.

24

gives a meaning to the constitutional paragraph

25 as referring only to common schools.

PAGE 113
rr---------------------.------ ---------..,
MR. GRAHAM: I guess it does.

2

Do we have any provision in any other constitutions

3 in the country relating themselves to private education? I

4 have never seen one.

5

MR. HENRY: I would think that to the extent that

6 the state didn't impinge on any First Amendment rights they

7 could come in and regulate under their inherent police

8 powers. Whether they would do that or not is a separate

9 question.

10

MR. GRAHAM: It wouldn't be in the constitution, it

"z

@~ r14!i ~

11 ...
.'o."....

would be under a legislative license.

12 ~

MR. VANN: If it's in the constitution, you know,

it st~ll might be subject only to legislative enactment

... unless it was self-executing, and I don't think something like

lI>
:r

15 ,) that could be self-executing.

":'>"

16 ~...

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Could we put it under the

Q

Z

17 : Section II, under the powers of the state board of education?

18

MR. HILL: I think that's where it would belong,

19 under the state board shall --

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Some statement to ensure

21 Paragraph I or what's stated in Paragraph I, that the state

22 board of education be empow~red to establish minimum

23 educational standards for private schools.

24

MR. HILL: For all students. Just encompass it

25 that way. You don't even have to pinpoint the fact that you'r~

rr--------------------------
going after private schools.

PAGE 114

2

MR. VANN: We're noW regulating private schools

3 in the state board of education or through legislative

4 enactment. There must be some theory that there's

5 constitutional authorization for it now.

6

It hasn't been attacked I guess from a constitution 1

7 viewpoint, but we ought to regulate private higher education

8 schools.

9

MR. OWENS: We're concerned about the standards of

10
"z
11 j:
@ i.'o.."....
~r~12
! 14 IUI :r
15 ~
":'"l
16 .~..
cz
17 ~

the private schools, but I feel that if we do in the consti~ution or any other document or through policy of the state board make some kind of mandate in this respect wouldn't we also be then tied to a financial obligation to the schools?
MR. VANN: That's a possibility. MR. OWENS: I'm sure that something needs to be done. I know what needs to be done, I just don't know how.

18

Is it the law the way it's structured? We're dealin

19 here mostly with public schools.

20

MR. VANN: I'm a strong supporter of public

2l education, but I can see nothing wrong with private schools

22 functioning in their domain also. The only thing I want them

23 to do is function with their own money and not with tax

24 money.
25

MR. HI1JL: And provide an adequate education.

PAGE 115

MR. VANN: You knpw, that's just like -- well, if

2 that's an obligation of the state --

I guess what I'm

3 saying is that in the nation in which we live this is a

4 decision I guess that the parents make about where they send

5 their children to school, that if citizens come together and

6 form private institutions that we should see that they are

7 not criminally -- you know, that there is no fraud or crime

8 committed in connection with it, but as to whether we ought

9 to regulate what they teach or whether they have air

10
"z
11 i=
'o.0"....
~ 12 ~
~J~ ! 14 ... ':<"r 15 .:. '"" ::J }() .~.. Q Z < 17 :

conditioning or -CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: But it could be a crime if the
school did not provide an adequate education. MR. VANN: It might be a crime for them to -- it
might be some type of criminal thing that could be done for them to have such conduct that it would be a fraud, that they were providing --
DR. PRESSLY: Let me make a suggestion here and see

18 if it won't cover all th is .

19

It seems to me that this section, Section I,

20 instead of being called public education ought to be called

21 elementary and secondary education, and then in Paragraph I

22 you could say very well the provision of an adequate education

23 for the citizens shall be a primary obligadon of the state of

24 Georgia, the expense of public education shall be provided for

25 by taxation, and that way they can't ever say the private

PAGE 116

schools have to be supported by public funds, which I would

2 be much opposed to, and at the same time they come under

3 rule they have to have an adequate education, and then the 4 state board can decide to see that they have an adequate 5 education.

6

MR. GRAHAM: In Section I you call it Elementary

7 and Secondary Education

8

DR. PRESSLY: That's right, instead of public

9 education.

10

MR. GRAHAM: Then Paragraph I, you entitle that

" 11 z~ Where are you reading?

o......

@2IF~12 ~

DR. PRESSLY: Right here. Just wAke this elementary

~

~ and secondary education, and right here the provision of an

14 ~ adequate education for the citizens shall be a primary

':<"rl;
15.:> obligation

"~

:t

16 .~..

MR. VANN: That's the whole article on Section I is

Q

Z

<l;
17:

with public education, that deals with higher and lower --

18

DR. PRE~SLY: Oh, does it have higher later on in

19 there?

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We have board of regents under

21 Section IV.

22

DR. PRESSLY: Oh, me.

23

MR. HENRY: That paragraph could be called --

24

MR. VANN: I think the whole paragraph deals with

25 public education.

PAGE 117

MR. GRAHAM: I don't think so, because we don~t

2 provide free tuition for higher education.

3

DR. PRESSLY: That's where the difference comes.

4

MS. GREENBERG: An adequate education does not

5 encompass post-secondary education.

6

MR. OWENS: It does what?'

7

MS. GREENBERG: Does not include post-secondary

8 education.

9

DR. PRESSLY: We have post-secondary in this section

10
"z
11 t-
o.ao.<..
9;1 ! 14 t':z": 15 .:> "0< :> 16 ~... az
17 :

MS. GREENBERG: But we don't in ~ection I. Section II is state board, Section III is --
MR. VANN: Article VIII, yes. DR. PRESSLY: Then I think go back under Section I, simply call it elementary and secondary education, and then MR. VANN: I guess what we're saying under the connotation of it, Article VIII is education, then Section I is public education and that's Paragraph I

18

DR. PRESSLY: What I'm saying is instead of making

19 it public let's make it elementary and secondary education,

20 leave the sentence the provision of an adequate education

21 for the citizens, which means that applies to public and

22 private, shall be a primary obligation of the state, the

23 expense of public education shall be provided for by taxa-

24 tion, and it clarifies the whole thing without any problem

25 there.

PAGE 118

MR. GRAHAM: You have to change the title of

2 Paragraph I to be a system of --

3

MR, HILL: That would have to be changed.

4

DR. PRESSLY: That would have to be changed, yes.

-'

5

MR.. GRAHAM: Then the provision of the second

6 sentence which we have added to that article would make no

7 difference.

8

MR.. VANN: You know, in the gamut of an education

9 that's provided is also adult education, we provide --

10
"z
11 j:
".o.....
~ 12 ~
B-~
! 14 t; :r 15 ~
""::t
16 ~... Q Z
17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That's covered under -DR. P~SSLY: In another section. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: -- Paragraph II as to elderly citizens, it doesn't say anything about -MR.. VANN: That's under the board of regents. MR. HILL: I think there's an implication in Paragraph I that we're speaking to primary and secondary education because of its obligation of the state to fund it,

18 you know, free tuition. We certainly don't have free tuition

19 in our postsecondary or adult or vocational ed programs.

20

MR. WATTS: Yeah, there's free tuition in

21 vocational programs.

22

MR. VANN: In adult education?

23

MR. HILL: Is there with the board of regents?

24

MR. VANN: I'm not talking about colleges, I mean

25 there's adult education provided for high school level,

PAGE 119

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That would be secondary and

2 still fall under secondary and elementary.

3.

MR. HENRY: There is a separate paragraph on adult

4 education, it would be Sect~on IX on special schools.

5

MR. GRAHAM: What page is that?

6

MR. HENRY: It would be page 69.

7

MS. GREENBERG: That's a special section, that's not

8 the entirety of the adult vocational ed special school program.

9

DR. PRESSLY: The section we're talking about,

10
"z
11 l-
...oI:<
l:I.
~ 12 ~
(@)F~
! 14 I':~z":
15 ~
"I:<
;;)
16 .~.. oz ~ 17 :

Section I, is dealing only with secondary and elementary education.
MR. VANN: If thishas some meaning in the constitution, I wasn't paying any attention to titles, but it would seem to me like it would be better to leave public education and change systems of common schools to
,
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Systems of public education and primary -- change it right there.

18

MR. HILL: The point of changing it is so that this

19 provision will cover the private school situation-as well.

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. If you change where it

21 says system, leave it as public education --

22

MR. HILL: We don't want to because we're going to

23 cover both public and private, so that is why Dr. Pressly

24 wants to remove it.

25

DR. PRESSLY: You could do this, you could put

PAGE 120

public and private education at the top.

2

MR. HILL: Then it highlights it.

3

DR. PRESSLY: You're really bringing it out then.

4

MF.. GRAHAM: You may as well be up front with this.

5

MS. GREENBERG: I think Dr. Pressly's idea was good.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I support that too.

7

MS. GREENBERG: To change the title to of Section

8 I to --

9

DR. PRESSLY: Elementary and secondary education.

10
"z
11 j:
..'o"....
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 !;; :z: 15 ~ '"";;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: What would you do with the systems of common schools?
MS. GREENBERG: Just take it out and leave it secondary and elementary education as the title of the paragraph.
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Can we pass that by consensus? MR. OWENS: We're saying the title should be elementary and secondary education1

18

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Right, then we insert the

19 expense of publiC education shall be provided for by taxation.

20

MR. OWENS: That's highlighting public, still giving

21 some -- The only part that's changed in the constitution,

22 and I was trying to think -- do you have anything in the 23 constitution that makes saying elementary and higher 24 education should, et cetera, and then public education which

25 represents the private schools1 Is there anything in the

PAGE 121

constitution that makes that illegal?

2

MR. GRAHAM: You have to remember we're just

3 coming up with a draft for study the next time. Let's get a

4 concensus on that.

S

MR. VANN: If it's not entitled Public Education,

6 what are we adding about --

7

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We're giving ourselves an

8 opportunity to give the state board or somebody an opportunity

9 to provide an adequate education for all the citizens of

10 Georgia whether it's public or private. We're also protecting

"z
11 j:
."o...
@}~i

ourselves by adding in that the expense of public education shall be borne by taxation.
MR. VANN: Then all I'm saying is Section I is

! 14 !:z;;: 15 .:>
.."":>
16 ~
Q
Z 17 :

Public Education, and the heading System of Common Schools and Free Tuition --
MR. OWENS: We are changing that . MK. VANN: But it says the expense of which. Now

18 what is that referring to?

19

DR. PRESSLY: That's what we were changing.

20

What we would do, we would say the provision of an

21 adequate education for the citizens shall be the primary

22 obligation of the State of Georgia, period. The expense of

23 public education shall be provided for by taxation, and then

24 your sentence -- another period -- no citizen shall be

2S denied equal protection of the law.

PAGE 122

MR. WATTS: Does that wording still allow the state

2 the option of providing free post-secondary vocational

3 education?

4

DR. PRESSLY: I don't see why not.

5

MR. WATTS: I was just checking to make sure.

6

MR. VANN: One of the problems I guess about any

7 subcommittee, we shouldn't do anything that relates to

8 something else, but what is the vocational education section?

9

MR. HILL: It's Section IX.

10

MR. VANN: Is that the only vocational education

@);;11

"z
j:
'o.."....

section?

MR. HILL:

That's the only place in the constitution

where vocational education is mentioned, and it only relates

! 14 ... to the authorization of local school systems to get together '" :I:
15 ol) and set up, establish a board to create a vo-tech or a special'
"'";)
16 .~.. ed school in its area and provide bonds and taxation in that Czl
17 ~ area for it, but that's the only place where it's really

18 mentioned.

19

MS. GREENBERG: That's never been utilized to create

20 a vocational education or a vocational tech school. They

21 have been implemented under Section II, State Board of

22 Education. That's where all the vocational tech schools

23 have been created.

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We have a draft of Dr. PresslY's

25 language. Does anybody second that motion?

PAGE 123

MR, OWENS: Seconded.

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. Does anybody want to spe

3 on the motion?

4

If not, all in favor of the motion.

5

(Ayes.)

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Opposed.

7

The motion is carried.

8

5, "Should Section VIII of Article VIII on freedom

9 of Association be retained in the constitution?"

10
"z
11 ...
..'o"....
~ 12 ~
l (@)r ' g ~ 14 ... ':"r 15 00 "'"::> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :;

I'm open for a motion on that. I think we have had adequate discussion on that particular one.
MR. OWENS: I make the motion that it be not retained.
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Be deleted? MR. OWENS: Deleted. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Second to that motion? Second to that motion?

18

Can I second?

19

MR. HILL: I don't know.

20

MR. GRAHAM: We'll let you second.

21

MR. VANN: I'll second it. Let's have a little

22 discussion.

23

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: All right. It's been properly

24 moved and seconded that Section VIII of Article VIII be

25 deleted, and you can speak to the motion.

MR. VANN:

PAGE 124
~--------------------,
In our discussion before there were two

2 things really, one of them was the first sentence, and the

3 other one was the second sentence, and I gather that none of

4 us really understood the whole impact of this particular

5 section except that it probably originated out of the 1954

6 Supreme Court decision.

7

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Not probably. She brought in

8 explicit statements last time.

9

MS. GREENBERG: I sent a memo which you should have

10 received which talks about the origin of this provision.

"z
11 ~
Io..l..l..:.
@;I

meeting,

MR. VANN: I did. Did you have more than one memo? MS. GREENBERG: No. It was handed out at the last I sent that to members who were absent, but it

14 !.. ':"z: 15 ~
"Ill:
~
16 .~.. Q Z
17 :

originated with the commission on education after the Supreme Court decided the Brown v. Board of Education, and it was to circumvent that decision and allow for freedom of association, and also tuition grants to private schools.

18

MR. VANN: That's fine. I'm ready to vote on it.

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. Any further discussion on

20 the motion?

21

DR. PRESSLY: This is deleting it?

22

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Deleting it. All in favor of

23 the motion --

24

MR. GRAHAM: One more thing.

25

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: All right.

PAGE 125

MR. GRAHAM: I don't have any objection to the

2 second sentence.

3

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: But the second sentence seems to

4 be redundant in that Paragraph I of Section I has already

5 taken care of that.

6

MR. GRAHAM: All right.

7

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Unless you would like that

8 language used instead of the language that is already there

9 which--

10

MR. GRAHAM: You may read into the second sentence

CzI

11

i=
o..C..l..:

of that total state funding of education.

@ ; j whether I'm ready to do that yet. I'm ready to vote,

I don't know

! 14 lo-n % 15 .:l
CI Cl:
:;)
16 ~... Q Z
17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Any further unreadiness? All in favor of the motion. (Ayes.) CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Opposed. The motion is carried.

18

6, "Should t e method of selection of the state boar

19 of education be changed?" Do we have enough time to deal

20 with this?

21

Let me think for a minute, maybe we can handle this

22 a different way. Let me just think for a minute and see if

23 the way it's written here is the way to approach this.

24

MR. VANN: This new draft clarifies it some. The

25 other one said the method of selection of the state board

..----------------.------

PAGE 126

of education or school superintendent be changed.

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: This one separates it out.

3 All right. "Should the method of selection of the state board

4 of education be changed?"

5

DR. PRESSLY~ I move it not be changed.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Second to Dr. Pressly's motion?

7

MR. VANN: I second it.

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It's been properly moved and

9 seconded that the selection of the state board of education

10 not be changed.

"z
11 j:
.lo.I..l..:
@;i motion?

You have heard the motion. Any unreadiness on the MR. OWENS: I'm going to have to say that -- I'll

! 14 ... just vote that way. Go ahead .

':"r

15 .:l

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Does anyone want the process be

"lIl:

;;)

16 .~.. reviewed? Does everyone understand the method in which it

17 g"z is presently being done?

18

Would somebody do it for me? I'm not quite sure.

19 It's called for in the constitution, right?

20

DR. PRESSLY: What section is that?

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Section II. There shall be one

22 member from each congressional district who shall be appointed

23 by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the

24 Senate.

25

Okay. Are you ready for a vote? All in favor of

PAGE 127

the motion signify by aye.

2

(Ayes. )

3

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Opposed.

4

MR.. OWENS: No .

5

MR. GRAHAM: No.

6

MR.. VANN: Mr. Chairman?

7

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH : What do we have? Two and two.

8

My unreadiness is if this passes then we'll combine

9 them when we get to the other one, and I have some questions

10 about the other one.

MR. OWENS: Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement?

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Let '8 see if we can't -- We've

got a tie.

MR. OWENS: I'll wait until you decide how you're

going to vote, then I'll make my statement.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I 1m going to vote that it should

be changed, and then I would like to have another motion from

18 the group that will give us the authority to-come back and

19 reconsider this after we have dealt with

20

MR.. GRAHAM: I 80 move.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Does anybody want to second?

22

MR.. VANN: Second.

23

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: You see what I'm trying to do?

24

MR.. GRAHAM: Why don't I suggest that the five of us

25 -- maybe we could get a better feeling where we Ire going to

r r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - -..

PAGE 128

go if we just each took less than two minutes to state that

2 everything else being j uClt right what WP. would have. Maybe

3 that would be a better way for us to come at the question.

4

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. We do have a motion on

go 5 the floor, we need to ahead and get that one off, and that

6 is that we

7

MR. VANN: It's off. I mean you voted it --

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: There was another motion that

9 gave us the opportunity to come back and look at it after we

10 looked at

"z
11 oi.r"=.r-.:
~ 12 ~
~--~

you.

! 14 ~ OIl ":zl:
15 .:I

"rr:
;)
16 ~... Q Z
17 a

DR. PRESSLY: I'll withdraw my second if that helps
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. That motion dies. MR. GRAHAM: I withdraw the motion. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: The motion has been withdrawn. Okay. Would you like to start? MR. OWENS: Yes, I'll start. Who's going to time us

18 now for the two minutes?

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I have an alarm 1'11 fix to go

20 off. You have two minutes.

21

MR. OWENS: Okay. I'll make it to the point, short.

22 I have lost already thirty seconds.

23

I feel that the state superintendent should be

24 appointed strongly, and I also feel that the board should be

25 elected. If there is difficulty and problems of electing the

PAGE 129

school board then I feel that the state superintendent should

2 remain being elected and the board remaining as it is.

3

In other words, if there is going to be a change

4 it needs to be a change in both situations, the superintendent

5 as well as the board.

6

If it's going to be changed just with the state

7 superintendent being appointed and the board being appointed,

8 then I would rather it stay as it is because the accountabilit~

9 is there even though we're saying we have problems with it.

10
.."z
11 I-
o......
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 I':~"r .. 15 ~ ":> 16 .~.. Q Z ~ 17 ::

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: John? MR. GRAHAM: First let me say my second choice is the same as Odell's second choice, leave things like they are. I prefer that the state school superintendent be appointed, I prefer that a different method for the selection of the state board of education be made, and I'm not in favor of the election on a district wide basis of the state school

18 board.

19

I would prefer a method of selection which makes the

20 state school board member more attentive and directly in line

21 with the area that he represents other than simply appointing

22 him by the Governor, and I would favor something along the 23 lines Dr. Mullins has recommended,

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. You both took less than

25 two minutes combined.

PAGE 130

1

Dr. Pressly, follow that precedent.

2

DR. PRESSLY: I'm wholeheartedly in favor of the

3 superintendent being appointed. I would be perfectly willing

4 to settle for the state board being selected just as it is

5 today.

6

On the other hand, if this is going to worry people

7 then I would like to go to Mr. Mullins' suggestion.

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. Mr. Vann?

9

MR. VANN: My view is very much like Mr. Owens'.

10 I prefer to elect the state board and appoint the superin-

tendent. however, as a practical matter in my jud.gment we

should leave it as it is, let the state board be appointed by

the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate and

the state superintendent be elected by the people.

I think the present method of appointment of the

state board provides for input by both the executive depart-

ment and the legislative.

18

DR. PRESSLY: Didn't you say you preferred the

19 election of the state board?

20

MR. VANN: Did I say

I said as a practical

21 matter I think that's not a feasible solution.

22

DR. PRESSLY: I'm with you.

23

MR. VANN: As a consequence I wouldn't want the

24 state board to be elected, but I just think it would -- and

25 I don't want the state board to be a body where the member

PAGE 131

is a full time paid servant of the state of Georgia, and

2 therefore I guess my first preference is to leave it like it

3 is because I think the other methods are unachievable.

4

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay.

5

I guess my position is that the primary concern from

6 my .point of view is the relationship between the superin-

7 tendent and the board, and so therefore I favor the

8 superintendent being appointed by the board, and I have no

9 real concern as to how -- any way the board could be constitutEd

10 would be okay with me provided the superintendent is appointed

11

"z
j:
..Do....:

by

the board.

~ 12 ~

DR. PRESSLY: How many of us said we would prefer

~F~ the superintendent be appointed? Didn't we everyone say that?

! 14 1;;

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Everybody, yes.

:z:

15 ~

DR. PRESSLY: I thought so.

"D:
:>

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: So then where we are then --

Q

Z

17 :

MR. VANN: It's tied together.

18

DR. PRESSLY: I realize that,

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Where we are then is what way

20 can we come up with that would provide a satisfactory way of

21 constituting the board.

22

DR. PRESSLY: 11ay I ask this, What is the great

23 harm of our suggesting that we appoint the superintendent and 24 leave the state board as it is? What danger do we run?

25

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: The danger is we have been

PAGE 132

warned by at least Mrs. Graham who said that she would not

2 participate in this process at all if both of them are

3 appointed. I think that that view is probably shared by a

4 large segment of our citizens of this state.

5

MR. HILL: Not to mention the Select Committee.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Also we had some comments

7 from the Speaker of the House and others who indicated that

8 they would not support anything that had both the superin-

9 tendent andthe board appointed.

10

DR. PRESSLY: It seems to me there's nothing wrong

\!l Z
@;;11 ..joc..r:..:

with our making this suggestion knowing darn well we'll probably get shot down, but go ahead and make it because that's the way we all feel.

! 14 t; ~:z:
15 0)
\!l
~
16 ~... Q Z ~
17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: If we don't try to compromise on the school board, then we're going to lose the appointment of the superintendent by the board .
MR. OWENS: Yes, because I feel very strongly that

18 one or the other should be accountable to the people.

19

DR. PRESSLY: Do you think Mr. Mullins' statement

20 makes the board accountable to the people?

21

MR. OWENS: The quasi kind of election process?

22

DR. PRESSLY: Yes,

23

MR. OWENS: He brought up the county board.s of

24 education, the local boards of education. You see, all of

25 them are not elected, some of them are appointed, so you

PAGE 133

still don't have that as full as it should be.

2

If that were the case that all of them were

3

DR. PRESSLY: Aren't the majority elected? We've

4 got it right here.

5

MR. uWENS: I don't have access to that point.

6 And that I've tried to look into, I've studied it, and it just

7 doesn't meet approval with some of the school boards being

8 appointed.

9

DR. PRE~SLY: Maybe this would encourage the rest of

10
"z
11 i=
..'o"....
~ 12 ~
~Fi ! 14 ... '" :I: 15 ,) ":'>" 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :;

them to go on and be elected, the school boards. MR. GRAHAM: I think the other portion is, the
other committee, are they going to come up with a recommendation that local school boards be elected?
MR. HILL: No, no. They're going to recommend that they be exactly as is on the effective date of the constitution and that they be changed locally subject to referendum They're not going to try to change the method of selection

18 of every local board in the state.

19

DR. PRESSLY: Vickie, how many of them are now

20 elected? Do you recall?

21

MS. GREENBERG: Well, I handed out, I mailed out a

22 memo dealing with the boards of education. Okay.

23

There are 187 boards of education; 120 boards are

24 elected by voters, 51 boards are appointed by grand juries,

25 11 boards are appointed by city council -- those are the

PAGE 134

independent school systems -- three boards are appointed by

2 a combination method, one county board is selected by a

3 combination of methods, and one independent board is se1f-

4 perpetuating.

5

DR. PRESSLY: Aren't most of the groups that are

6 appointing them, aren't they elected officials like the

7 cODDllission?

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Except the grand jury.

9

DR. PRESSLY: The grand jury is the only one.

10

MR. HILL: 51 are appointed by the grand jury.

"z
11 t:
@;;.'o.". 1M

MS, GREENBERG: And 120 are elected. DR. PRESSLY: So the vast majority are elected or at least appointed by elective officials,

! 14 1;; :<z:l
15 olI not.
"co:
;:)
16 .~..
azQ
17 jury.

MR. OW~NS: You're still leaving void those that are DR. PRESSLY: The ones that are elected by the grand

18

MR.. VANN: My judgment, the way it is now --

19 apparently the object is to try to bring a state board member

20 closer to the people I guess.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That's not it. The present

22 method I think would be okay if we did not have the problem

23 with the school superintendent. I don't think anybody --

24

MR, VANN: The truth of the matter is I don't think

25 we've got a problem, we've got the potentiality of a problem.

PAGE 135

That's what you're saying.

2

MR. OWENS: You stated it clearly.

3

MR. VANN: We have had that potentiality of a

4 problem since 1945.

5

MR. OWENS: I really haven't given that much thought

6 to it, but the idea is we need to appoint a state superin-

7 tendent.

8

Now, my point is if that is the way you're going to

9 move then we need to elect the board.

10
@;;"z 11 oa..j..::..
14 ~ I;; :~z:
15 .:l
"a:
::l
16 ~...
oz
~
17 ::;

MR. GRAHAM: I'm going to be real optomistic here for a minute. Let's take the position that maybe the system we've got now provides the greatest check and balance we could have.
DR. OWENS: It does as I can see under the circumstances.
MR. GRAHAM: And let's just MR. VANN: I'd like to move we go with the system

18 we've got.

19

MR. GRAHAM: That was everybody's second choice.

20

MR. VANN: That is the superintendent and the bo_rd,

21 the process we now use.

22

DR. PRESSLY: How do we get around the fact -- I'm

23 tending to go in that direction, but how do we get around the

24 fact that for five I think he said different administrations

25 ehey have circumvented this thing by resigning ahead of time

PAGE 136

showing that they themselves feel that they need to be

2 selected really, or appointed.

3

MR. GRAHAM: When we get Dr, McDaniel's inter-

4 relationship list of what their duties ought to be I believe

5 he's probably going to tell us the superintendent shall be

6 responsible for enactment of the policies of the state board

7 of education, and I believe he's going to describe the job

8 as spokesman administrator,

9

CHAI.l<MAN MEREDITH: But accountable to the board,

10
"z
11 j:
."'o".-.
~ 12 ~
~J~ 14 !... '" % 15 .:l "'"::l 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

though, tlut accountable to the board, he's very clear on that MR. VANN: You said the enactment of policies, but
I think you meant the carrying out of the policies. DR. PRESSLY: Carrying out of the policies, not
enactment of them . MR. OWENS: Even at that, even if he puts it there
legally he is not bound and accountable to the board. Now this is the point. That is the word that he stated before,

18 it is there as law,

19

We have had superintendents in the past who have

20 followed through, done well under the circumstances because

21 a lot of fuss was raised one way or the other, a lot of

22 confusion, then it gets before the public and it makes it

23 maybe difficult for them to come back to another time, and

24 that's the way it's happened, but otherwise than that it has

25 worked. As you say, the only thing that is there, .and the

PAGE 137

superintendent recognizes it, he doesn't want to have to run

2 allover the state campaigning and he's satisfied the board

3 to a degree, he can come back an9ther year without going

4 through the expense of another -- another term rather. It

5 has worked.

6

What we're looking at is the possibility that it

7 doesn't have to always work, but I would rather accept it

8 the way it is than to go into appointing both the superin-

9 tendent and the board.

10

DR. PRE~SLY: I can't see the great danger of that.

I have a hard time seeing that.

MR.. OWENS: Do you want me to go through some of

the --

MR. HILL: What about allowing the board to fill a

vacancy, and then allowing the people to vote at the next

election?

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That's what's happening now.

18

MR. HILL: The board doesn't fill the vacancy, the

19 Governor fills the vacancy in the state school superintendent,

20 but if you let the board fill the vacancy in the state school

21 superintend~nt then they would at least if this had been the

22 system in the last 25 years, it appears that the board would

23 have appointed him.

24

CHAIID1AN MEREDITH: But that doesn't necessarily

25 mean that the same powers would be in that position no matter

PAGE 138

how the person gets there if they're called for in the

2 constitution, even if the board appointed htm.

3

It seems to me a person could fill the unexpired

4 term of the elected official, that person would have the same

5 rights as the elected official, the board couldn't fire him

6 either even if they appointed him.

7

MR, OWENS: You also have, then you don't have an

8 election -- I beg your pardon, you don't have an elected

9 official doing the appointing, and I don't see a big problem

10

~

Czl II j::
'o"
Q.....
12 ~

@ri

! 14 ... ':<"r
15 ~

Cl
'":;)
16 .~... Q Z <
17 :

with the fact that they have resigned in the middle and the superintendent has appointed them, I know it makes an incumbent run again and it gives them greater impetus over anybody else who wants to run in an open election.
The governors have been very astute in their appointments, picked some pretty good people through the years .
DR. PRESSLY: I want to ask Tom for a true

18 confession. Have you ever as you sat there on the board of

19 education resented or objected or felt insecure over the fact

20 that you did not control as a board the superintendent of

21

education?

22

I would think if I sat there

23

}ffi. VANN: You mean sitting as a member of the state

24 board of education?

25

DR. PRESSLY: Don't you feel "This man ought to be

PAGE 139

bossed by us"? He's your employee.

2

MR. VANN: You know the constitution says he shall

3 be the executive officer of the state board of education, but

4 the executive officer --

5

DR. PRESSLY: He is not subject to the board of

6 education, and he ought to be.

7

MR. VANN: Well, if you read APE~ I think you will

8 determine that he may very well be subjecti to the policies

9 established by the state board of education. There is no

10 question that he's subject to it, he's obligated to carry out

Czl
11 i= the policies, and the biggest area that all superintendents .'oa"....

~ 12 ~ say that there's ever likely to be any issue between boards

~Fi and superintendents is when boards enter the field of ! . 14 .administration.

I-

'"

J:

15 .:l

DR. PRESSLY: Right.

Cl

:':">

16 ~...

MR. VANN: I suppose the question defining when they

zQ

17 ~ enter the field of administration is something that's always

18 difficult, but you have some members of boardBof education

19 that are more active in their participation in it than others,

20 and I never have seen anything really bad come out of it.

21

We have had board members, though, that were

22 interested in getting rid of a superintendent, and I've never

23 seen anything bad come out of that.

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Because they couldn't do

25 anything.

PAGE 140

MR, VANN: I guess what I'm saying to you is that

2 there wouldn't be any way that the state board of education

3 could terminate a state superintendent's services,

4

DR. PRESSLY: You just said you've known times when

5 individuals on the board wanted to get rid- of a superintendent

6 Suppose that wenethe majority of the board?

7

MR. VANN: You know, if it's one that's no good, but

8 if it's a majority --

9

DR. PRESSLY: What would you do?

10
"z
11 i=
e;1Io..l..l..: ! 14 ... '<"l :I: 15 .:l CI Ill: ::l 16 ~... Q z
17 :

MR, VANN: If he was appointed it's effective. DR, PRESSLY: No, he's not appointed, that's the reason I don't see how staying where we are -MR. VANN: You could operate in a manner of seeking to defeat him at the next election, or if you appointed him you could remove him instantly if the majority said he ought to go . DR, PRESSLY: If he's a scoundrel and ought to go,

18 you send him packing.

19

MR. VANN: None of our other political processes

20 work that way for elected officials, if he's a scoundrel you

21 just kick him out. You know, they afford them

We

22 provided the recall which we didn't have and which is

23 difficult, I'll admit that, but --

24

MR. OWENS: It takes his term almost to get a

25 recall.

PAGE 141

MR. VANN: Also if you come to the position of

2 appointing by the state board of education, it may take longer

3 than it takes the Governor to appoint.

4

The reason I say that is ordinarily they get into a

5 search process and they will be involved for some time in

6 consideration of a number of applicants.

7

Your concern we might have a larger range of people

8 to consider outside the state of Georgia is a valid one, but

9 I'm willing to trade that off really for the method that we

10 have because I think we can probably find an adequate and

11

"z
j:
..'o"....

more than adequate person from the state of Georgia.

~ 12 ~

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I have one thing --

~r~! MR. VANN: As a confession, I have never felt

14
I:zii:

uncomfortable,

sir, but frankly I have served under superin-

15 ~ tendents who are interested in the same thing I'm interested

"'";;)

16 .~.. in, and that's the furtherance of education in the state of

Q

Z

17 : Georgia.

18

uR. PRESSLY: We have had good ones, no question

19 about that.

20

MR. VANN: You can always have a scoundrel in

21 anything you do, and I guess the process of getting rid of

22 some scoundrels is not easy, but ordinarily eventually the

23 people get rid of them.

24

MR. OWENS: There is another way besides Mullins'

25

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That's about what I was going

PAGE 142

to say, before we dismiss this I don't think we have given

2 enough thought to the alternative method of selecting the

3 board other than what Mullins has come up with. There may

4 be some other way ~hat would get that process to the people.

5

MR. OWENS: You spoke about the legislature and

6 all that which I don't look too favorably on, but the

7 legislatures are selecting it -- I don't remember the details

8 of the process, but that's the general term, they be selected

9 by the legislators or whatever, senators or what.

10
"z
11 io=r:
...o
l>.
~ 12 ~
~r~! 14 ... '" :I: 15 .: "or: :l 16 ~... Q Z 17 :;

MR. VANN: In theory, and sometimes practice doesn't follow theory, in my judgment the present appointment by the Governor is more likely to result in persons who are more concerned with the overall program of education in the state of Georgia .
The other process it seems to me, although I guess you might say it gets you down into -- it gets you in a more closer position to the people -- of course the Governor is an

18 elected official by all the people of Georgia -- then it moves

19 you down into where you feel more like the district from which

20 you're elected, you feel like your constituents are board

21 members and legislators rather than the people of Georgia,

22 and they're all important.

23

You know, right now you have to deal with the

24 legislature because they furnish us the money to do it, but

25 it seems to me like it generally might result in theory --

PAGE 143

whether it does in practice or not I don't know -- the searchin~

2 out of a person by the Govern~r who was interested in the

3 overall picture for education in the state of Georgia,

4

As a member of the state board of education I have

5 members of my district that contact me about problems and you

6 try to deal with them, but, you know, I was elected locally

7 and you had people that contacted you from the local view-

8 point on the board of education, but I don't think people

9 are going to -- I guess the question would be weare'~rpt

r
10 responsive to the people's needs, if that's the situation

I:l

.Z
11 j:

then perhaps so, but I really have never had that thown at

.f..

e~'1

us. Maybe some people think so, but if we're responsive to the.~eop1e's needs as is then that is the object of it

! 14 as far as I'm concerned.

Ii;



:I:

.15 ol) I:l

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Also the statement has ,cbeen made

::l
16 !..2. several times that the people would not accept two appointed

Q
17 =Z officials. Are we underestimating the people if they knew

18 what we have learned since we have been around this table

19 talking?

20

I mean if the citizens knew of the potential we're

21 trying to protect against their reaction might be somewhat

22 different. Who has the

23

MR. HILL: If you could get it to the people you

24 might be ab Ie to convince them. I think you'd have an eas ier

25 time convincing the people than you would the legislature,

PAGE 144

and since they're the group you have to get it through I 2 just think that --

3

MR. VANN: That it's not practical, but that doesn't

4 mean we shouldn't take a position like that.

5

MR. HILL: If we hadn't already been through this

6 exact question I wouldn't be so negative, but I mean it's as

7 if just yesteday practically we had this very question and

8 went through the whole process and --

9

MR. VANN: Hasn't this been addressed in the '60

10
"z
11 j:
.<o...I..t
~ 12 ~
(@JF~
! 14 !;; :~r
15 .:l
"<It
:l
16 .~.. zQ
17 :

constitution, the '69 constitution and in every constitutional revision committee that's come up?
MR. HILL: It was addressed, and not only that, on the floor of the senate there was a proposal to appoint the school superintendent and elect the school board members, it was just an amendment from the floor, and it passed in the senate this one amendment by a small majority, not by twothirds, but in any case

18

MR. VANN: In the initial '45 constitution?

19

MR. HILL: No, no, this constitution we had up there

20 this last session, in the '80 session, and so it is a real

21

i~tractible problem.

22

DR. PRESSLY: Don't you think that may have broken

23 down because it's almost impossible to elect the members of

24 the board? After all, they have to have full time salaries,

25 there are just so many things involved.

PAGE 145

MR. HILL: It wasn't well thought out, it was just

2 a proposal and it passed.

3

MR. HENRY: Don't you think the legislature would

4 react favorably to this caucus because it would give them a

5 direct voice?

6

MR. HILL: I would say the legislature was not

7 presented with anything other than these two. I have no idea

8 how they would react to something like the Washington plan.

9 It's possible, conceivable they would approve it, but it's

10 hard to say.

"z
11 i=
'o.."....

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. If they don't approve it

~ 12 ~ what do we have to lose?

(@)F~

MR. HILL: If this committee was in agreement with

! 14 ~

the Washington plan that would be fine, but I wasn't sure

'~"

%

15 .:I there was general consensus that that was a good way to move.

"'::">

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Are we all agreed that the

Q

Z

17 =~ superintendent should be appointed by t;:he board, and so if

18 it takes something like the Washington plan to express that

19 view then maybe we should do that, and if they turn that down

20 at least we've made it clear the position about the appoint-

21 ment of the superintendent.

22

DR. PRESSLY: How many of us would be willing to

23 take the position that the state superintendent be appointed

24 and that the board remain as it is?

25

I know you would be opposed to that.

PAGE 146

MR. OWENS: Yes.

2

DR. PRESSLY: How many others would be opposed?

3

I would like that as a motion that that be our

4 decision, that we suggest the state superintendent be

5 appointed and the board remain as it is.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Be appointed by the board?

7

DR. PRESSLY: By the board, and the board remain

8 as it is, just to see if we can get a majority in that

9 position.

10
"z
11 i=
.o.l>..=.. ~ 12 ~
~--i 14 ~ Iii % 15 olI "l>= ~ 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Does anybody care to second the motion?
MR.. GRAHAM: I second it. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It has been properly moved and seconded that the state superintendent be appointed by the state board of education and that the state board of education be constituted as it is presently. MR. GRAHAM: Let me ask if that would include the

18 advise and consent of the senate on the appointment of the

19 state superintendent?

20

DR. PRESSLY: I wouldn't object to that, but' I

21 don't think a board normally when it appoints somebody has

22 ever had anything like that override them.

23

CHAIR.MM4 MEREDITH: Any other unreadines s?

24

All right.

25

MR. VANN: The only objection I have to it is I

PAGE 147

just think it's probably impractical, that it may be

2 difficult to persuade ~he committee for both to be appointed.

3

DR. PRE~SLY: If we lose, we have come right back to

4 where we are, and that's our next best choice in my opinion,

5 so it's either one of these two. We either try it and we

6 fail, but if we fail we come back to something that is

7 functioning as you point out.

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Any other unreadiness?

9

I call for a vote. All in favor of the motion say

10 aye.
"z
11 ~
e;1..'o".... 14 !... '<"l % 15 "'"::;) 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 :

(Ayes. ) CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Opposed. MR. OWENS: No. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. I vote aye . MR. HILL: How about this idea, though . CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Do we have a quorum? MR. HILL: Yeah. I mean the fact is the next time

18 you're going to be looking over a draft which is the result

19 of this meeting and your committee may have more people and

20 may turn it around. This certainly isn' t final by any means.

21

My question is whether we should incorporate into

22 the draft a provision of confirmation by the Senate of the

23 appointment, because that might add some of this accountabilit

24 and it wouldn't be enough to satisfy the people who want to

25 see him elected, but it would be more than to just give them

PAGE 148

carte blanche. Would you think that would be advisable?

2

DR. PRESSLY: It wouldn't worry me, but you mow how

3 little I know about state government. It wouldn't worry me

4 at all.

5

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Would you support that?

6

As a board member, Mr. Vann, would you have any

7 problem with that if the board selects somebody and then the

8 senate turns it down?

9

MR. VANN: Well, you know, no more prob lem than the

10
Czl 11 j:
.'oG".o.
@;i ! 14 Ii; <:zl:: 15 .:l Cl '":) 16 .~.. Q Z <l: 17 :

Governor would have I guess. It doesn't bother me, but I just wonder why.
MR. HILL: To add some accountability, that's all. MR. VANN: If we're going to start adding accountability, let's add it throughout the gamut of education. What about the regents? MR. HILL: In this case you're taking an elected official where you had absolute accountability to the public

18 and making him appointed, but if the appointment is subject to

19 approval by elected officials it somewhat mitigates the loss.

20 Yousee, that's all my suggestion is. In this case it might

21 add some support to the proposal that he be appointed if he

22 has to be approved by an elected body.

23

MR. GRAHAM: I remember the first meeting of this

24 committee, unfortunately I think this issue came up five

25 minutes after we convened, but the question is if the board

PAGE 149

is going to appoint him we're going to get back to a lot of

2 other questions, like for how long. Are they going to appoint

.3 him for a term, or at the will of the board?

4

MR. HILL: For one thing, the committee already made

5 a recommendation, the full committee approved it, so we

6 really will just go back to some of this that we already have.

7

MR. VANN: What did they recommend?

8

MR. HILL: I believe it was a four-year term and

9 serve at the pleasure, but every four years it would have

10 to be redone, but I'll have to go back and check it, I don't

have that here.

MR. VANN: I think my own jUdgment is the system we

have been using has apparently been stable and I'm not sure

what will happen if we go into something new. I don't know

whether it would be stable or unstable. You can't learn

except by experience.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We have taken care of 6 and 7.

18

DR. PRESSLY: Let's take care of the tummies. I'm

19 hungry.

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Well, let's see, if we get

21 through this we'll be pretty well done.

22

MR. HILL: We should be able to finish in another

23 five minutes.

24

MR, GRAHAM: I think we have climbed the highest

25 mountains here.

PAGE 150

2 8?

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: What about 8? Any problem with

3

MS. GREENBERG: I'm sorry. Did we go to 7(a) which

4 is at the top of page 3, "If appdnted, should the state school

5 superintendent be named in the constitution?"

6

MR. HILL: He will have to be now because we're goin~

7 to say confirmed by the senate, so that sort of took care of

8 that question.

9

CHAIRMAN 'MEREDITH: We don't need (b).

10
11 "ozc~....o..
@;i 14 .~.. <:zI:I 15 ~ "co ;) 16 .~.. oz 17 ~

"Should appointments to the state board of education be for seven years?"
Is that what it is now? MS. GREENBERG: That's the present term. MR. GRAHAM: I think we have answered that question . CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Number 9, no problem with Number 9, the Governor being a member of the board, be prohibited from being a member of the board?

18

MR. GRAHAM: Yes".

19

MR. VANN: Yes.

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: "Should the method ot filling a

21 vacancy on the state board of education continue to be stated

22 in the constitution?"

23

MS. GREENBERG: The reason this question was brought

24 up was because you take a look at Section II, Vacancies, it's

25 about eight lines down, it could be provided for by statute

PAGE 151

rather than bem the constitution.

2

MR. HILL: As it is the constitution states unless

3 otherwise provided by law the Governor fills all vacancies

4 until the next election, he fills for the unexpired term.

5

DR. PRESSLY: Wouldn't it be pretty smart for us to

6 leave that as it is? I just think we should leave it as it

7 is so we don't upset any other applecarts.

8

MR. HILL: I'm saying it's already covered really by

9 another provision so that it could be eliminated without

10 making any significant change, but shortening it.

" 11 az~.o.:.

MR. OWENS: In other words, if the other things go

~--'I ~ ~ 12 ~ through and are voted on then this wouldn't be necessary as such':

14 !... '"<0(
15 ~:z:
"a:
::>
16 .~.. IzII
17 :

this~'

MR. HILL: It's already taken care of, really . CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. What is the result of
MR. GRAHAM: Take it out if it's somewhere else

18 provided for.

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: What about this part here that

20 says if the General Assembly is not in session the Governor

21 can Htill make the appointment without the confirmation?

22 This has a provision in the case that the vacancy occurs when

23 the General Assembly is not in fssion which allows for the

24 board by secret ballot to appoint to fill the vacancy, and if

25 we strike it, if we take this out are we providing for filling

PAGE 152

a vacancy when the General Assembly is not in session?

2

MR. VANN: At the present time it provides that a

3 vacancy that occurs other than by expiration of the term

4 would be filled by the state board until the end ot the next

5 session of the General Assembly, and then the Governor would

6 make the appointment with the advise and consent of the

7 senate.

8

I wouldn't have any objections to saying the

9 Governor would make the appointment to fill a vacancy all the

10 time.

<z:l

11 ~

MS. GREENBERG: But he needs confirmation of the

a _. !.o..... 12 ~ senate in this particular MR. HILL, He does in most cas es of appointments

14 ~ though so that it's really -- it's generally covered in
':"r
15 ~ another place and we were thinking that we could shorten it <a::l ;;;)
16 ~ here except it would make it a policy change, so maybe that's
oz
17: something you would rather not change, let the board fill it

18 as opposed to the Governor, but he's the one that ultimately

19 has to fill it once the General Assembly meets again and have

20 it confirmed by the senate.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Because, you know, you have the

22 problem if the vacancy exists for any period of t:ime and that

23 congressional district is without representation, and that may

24 have some impact on already in the minds of some people loss

25 of representation by having both people appointed.

PAGE 153

MS. GREENBERG: You clarify -- if the Governor

2 appoints, the Governor can appoint at any time, right,

3 without this provision? He just wouldn't have the confirma-

4 tion of the senate until the senate went back in session?

5

MR. HILL: That's right.

6

MS. GREENBERG: That's without this provision,

7 that's how it wouldbe.

8

MR.. HILL: Do you think the Governor should be the

9 one to fill the vacancy rather than the board? That's the

10
"z
11 t:
...olit
l>-
~ 12 ~
@r~
! 14 Iii :I: 15 .:l
CI lit
~
16 ~... D
17 Zg;

question. MR. VANN: There was some thought behind it to have
it this way. I was wondering if there was any potential of if the Governor appointed someone and the senate didn't approve it at be session -- I don't know why it's in here this way, there must be some
DR. PRESSLY: There must be some reason for it . MR. GRAHAM: If the state board is going to appoint

18 the superintendent, then I think the state board ought to fill

19 the vacancy.

20

MR. HENRY: Of a state board member?

21

MR. GRAHAM: Of the state board member, I'm sorry.

22

MR. HILL: That's what we're talking about, the

23 vacancy on the board, and --

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: The only reason for changing

25 this is you want to reduce, you want to make this section

PAGE 154

smaller, shorter.

2

MR. HILL: Not just that really. To some extent it

3 seems to be an awkward method of filling an appointment, have

4 the board fill the district that none of them are from.

5

It means almost as if the nine people on the board

6 from everywhere else except where the new board member is to

7 come from select him, so it seems to me the Governor would

8 be the more logical person to fill the vacancy.

9

MR. VANN: As a practical matter what happens is

10
.z"
11 i=
..o....
~ 12 ~
.~-I-J~, 14 >I'" J: ..15 .:l "::> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

that the board defers to ~he Governor, you know, he makes the recommendation .
MR. HILL: So he ends up doing it anyway. MR. VANN: They defer to that choice. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but that's the way it works. MR. HENRY: It's only a nine-month or less appointment anyway, and the Governor appoints after the General Assembly

18

MR. VANN: The only thought I could have in there is

19 that the Governor might be reluctant to appoint while the

20 General Assembly is not in session. I don I t know.

21

MR. HENRY: He does that now with other offices

22 where he has that ability.

23

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Also the board would not be very

24 smart to appoint somebody that the Governor would not probably

25 want to reappoint.

PAGE 155

MR. VANN: That's what I say, as a practical matter

2 it says by death, regisnation or any other cause other than

3 the expiration of such member's term of office the Governor

4 shall appoint a successor who shall hold office --

5

MR. HILL: We're saying if we say that, it's already

6 stated elsewhere in the constitution that says that any

7 vacancy in a public office may be filled by the Governor

8 until the expiration of the term unless otherwise provided by

9 law, so that the Governor would in fact fill the vacancy in

10
"z
II i=
'o.l".L.
12 ~
~@F~" 14 ~ In :<zC: 15 .:I '""::;) 16 ~... Q Z 17 :<Ci

that situation. MR. VANN: I guess what we're talking about is the
advise and consent of the senate on that vacancy. This is dealing with if the senate is not in session because --
MS. GREENBERG: That's provided for under Article V, Section II, Filling of Vacancies. If you have your brown copies this is on page 33, Paragraph 4 .
MR. VANN: Article V, Section II, Paragraph 41

18

MS. GREENBERG: On page 33.

19

l~en any office shall become vacant, by death,

20 resignation, or otherwise, the Governor shall have power to

21 fill such vacancy, unless otherwise provided by law; and

22 persons so appointed shall continue in office until a

23 successor is commissioned. agreeably to the mode pointed

24 out by this constitution, or by law in pursuance thereof."

25

MR. VANN: I suppose the only difference is that

PAGE 156

I guess the state board of education is maybe the only state

2 board appointed with the advise and consent of the senate.

3

MR. GRAHAM: I think the board of transportation is.

4

MR. HENRY: The board is appointed by a caucus.

5 The rest of them are, though, the natural resources, offender

6 rehabilitation.

7

MR. VANN: They're appointed with the advise and

8 consent of the senate?

9

MR. GRAHAM: What about the regents?

10

MR. VANN: I believe they're appointed.

"z

11 ~
.""o."".

DR. PRESSLY: What you're really suggesting there

~ 12 ~ is that we just say in case of a vacancy on said board by

~r~ death, resignation or from any other cause other than the

! 14 t;

expiration of such member's term of office, and then take it



:I:

15 ~ all out until we came down there that the Governor shall

"""::;)

16 .~.. appoint the member .

azQ
17

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: You know, the same language is

18 in the board of regents too, so there must be something --

19 the same language in the board of regents saying that in case

20 of a vacancy on said board by death, resignation, et cetera,

21 or for any other cause other than expiration the board shall

22 by secret ballot elect a successor.

23

DR. PRESSLY: There must be a reason for it. Let's

24 just leave it as it is.

25

MR. HILL: We will do some more research on this

PAGE 157

area. I think that some cleaning up can be done here that's

2 not going to -- Either way, if you leave it exactly as is

3 I think it could be cleaned up, I think it's too long.

4

MR. VANN: As a matter of research, do you know

5 whether these provisions in the state board of education just

6 originated in the '45 constitution, they didn't exist prior

7 to that time?

8

MR. HILL: I'm not sure.

9

MS. GREENBERG: The state board was not constitution~l

10 until the '45 constitution, it was statutory.

"z
11 ~

MR. VANN: Some of these things may have arisen out

o...

@ . --I12 : of, you know, the dispute that arose at that time when the Governor served on both boards. There was much agitation in

14 ~ the state concerning political participation in educational

'"
:I:
15 .:l matters.

"'";;)

16 ~

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: All right. Number 11, "Should

zQ
17 : the constitution continue to provide that the board shall have

18 such powers and duties as provided by law and existing at the

19 time of the adoption of the constitution of 1945?"

20

We requested that Dr. McDaniel provide us some

21 information on --

22

MR. HILL: He did. He did provide us with quite a

23 bit of information on this, and the fact is

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We asked him again today, John

25 asked him again today.

PAGE 158

MR. GRAHAM: I asked him again today. He said we

2 ought to be more specific, and I asked him if he would

3 recommend what --

4

MR. VANN: This is the same way the board of regents

5 language reads.

6

MR. HILL: You see, in this case the board of

7 regents we found that there's only so many statutes that that

8 refers to, it's about 35 different code sections, and of those 9 35 code sections most of them are redundant and just repeat

10 what's already in here, or they're matters that do not have to

be in the constitution, and so what we're doing is calling

forward into the constitution two or three that are of

constitutional significance and not having this reference

back because it creates a problem from the standpoint of

constitutional law as to what status these old laws have,

whether they have been elevated to the constitution so they

can't be repealed, and it creates a problem, so in ~he board 18 of regents we're going to clear it up.

19

Now, whether we can do the same with the state board

20 will depend on what Dr. McDaniel has to say in his memo.

21

MR. VANN: I don't really know, except it apparently

22 was an attempt to elevate the powers and duties of the state 23 board of education to constitutional level.

24

MR. GRAHAM: The first part of that sentence doesn't

25 bother me where it says that the said state board of education

PAGE 159

shall have such powers and duties as provided by law; you're

2 simply recognizing the General Assembly's right to enact

3 enabling legislation in the constitution.

4

You could end it there, take out "and existing at

5 at the time of the adoption." If that is the law then it's

6 already been provided for, you have already got it, you don't

7 have to worry about the tie-back in creating that issue.

8

MR. HENRY: But there is a concern that -- for

9 instance in the board of regents that they say -- and I'm not

10 sure what the law is on the state board, but in the board of
zCo'
11 ~ regents you have the lump sum appropration which is in effect .o0.-.
~ 12 ~ a limitation on the General Assembly's power to line item
@ ~r~ the department's budget, and so if there are powers in the
14! statutes that were given to them prior to '45 the General !;; <C %
15 Assembly can't come in and amend that statute, and then it ~ ;;)
16 .~.. may serve as a limitation on the powers of the General CI Z
17 =<C Assembly which you may want to retain or you may not want to

18 ret,lin, you may feel like you trust the General Assembly

19 enough to

20

MR. HILL: Eldon could not identify any such clause

21 that would relate to the board of education, any such thing

22 that he feels has prevented the board or limited the General

23 Assembly in any way, so we haven't found any such statutes

24 in the board of education, but when we get his memo back we

25 should have a better idea --

PAGE 160

MR. GRAHAM: I think the limitations we've got

2 we've written into our Article VIII, Section I, adequate,

3 you know, those general types of constitutional language.

4

I would be for taking out that.

5

MS. GREENBERG: Could we just vote on whether or not

6 we should take out the provision, and then as far as

7 determining what we have to add to the section, that would

8 come from the memo by Dr. McDaniel.

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Why don't we wait until we get

10

~

"z
11 i=
'o"
"-
1M
12 ~

~r~

14 .~.

'-:"z<:

15 ~

"'~"
16 ~

1M
Q

Z
17 l-:<i

the memo and then treat the question. MR. HILL: Yes. MR. VANN: I'm reluctant to say to remove it unless
I know what I'm removing, because it says the way I read it is that the state board of education shall have such powers and duties as provided by law and existing at the time of the adoption of the constitution of 1945. That may have elevated statutory law into constitutional law as far as powers and

18 duties are concerned, because it then goes on to say together

19 with such further powers and duties as may now or hereafter be

20 provided by law.

21

Now, I don't know why it was put in there in 1945.

22 Does it appear in the constitution of 19457

23

MS. GREENBERG: That's the original provision.

24

MR. HILL: If you're going to retain such provision

25 here, you might as well say as of the 1980 -- I mean there

PAGE 161

would be no reason to keep referring back to that

2 constitution, but it is the kind of thing we're trying to

3 eliminate if possible to clear up the confusion, and we can

4 do it with the board of regents, and I don't know whether we

5 can do it here.

6

MR.. VANN: Just see what powers and duties are

7 possibly vested in the state board of education as a

8 constitutional body by this language, if any.

9

CHAIJ.<MAN MEREDITH: Okay. Number 12, "Should the

10
"z
II j:
..'o"....
~ 12 ~
~ri 14 ~ l;; <:rII IS o1J "'";;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ~

composition of the state board of education be changed?';' I think we all agree that the answer to that is no.
Is that correct? We pass that by consensus? 13, "Should qualifications for members of the
state board of education be provided for in the constitution?" I think the statement is in reference to at the
level th~t is presently defined, currently defined . MS. GREENBERG: It deals with citizen of the state

18 five years --

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: No publishers.

20

MS. GREENBERG: No person employed in a professional

21 capacity, no person who is connected with or employed by a

22 school book publishing concern.

23

Is it the feeling that these should be constitutional

24 provisions, shoul,d we delete them in which case they would
25 probably be statutory conditions? Do we want to add other

PAGE 162

qualifications or 1imi~ations into the constitution?

2

MR. GRAHAM: I think we ought to try as much as

3 possible to make the state board of education open wi~hout

4 limitation in our constitution and rely on legislation if

5 we had to, but I would like citizenship requirement for the 6 state board of education for one.

7

Other than that, I don't know I would want any

8 limitations.

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: You don't want those publishers

10

"z
11 ~..oa..:..

(~ ~)r12

~a:
~

on there because we know -MR. VANN: Let's leave it like it is. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That's a real serious and
touchy problem, the whole problem of book se1ecti.on anyway.

! 14 1;;

DR. PRESSLY: You don't want people employed in

:<z:l

15 ~ private and public education, I would think.

"a:
::l

16 ~

MR. VANN: I assume the effort is to have this

Czl

<l

17: nonprofessional, and therefore I don't see anything wrong

18 with it.

19

MR. GRAHAM: Well, if we go about limiting everybody

20 we don't wanton it, then --

21

MR. VANN: That's not a big limitation.

22

MR. HENRY: The question is should it be

23 constitutional or statutory? You know, could not the public

24 policy of the state be better served by having it in the

25 statute?

PAGE 163

MR.. VANN: I don't know whether it should be

2 constitutional or statutory, but if it's constitutional it's

3 not subject to change other than by constitutional change.

4

MR.. HENRY: Should it be subject to change? That's

5 what I was bringing up.

6

MR.. VANN: Well, the three elements that are there

7 don't seem to put a great restriction upon --

8

DR. PRESSLY: What about representatives of dairies,

9 milk dairies, or school bus manufacturing companies.

10

MR.. GRAHAM: The president of the Blue Bird School

"z
11 t-
'o.."....

Bus Company.

There are all sorts of things as Mr. Vann

~ 12 ~ knows might be limiting factors -- anybody that sells

~r~! insurance, group term plans.

14 ti

MR.. HILL: Should there be a conflict of interest

<

:I:

15 ~ provision, a broader conflict of interest provision put in

"'";:)

16 .~.. here, or is that all strictly statutory?

Q

Z

<

17 :

To some extent if we would be able to show you

18 statutes that say this very thing, would that persuade you to

19 leave it up to the statute, or are these of enough significanc

20 to be elevated to the constitution?

21

MR.. VANN: I would assume since they were elevated

22 they must have been of significance at one time. Otherwise

23 I don't know why they are there at all.

24

MR. OWENS: Even though some of the things are there

25 with reference to qualifications, if he's going to be

PAGE 164

appointed we don't know, we're still in abeyance on that

2 point now if any of the qualifications should be different

3 than what they would be --

4

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We Ire talking about the board

5 now, we're not talking about the superintendent. We're

6 talking about the board, Number 13.

7

MR. OWENS: I was looking at 14. I'm sorry.

8

MR, GRAHAM: Is there general conflict of interest

9 type of language you might work out rather than limiting

10
"z
11 j:
'..o"....
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 t:r; 15 ~ ":':"> 16 ~... Q Z 17 ::;

this? I'm sure that Mr. Vann could tell us any number of
people that could get on the state board who may have a conflict of interest.
MR. VANN: Yes. There are probably people serving in capacities in government who may have conflicts of interest on subject matters that come before them, and I guess the government is theoretically set up to provide through rules

18 of ethics or laws prohibiting their vote on it.

19

MR. GRAHAM: Why should the constitution deny a

20 bookseller the right to be on it if it doesn't deny a

21 dairyman the right to be on it?

22

MR. VANN: I don't know. The dairyman sells milk to

23 the schools just like the book pUblisher, but I suppose it

24 mllst be --

Of course, you could appoint ten book

25 publishers I guess, I don't know.

PAGE 165

DR. PRESSLY: Don't you believe it's because the

2 book publisher is statewide and the milkman is local?

3

MS. GREENBERG: Interestingly enough for the

4 Compt:ro11er General who is the insurance conmissioner, there's

5 nothing constitutional as far as qualifying him in respect to

6 not heing interested in the insurance industry. It could be

7 statutory, but it's not constitutional.

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: There's a big racket sometimes

9 about: these textbooks, and that's probably why it got in

10 here.

"z

11 i=
'o."..

MR. VANN: The first one is citizenship and

@ r l12 : residence -- you know, that's fine. The second one is apparently dealing with the

! 14 l-

theoretical lay professional category, and the third one is

ll>

<4(

:z:

IS ~ dealing with one specific category of conflict or financial

"'";:)

16 ~... interest I guess .

Q

Z

<4(

17 :

MS. GREENBERG: Could we try drafting that more

18 general provision, Mel?

19

MR. GRAHAM: I don't have any problem with the first

20 two. It seems to me if it's going to be with the advice and

21 consent of the senate that any of these other things could

22 come u~ there and be solved.

23

DR. PRESSLY: It seems to me you would answer your

24 problem here if in next to the last sentence you simply had

25 another sentence "No person who has a conflict of interest,"

PAGE 166

and just leave it up to them to decide if a person has a 2 conflict of interest. We can't name everybody.

3

In fact, I would sooner leave out the book fellow

4 and substitute the no conflict of interest. That would catch

5 him in a second.

6

MR. HIL~: This is so broad, no person who is or

7 has been connected with -- MY goodness, that could be taking

8 a broad scoop of people who have had nothing to do with it

9 really, just peripherally related, whereas if you say just

10
z~ 11 i=
.'oG".o.
12 ~
@rl ! 14 !;; :II: 15 .:l ~ '"::::> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

say conflict of interest as defined by law MR. VANN: What problem has this caused? I mean
for crying out loud, what's the -- You mean we ought to open it up to the -- The object is we shouldn't leave the restriction there?
MR. HILL: No, it's probably statutory now. MR. VANN: It's statutory because it's in the constitution too probably.

18

DR. PRESSLY: I think what you're saying is not so

19 much there's anything wrong with this, but they need to

20 broaden it by adding no conflict of interest, in other words

21 to pick up anybody else.

22

MR. VANN: I suppose this must be a choice of

23 conflicts, because as John said I guess you could find a lot

24 of citizens that would have some conflict of interest,

25 particularly on any particular issue. As a lawyer, you may

PAGE 167

have a conflict of interest.

2

I don't know, there must have been some basis for

3 our forefathers to be concerned about these issues; maybe we

4 don't need to be concerned about them today, but that's hard

5 to tell because it hasn't been possible to appoint someone

6 in this category.

7

I think the board probably has a strong sentiment

8 about this school book publishing thing.

9

MR. HENRY; I would think that the prohibition

10
"z
11 I-
.'o."....
@;i

against a person of this type serving, the prohibition being statutory would he just as effective as a constitutional statement.
I would imagine that at the time this came in it

14 .~.I. was -- there was some scandal or something and the people ~ :I:
15 ~ felt very, very strongly about it, and they amended this
"'";;;)
16 .~.. section .
zQ

17 :

MS. GREENBERG: This is the original.

18

MR. HENRY: This is 1945.

19

MR. GRAHAM: I would like to suggest we try for a

20 draft that keeps in the first couple of sentences and then 21 a general conflict of interest. Describing it in such terms 22 we may be creating a question some time down the road that 23 will have to be resolved exactly what that means, but it 24 would be clear that we are very --

25

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Language "such as" and don't

PAGE 168

use that, language such as a book publishing company 2 executive?

3

MR. GRAHAM: I agree with you book publishers

4 shouldn't be on the board, but anybody connected with book

5 publishing or has been, I don't know about- that.

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH ~ Can you guys do some research

7 on that for us and let's not try to resolve this one now,

8 then we can come back to it on the next time?

9

There are two issues so far.

10
\:I Z
11 i=
'~."..
~ 12 ~
~Fi ! 14 ~ ':<r":l: 15 .:l \:I '";;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ::;

On Number 14 maybe we need to do the same with that
one because I don't think we want to sit here right now -it's clear from the action we have taken above that if the school board it seems to me, now I may be wrong, the school board is going to make the appointment, then some place somewhere as a minimum qualification should be established tha provides some guidelines for the school board, and if you agree with that then I think that we can't do that right now.

18

MR. OWENS: If it maintains -- if what we have done

19 today is maintained, then there should be some qualifications

20 set up py the board or whomever for the state superintendent.

21

Of course it's already on record I'm not in favor

22 of--

23

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Maybe we could answer the

24 question, then, should these qualifications be provided for

25 in the constitution? If the answer to that is no, then it's

PAGE 169

resolved.

2

How many of you feel strongly about the fact that

3 under the system that we have created that the qualifications

4 for the school board superintendent since he's now going to

5 be appointed by the board, which implies I think a professiona

6

MR. HILL: Why not residency? You know, that's one

7 of the qualifications that would not be added for him, so that

8 whatever his qualifications were to be would have to be

9 something to be determined by the board itself I would think.

10

MR. GRAHAM: If they are going to appoint, then they

"z

e;j11

j:
'o.."....

ought to

--

I

don't know that we need any qualifications

if

they're going to appoint.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Then some statement needs to be

! 14 !;; in here that authorizes the state board to appoint the

::z:

15 ~ superintendent, and there could be a corrollary statement

~

:;)

16 ~...
oz

that says to satisfy certain criteria or certain qualifica-

17 g tions as established by the board or something.

18

MR. VANN: At the present time the constitution

19 that the state school superintendent shall have such

20 qualifications, shall~ paid such compensation as may be

21 fixed by law.

22

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Ex cept it would be fixed by the

23 board.

24

MS. GREENBERG: Or both. Do you want both by the

25 board and by the General Assembly?

PAGE 170

MR. WATTS: Just like the board of regents, what

2 does it say about the board of regents?

3

MS. GREENBERG: They don't provide for that.

4

MR. VANN: There's no provision for the chancellor

5 in the constitution.

6

MR. HENRY: It will go without saying that if the

7 board was going to choose someone that person would meet their

8 qualifications.

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It does not go without saying

10

z
" 11 j:
.~ o

~

1M
12 ~

~/~ ! 14

t; -:zc:

15 .:l

"~
:)

16 ~

1M Q

-Zc 17 :

because you could define, for example, the person has to be 35 the person has to be -- I mean that's a minimum criteria, that could be called for either by statute or by constitution, and so the board would be prohibited from appointing somebody who is not, for example, a resident of the state if that's called for here.
MR. HENRY: If yO'll want to limit the board in its-
selection, I agree, but if you want to say shall meet such

18 qualifications as established by the board without any other

19 limitations in there, then I would think that would be

20 redundant is what I was saying.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I didn't hear the first part of

22 it.

23

DR. PRESSLY: I think there ought to be a statement

24 in here that he has to be a professional educator. I don't

25 think we ought to have a state board that is appointed, lay

PAGE 171

people who under some circumstance might come up where they

2 wanted a lay person, and I don't think that would be right.

3

MR. GRAHAM: How do you define a professional

4 educator?

5

DR. PRESSLY: I don't want to define it, I just want

6 somebody who's experienced in education.

7

MR. GRAHAM: We could say he has to be adequate.

8

(Laughter .)

9

DR. PRESSLY: We could just sayan educator, don't

10
"z
11 ~
'o.."....
~ 12 ~
@ri 14 !... '<"l :I: 15 01) "'"::;) 16 ~... Q Z <l 17 ::;

use the worn professional, if you like. I do think we want an educator in that position myself.
MS. GREENBERG: Do you want to keep the General Assembly out of determining those qualifications? Would you rather leave it up to the board?
DR. PRESSLY: I would leave it up to the board, but I do think the board ought to be restricted to that extent .
MR. GRAHAM: Sometimes people say educators don't

18 make good administrators.

19

MR.. OWENS: I'm glad you used the word sometimes.

20

DR. PRESSLY: Sometimes, yes. But I can't

21 conceive

22

MR. VANN: I don't think they presently require --

23 I think they presently require that he have three years of

24 experience in the teaching field, but I don't know whether it

25 requires that he be in the educational field at the present

PAGE 172 rr------------------ ----------------------------,
time, but that is by statute.

2

MR. HILL: We had already worked out some language

3 in the prior draft that this committee had approved, so we're

4 going to go back and take a look at that.

5

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Could you also look at what the

6 other states say about where the superintendent is appointed

7 by boards just to see what --

,.

8

MR. HILL: How often they state the qualifications?

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: What kind of qualifications are

10 put.

@);;"z 11 i= '..o"....

I think what we really want to do is have some

minimum qualifications, we don't want to

If we're going

to do that, then we may as well select the superintendent in

14 .~.. another fashion. The board has to have some leeway when given OIl 00( :r
15 ol) authority to do it, to appoint a person that they think is
"':">
16 ~... capable of doing the best job, but I think that some minimum Q Z 00(
17 g qualification statement should be included as sort of a base.

18 Would you look for that in the other places?

19

DR. PRESSLY: I think we've got a much better chance

20 of getting an appointed superintendent if we have some

21 qualifications listed.

22

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Right.

23

Okay. Is there any other business?

24

Are we taking care to make sure that where we have

25 made changes that we're recommending some statutory changes

PAGE 173

to provide for any voids that may be created? Have we kept

2

MR. HILL: We haven't drafted anything yet, so we

3 haven't known what we're omitting, but we certainly will from

4 here on become sensitive to that.

5

DR. PRESSLY: What is this Article X, Section II?

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Oh, yes, that's one of them.

7 That's Article X, Section II, the section on scholarships

8 and retirement.

9

MR. HILL: This is really just an organizational

10 question, but the fact is we have an Article X which was

11

"z
j:
.'oG".o.

revised previously by another committee,

and Section II of

Q~ ; i Article X relates to educational scholarships, loans and grants, and they have completely revised that entire section, 14!... and that's not part of your subject, but my thought and the

':"z:

15 ~ Office of Legislative Counsel had suggested that this entire

"'";:)

16 .~.. article could be eliminated from the constitution if

oz

17 ::; Section II were transferred to the education article since

18 that's what it deals with, and Section I on retirement

19 systems would be transferred to Article IX, so it's really

20 just an organizational thing, and I'm just wondering if you

21 would object, if this committee would object to that transfer

22 being made.

23

Now, you won't have anything to do with the

24 substance of the change, that has already been done, it's

25 just an organizational question.

PAGE 174

MR. OWENS: It would have to be -- if we're going to 2 meet the other parts you're talking about in Section II,

3 then it would need to be transferred, so that is the thinking

4 you have for transferring it?

5

MR. HILL: Yes.

6

MR. GRAHAM: I don't have any objection if it

7 doesn't compete with anything that we are doing. Do you see

8 there's any conflict in it and what we're doing?

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: If we vote to put it over in

10 Article VIII, then --

MS. GREENBERG: This is a question we ask all the

subcommittees on Article VIII. It's just a transfer since it

deals with education. We feel all the educational provisions

should be in one article.

MR. HILL: It's not within your bailiwick, and it

doesn't conflict with anything you're doing, it's just that it

was placed in Article X, dealt with in Article X, but now

18 that we're revising the whole constitution we're just looking 19 at ways to tighten it up, and this was one way.

20

MR. GRAHAM: I think we ought to agree that any-

21 thing concerning education in the constitution ought to be

22 in the article on education.

23

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Could I get a motion to the

24 effect this body does not disapprove of that transfer?

25

MR. OWENS: So moved.

PAGE 175

MR.. GRAHAM: Seconded.

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Consensus?

3

Okay. All in favor of the motion. Any unreadiness

4 on the motion?

5

Do you follow where we are?

6

MR. VANN: I'm in favor of it.

7

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: There are no objections, then.

8 Consensus.

9

DR. PRESSLY: What would you do, just give it

10
"z
11 i=
.'o.."...
~ 12 ~
@~)r1~4! !;; ~ :J: 15 ":'") 16 .~.. za ~ 17 :

another section number? MR. HILL: We would probably add a 10. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Actually you don't save any
pages, though, right, because you're going to transfer everything back there to Section VIII, then everything on retirement to Section IX.
MR. HILL: That's already been reduced . MR. HENRY: It's beEl1revised. You probably voted

18 on it in '78.

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. I think we have done our

20 task for today, and we will reconvene on the 18th of August

21 at nine o'clock.

22

(Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m. the subcommittee meeting

23 was adj ourned . ) M
~

+++ ++ +

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VIII Subcommittee Meeting Held on July 28, 1980

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 7-28-80

Proceedings. pp. 3-4

SECTION I: PUBLIC EDUCATION

Paragraph I:

Public ~ducation; free public education prior to college or postsecondary level; support by taxation.

Adequate public education. pp. 5-6, 11~17, 24-25, 33-37, 39-42, 47-48, 70-111

Private schools. pp. 6, 42-54, 66-69, 111-125

SECTIONS II: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, and III: STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT
Appointment. pp. 6-11, 17-22, 25-26, 28-33, 37-39, 55-62, 125-157 Composition of State Board of Education. pp. 9-10, 26, 161 Powers of the State Board of Education. pp. 39-47, 60-61, 157-161 Qualifications of members. pp. 10, 26-27, 161-172

SECTION VII: Paragraph I:

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Educational assistance programs authorized. 173-175

pp. 27,

PAGE 1

STATE OF GEORGIA
SELECT COMMITTEE
:. .1
ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VIII
SECTION IX SUBCOMMITTEE ON LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS

Room 416(a)

'",

State Capitol

Atlanta, Georgia

Thursday, July 31, 1980 1:30 p.m.

PRESENT WERE: COMl-ITTTEE MEMBER.Ci: MR. DONALD THORNHILL, CHAIRMAN MS. DOLORES COOK SELECT COMMITTEE STAFF: MR. MELVIN HILL MS. VICKIE GREENBERG OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL: CYNTHIA NONIDEZ EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL: DR. JU1 MULLINS GOVERNOR'S POST SECONDARY EDUCATION COMMITTEE: DR, DAVID MORGAN DEPARTMF.NT OF EDUCATION: DR. JOE FREUND. VOCATIONAL DIRECTOR GEORGIA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION: MR. ROBERT WHITAKER OTHERS: DR. JACK NIX, FORMER STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDANT MR. CHUCK PYLES
I'}

r-------------- _ . _-_.._._ ...._ ..-.

PAGE 2

I

j !I

PROCEEDINGS

2

II
i!

10:00 a.m

11

.~ :I

CHAIRMAN DON THORNHILL: Well I think it would be

I'

,i

best for us to introduce ourselves so we will all know who is

here. I'm Don Thornhill from Columbia County and I am chairing

u this particular Subcommittee as we look at the Constitution

, Articles dealing with local school systems. We've been taking

a look at the various areas within the Articles of local school

') i systems and this is going to pretty well wrap up our hearing
I,) part of the study that we've been doing and hopefully at our

next meeting we will be looking at a draft that our staff is
r>
going to prepare for us that we can kind of hammer out and work

~: out the bugs and present that to the total Committee in early

September.

Why don't we start right here with Dr. Nix.

Dr. Nix, just go ahead and --

1 I:':;

DR. NIX: I'm Jack Nix, John Q. Citizen.

CHAIRMAN THORmIILL: Former State School Superintend-

ant and a mighty fine one at that.

DR. NIX: Thank you.

JIM MULLINS: Jim Mullins, Educational Improvement

Council.

:.)

CINDY NONIDEZ: Cindy Nonidez, Office of Legislative

.. ;. Council.

MELVIN HILL: Melvin Hill, Staff for the Select

PAGE 3

Conunittee.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Vickie Greenberg, Staff for the

Select Conunittee.

DAVID MORGAN: Governor's Post Secondary Education.

COURT REPORTER: I'm Mary Lou Stokes your Court

Reporter.

DR. JOSEPH FREtmD: I'm Joe Freund, Vocational

! Director from the Department of Education.

CHUCK PYLES: I'm Chuck Pyles. I'm Assistant to the

Staff Assistant or the Deputy Assistant of the Staff of the

.i

-< h

Constitutional

revision,

part time or

whatever .

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: We have a couple of other

visitors with us.

ROBERT WHITTARD: I'm Robert Whittard with the Georgia

School Board Association.

:1

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Very good.

We have been following a procedure where we have had

.') a decision a~enda for us to look at today and we will be looking

at a number of things dealing with vocational education, some

of the State schools and schools for exceptional children.

'J

Mel, I'm just going to turn the meeting over to you

and let you kind of direct it on through.

MELVIN HILL: Okay. I have distributed to the speak-

ers prior to this meeting a copy of the decision agenda so they

would know in advance the kind of things we're interested in.

4

The topic is in front of us because this Committee was asked to

review Sections VII, VIII and IX of Article VIII of the Consti-

tution and this is Section Nine on special schools, on which

there is about a page in the Constitution that relates to this.!

In the effort to revise the Constitution we wanted to know what

to do with this section and generally should anything else be

added to the Constitution in this area.

So that was the reason for this decision agenda and

as I've -- as Vickie has mentioned to each of the speakers,

jU this is only a jumping off point and anything related to this

'1": 1! topic is certainly of interest to the full Committee .
.:>

~'J.V~'\

1-'" I.:

So I would suggest we follow this format and just go

('C-l~''":--;J' )' r"'-"'""".
\~~,/f I

~,
~

down

the

decision

agenda

with

each

one

of

the

guests

and

let

'-.

J4 ) each one of the guests in turn respond to it. And we can have

<"'
r

15 ~ a general discussion after each question and then at the end

we can have just an open discussion about any other topics.

l:

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: All right. Very good.

MEL HILL: Okay, the first question is, "Should the

Constitution contain any special provisions at all respecting

I
:::0 'Vocational Trade Schools?" "Yes, or no", and this is the broadIi

21

I er question and then we get into the specifics with the other

subquestions.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Why don't we let Dr. Nix respond

.' I and then Jim and then Dr. Freud and David Horgan.

DR. NIX: Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee

PAGE 5
------,
and Staff, let me start out by simply saying that I'm doing I

something I promised myself I wouldn't do three years ago and

that is get myself involved in the business of education after

spending about almost thirty-five years in it. I'm really some-

what disappointing myself by even being here. But as I told

the little lady, I think that's the one that called me over

there, I think I gave or she thinks I gave her a hard time ". I guess. But that's part of the reason why I gave you a hard

time. I will probably say things here that some of you or

most of you or maybe all of you will not agree with. I'm not

1,
!; looking for vo tes anymore. So as the little boy says, I'm just

I

"..'2jJi.j

" going to let it all hang out. Your first question here, and

I'd 1\/I(;-~~-'"-,-.~~'-"- \\='\J\.,C "/U'""/!"\';; like to comment about some things you don't have on this

",

:i; particular sheet before I leave here.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Feel free. We'd like for you to.

DR. NIX: Your first one that says, "Should the Con-
~
':J stitution contain any special provision for Vocational Trade

Schools?" I checked that, "Yes", but I want to explain to you
!l}
what I mean by that. I think that your Constitution should

contain only the framework for an educational program or system;

and that it should not be so specific that you try to spell out

'in a Constitution what all's contained in the word education.

I think that should be done by statutory provision and by rules

and regulations of the State Board of Education, things that you

can change much easier than amending the Constitutioni~~~lf..-,_

6

I would simply say that my qualified, "Yes", means

that the State Board of Education ought to be authorized to pro

vide occupational or vocational or trade education,whatever you

want to call it. It's really occupational, is what we're talk-~

ing, putting people to work. That's what I always tried to say

that Vocational Education happened to be; to give people the

knowledge and to teach them the maniuplative skills they need

to get a job and to hold a job; not just to get it, but to get

it and hold it. Now to me that is vocational or occupational

education and it is not just a trade that -- in the narrow
1
;.:
,i :: sense that a lot of people call ita trade. I would simply say .,,. '" that the State Board of Education should have the authority un-:

der the broad framework of the Constitution to provide that

, kind of an education.
<

I " ,~,

CHAIRMAN : Okay, Jim.

1 (~ { 't."1

DR. JIM MULLINS: Well I basically espouse the same

--(

I ~! I

"""

philosophy

as

Dr.

Nix.

The Constitutional statement as presentT

!8

I

i ed in Section Nine does allow for this as is now stated, but itl

I

19 :1 also requires that there be a local legislation and a referen- I

20

I
dum by the people before these are established. I think.I woulf

2\

antinue to support that view for a number of reasons.

I

think

I I

first of all we are all familiar with the Thomas County situa~

tion of a couple years ago. The local Board wanted to create

a college and so through local legislation that was possible.

Now whether this particular section allows it or not I don't ,

~_ _

_._._

- - - .._ -." ._ _.- _ _ - _ . _ - - - _.._--_._ _ _._.-.------.!

PAGE 7 know. But it does by term of developing special schools be-, cause it doesn't go into the full definition of what a special' ! school is, s'O you've basically got whatever you want to call .; a special school. The local legislation process is not always the best of processees in the General Assembly. Normally all I legislation comes up at twelve noon when everybody is gone to lunch except for a very few. Then it's sort of a trade off. ! You don't bother mine and I won't bother yours unless, of cours~, 'i there's something that everyone had been made aware of there's
I
I!' a problem coming; like the Sandy Springs vote. The issue, how-' ., ever, here is that there is a mechanism for giving the people
'-
J a choice as to what they want to tax themselves further for, as opposed to just reciting it in the General Assembly or with any other department of Government. So from that standpoint I
1:
I) .~ think it might be important to leave it some much, somewhat as t.:.
) \ it is. But I agree with Dr. Nix that we shouldn't confound our Constitution with the details of how you carry these things out;,
'. but rather give the broad general authorities. CHAIRMAN nIORNHILI.: Okay. MR. DAVID MORGAN: I agree with the two previous
I, speakers. I don't have anything to add. CHAIRMAN nIORNHILL: Dr. Freund. DR. JOSEPH FREUND: Likewise. I think this is some-
thing that we cannot predict many years down the road, and most Constitutions we assume are going to last many years down the

road. What will happen and what kinds of changes the changes

in society or technology -- well we can't even guess what chang

es we're talking about -- and I think it should give them the

4 authority, the Constitution should give the Board of Education

the authority to have schools and after that we need to leave it'

up to statutes and the State Board of Education Rules and Regu-

lations.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: From what I -- all of you are

agreeing then that the Constitution should address the business,

, of Vocational Schools or Trade Schools per se, vocational, the

II : word vocational.

::>

o

,

~_:

MR. DAVID MORGAN: It seems to me that it should be

N.~!\,'/j'".i
.((;'Lj))r!~"'" addressing who has the responsibility for Vocational Education

..

/ .'/

in the state. I think I would disagree maybe with that wording.

j:
!~ 1 1m not sure Vocational Trade Schools is the name we use anyway,

DR. FREUND: I prefer Vocational Education too.

;" Ii

MR. DAVID MORGAN: Yes. Well I do too. And it may

;J be, as Joe is making some comments that lie ahead, it may be
I
'I that in the future we don't provide Vocational Education throug~
I
trade schools or through post-secondary facilities, whatever.

But this does not include, as I understand it, the reference to

Highschool Vocational Education. Maybe it's meant to, but the

way I read it it is not. That seems to me also something that i

the State Board of Education should be given the authority for. :

PAGE

9

DR. JIM MULLINS: Would that not be part of the com-

school structure? Which they are already authorized to

have.

MR. DAVID MORGAN: I don't know.

DR. JIM MULLINS: I think the Attorney General opin-

ions and the definitions, I think it would fall into that cate- I

i gory, if it's within the K to 12 range.

When you start talking trade schools most of the

i times we're thinking of the post-secondary structure.

MR. DAVID MORGAN: Right, that's what I was thinking

(~

I

;.: about, but I was wondering whether this (1) was meant to includ~

.~~
~
1. ~; more than post-secondary schools.

~

DR. JIM MULLINS: It does, when you start talking

about special schools like for exceptional children.

1:

DR. JOSEPH FREUND: In order to receive Federal

:1

!:; "itl' funds for Vocational Education a sole state agency must be id-

entified and now it is by statute that the; sole state agency

I"~ that is identified is the State Board of Ecudation. There are

I) oth.er deliveries I there's other delivery systems for voca-

,".)

r

tional education in the state; namely the Board of Regents.

However. any Federal Vocational Educational funds that they re-

ceive come from the State Board of Education as now Constitutes.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: When we get into Vocational

Education we're really talking about a lot of things. We're

talking about the vocational education programs that you find

PACE 10

within the scope of a comprehensive Highschool for example,

your business education programs and that sort. Or you're

talking about the Area Technical Schools that we have. So

DR. JOSEPH FREUND: And more and more your Junior

Colleges.

,,.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: And your Junior Colleges.

DR. NIX: Mr. Chairman, let me add one more thing.

Paragraph six, where it says, "independent systems continued,

new systems prohibited", in your Constitution of this sheet.

I guess you sent this to us, little lady. It says that --

,, ,,

VICKIE GREENBERG: That's on page 68 of the --

o-

j.~ ~;

DR. NIX: Okay. I think there are three words.

You are talking about Boards of Education on a local basis and

.~ ,-- that's what Section V is dealing with right? Hunh?

I

1) ..",

MELVI~ HILL: That's right.

J;:

:J

i () 'y" ,~

DR. NIX: Okay, and if this is a part of Section six

C,

7.

l

i

;

paragraph six under Section Five, three words -- two words.

;k It says 'the words, "college". I don't think local Boards of

IlJl Education ought to be building and operating colleges. So if

you've got any place other than that in the Constitution where

that is contained. Especially DeKalb College out here. In my

judgement DeKalb County Board of Education really ought to turn

that over to the Board of Regents and let them run it. I don'ti

think that the DeKalb County Board of Education operating a

PACE 11

they ought to run the DeKalb Area Tech School, but not the

college.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Didn't we handle that or deal

with that issue somewhat?

MELVIN HILL: Yes, in an earlier meeting --

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: In an earlier meeting --

.,

MELVINI HILL: -- this was discussed and the Commit-

tee had decided to delete that from the new version.

DR. NIX: Well I didn't -- so if I bring up something

. \ that you've already rehashed then just tell me and I'll --

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: In essence we agreed with what

you just said.

MELVIN HILL: Okay, next .. VICKIE GREENBERG: The Constitution under the State

! :,: Board of Education does not state the jurisdiction of the
~'
,:, State Board. It just provides what their powers should be
c:
DR. NIX: Shall be a State Board.
VICKIE GREENBERG: Right. So if we're addressing

;'_i Vocational Schools somewhere in the Constitution, shouldn't we

address by the same token secondary and elementary education

possibly address it specifically. It's not evex mentioned ex-

cept under Local School Systems?

DR. NIX: Well there should be a section of the Con-

stitution. I don't recall it now -- I tried to forget all that stuff for the last three years -- but there should be a provis-

PAGE 12

ion some place in that Constitution that there shall be a Statf Board of Education responsible for public education in this .\ State.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Hell there is not presently any such provisions.

DR. NIX: No.

'/ :i

MELVIN HILL: It says that the State Board shall

have such powers and duties provided by law the effective date

9 of this Constitution of 1945. So it was by reference.

10

DR. NIX: And the Legislature -- well they can accept

11 gifts and monies and all that kind of stuff, the State Board
,~'.'
l' can, right?

MELVIN HILL: Yes. That's a specific authorization

in another place.

. J -- -" ,~

DR. FREUND: Let me further confuse this then. I

J

16

<Xl
Z
1':"1
.:J

don't

know

if

it's

in

statute

or

the

Constitution,

but

there

~

7

~-

,~ is a State Board for Vocational Education. Now the State Board:

I of Education is designated as also State Board for Vocational 'I Education.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Yeah, that's the statute.

21

DR. FREUND: That's statute.

MELVIN HILL: The question that Vickie raises though

is, I think, is whether there should be some statement about

the jurisdiction of the State Board over Vocational Education.

I mean, whether that's going to become too awkward with the

- - ., - - ~-- --- ------- ._- - . ---~. _..- -~--~---- ----_._.- --_..._ - - - - - -

---_. ---------- -- ----~._.__

13

jurisdiction over Vo-Tech also residing in the Board of Regents

to some extent in another area. That really gets to another

question a little later, whether there should be any -- what
3
! shall the Constitution say about it or should it continue to be:

silent?

DR. NIX: Hell now my idea on that would be probably
I:
for the protection of the State and for confusion in the future:

and I guess Joe's already run into this. I ran into it back

(. in the early 60's when I was the Director of Vocational Educa-
:\ tion. I think it would be helpful if you had some place in the '~.:J Constitution saying that the State Board was responsible for
'"',..)
" Vocational Education. I know there's some questions on down

there and I may be jumping the gun on it, but the State Board

and the State Board of Regents should have the power to con-

1: ,~: tract with one another in the Constitution or cite by statute
\ f or someplace. If it's in statute, it would be better in statute

because the Legislature could modify it when they needed to.

You can tell by this that I'm opposed to a third board, where-

') ever tha t is down there.

Ii

DR. JIM MULLINS: Of course, there is a problem. If

you were to establish in the Constitution that the State Board

','I of Education would be responsible for all Vocational Educa-

tion because of the mixed Government factions that you already

have in existence, Bainbridge, Dalton, Clayton coming up. If

we do assume one day DeKalb, and that's a question that is now

l-'.c\.C;'E: 14

within their own ranks as well as with the other one at Bruns-

wick. So you already have these combination ownerships so to

speak. So if it is then taken over then you've got the questio~

of how to handle that particular problem. As it is now with

your special school Section, your local laws and such as that,

you do have a way at least of getting the schools that you need

based upon, you know, the justification and the will of the

people.

Now that doesn't get you into Governments and that's

;u another question that we ought to address in a little bit.

DR. NIX: But now,Jim, what you're talking about here

that any construction that the colleges presently from the Board '\-/(~"':L)V~8'\,1:\)r~!"":"u ,! of Regents' standpoint are funds that are appropriated by the
'\ '. </J/
:1 State. The local people don't have to get those from the gov-

15 ,'" ernrnen ts .

DR. MULLINS: No, they don't have to do that.

I)

DR. NIX: But initially we had local Boards of Educa-\

I
tion provide a portion of the funds for construction and then

in order to get some of the schools built we had to get most

any kind of framework we could get our hands on because in some

21 places the schools' people, Boards of Education and Superintend~ , ) ants and Principals, they just wouldn't touch an area school.

We had to go outside the system, such as up at Lanier Tech and

I happened to be on that Board, and I've been trying to get

2~; them to do away with that Board and turn it over to the County

'_1- ,_..

.. _ .

._,

_. _ _.-- --~--__ .

_

Pr\CE 15

Board of Education, where, in my judgement, it ought to be.

Down in Troup County we couldn't -- There were four Boards of

Education down there and we couldn't get a single one of them

to accept the responsibility for the area school. Out of all

of this came the Woodall Amendment that was passed in November,
!
1960, I believe it was. I think that's the Section of the Cons~

t~tution. That's how we got schools where Boards of Education " wouldn't touch them. But we do have a kind of a hodge podge

set.up on this thing. But I think what you need to do if you

are going to improve things is to try to structure what ought
','J
" to be and then work from where we are to that. And then if
-,:.J
~ you give the State Board of Education the responsibility for

Vocational Education and name them as that responsibility, then f J the Legislature still has the authority under the Constitutuion

to pass a statute that would provide for the contractural

arrangements for Brunswick, Dalton and those places. Because

you now Joe?

have, I guess, a contract with them already don't you~
I

DR. FREUND: The agreement is written up.

DR. NIX: I mean an agreement between you.

DR. FREUND: Between the Board.of Regents and the

Board of Education.

DR. NIX: So you could do that by agreement, where

you have those kind of a situation. Because I don't think we

are going to build any colleges right away, not the way the

enrollment happens to be. DR. MULLINS: No. DR. FREUND: Jim, you made a reference to, "If the
people want a school, they would have to vote on it" '. DR. MULLINS: Under this provision, under the special
schools they said it would go to -- There would be local legislation that would then go to the people for a referendum.
'''':
DR. FREUND: Are you interpreting that that Gwinnett 'I County could not start a Vo-Tech school unless they had a refer-
endum? DR. MULLINS: I didn't interpret it that way. That's
a mechanism that this thing provides for if they did want one, ,lor take the onew that's coming up now, maybe the Dodge County, " but the means for funding, I think, give a lot of control to
that and the statutes give a lot of control to that, because
I).'
~ you are going to come in with your Federal funds and you're go-'
1c:.
, ing to combine that with your State funds and that becomes an overriding factor as far as reality of something happening. DR. NIX: Could I ask Jim something? CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Sure. DR. NIX: Jim, do you think the new school coming up in Gwinnett ought to be operated by the Gwinnett County Board of Education? Or should it be another Board?
I
DR. MULLINS: Oh, I think it should be by Gwinnett unless it's going to be an Area School and that it ~ll draw

PAJ~E 17

from the area. I'm sure of that, but then the area that it'll

draw from is that they can go to anyone of these places. I

think that particular school and the way the department en-

visioned it and the way the Gwinnett County Board envisions

it that it would be under the local Board of Education if they

got it from the State Board. I agree to that structure.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: That's the way Augus ta is.

DR. NIX: That's the way they all are except four

or five of them or seven.

DR. MULLINS: Of course, you've got some problems

It ..

.)~
::)

too,

you know,

that have

come forth,

like we can have a

local

"'

l...plJ~'C!"

:: system and I think Joe brought, this out at one meeting not too

(((~:;?))("~~" '~ many -- a couple of months ago. If you have a local Board of

.::/' ii
'. Education that has one of these schools under its control and

i:' '.;' decides it no longer wants to support it or expresses the lack

.,

,_

,1'

1:;.: of support by not applying the dollars necessary to give it

~
~" adequate operation, what do you do with it?

DR. NIX: Well, Jim, let me say this. In that ease
!'I
I if the school, if the public pressure would not force the Sup-

ertendant of the Board to continue it ought to close. Because

if the Director and the staff have operated the school that's

really doing what it ought to be doing, there would be so much

public support they couldn't possibly go.

DR. MULLINS: Theoretically speaking.

DR. FREUND: Right now I do not know of any provi-

PAGE 18
---,

sion that would allow for the State to take it over.

i

DR. MULLINS: No there's not any. DR. NIX: I know the school, the Lanier Tech up there i

I chaired up a little committee to come up with a salary supp-

) lement from local funds. We came up with a cross the board

starting at $145 a month local supplement for the instructors

at the sphool. We went to the County Commissioners. I went

x before the County Commissioners with the Director and some of

c) his staff and we got them to give us some more tax money to do

10 that. Well the reason we did, we had the facts and figures
c)
Ii z there showing the plants where they came into the area up there~

where they had said that they came solely because of that school

',I",:";>fr:jY~/>');~~= i; and what it was doing for them. We had the amount of ta~ that

. /1

'J>

Ie: ).. each one of those companies was paying in County taxes, and a

~:;

L1 r'

"r
<I

five

year

record

of

how much

the

county had

contributed

to

this

II, "c,'z"'"":: school and the percent they were contributing considerably.

z:

17

"~:
.n

And

they were not

contributing

10% of

the

taxes

that

these

I \.', industries were paying. We didn't have a dissenting vote on

\':1 the thing. I just don't believe that where a school is doing

.'.J.I.l\ a good job that the people in the business industry is going

21 , to let the thing close. If they do it ought to close.

DR. FREUND: But there are some schools where the

local governments provide zero support.

DR. NIX: Oh yes.

DR. FREUND: And they say that, "Yes, we like the

PAGE 1'9

~~~

~.~_._

. _~--~~-~-~--

~--~---~~-

~~

---~~l

school, but we think it's a State responsibility to support tha~

!
school totally.
I
MELVIN HILL: Well that's this next question, "Should!

1 the provision of Vocational Education Opportunities be made

primarliy a State obligation, or to what extent should it be?"

u

DR. NIX: My feeling is that the majority of the

funding should come from the Federal and State funds as long as

\ we have it. But local systems ought to in some fashion have to

..) put something into it. Really, when you were talking about

1 I Swainsboro, Swainsboro shouldn't have had a Junior College and
,0
L
!; ': a Vocational School together, both. One of them shouldn't have
.
. ' ~ been there. I think everybody now sees that that was simply a
.u. ~~
~:', political move down there to build that Junior College and when:
, ._ ../
we built that area tech school we had students in it. The first I
year or two that college operated,if it hadn't been for the

joint program with the Area Tech School, the college wouldn't
,
:, have had any students ~ You're looking at me kind of funny, but!

'~ you go back and look at your records. I think it was about

a hundred and sixty students there in that college.

DR. MORGAN: I was getting ready to remark they don.lt

n. f, 'h ave too JIlany students now.

DR. NIX: But when you start talking to people around

there that have gotten jobs as a result of having had the opporr

)., ,T

tunity to go to that school, it's a whole lot different.

DR. MULLINS: It's a different story isn't it. I

think the speaker knew what he was doing.

J'AC;r; 20

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Jim, how do you feel about that

question (a) there?

DR. r1ULLINS: State support?

CHAIRMAN THORNHIJ..L: Yeah.

DR. MULLINS: Well I'll throw this out as a possible

problem. If you -- Now I do agree that the State should have

the primary responsibility and it does. And it is exercising

'I that primary responsibility already. To make that statement

Iii in the Constitution look at the possible ramifications here.

,'!
" : You know there's been an argument about can Vocational TechniI):

cal Schools collect tuition. An Attorney General erttered an

/p'V_f]\

'

f.rIf"'-_:" jl),_~~" ',n ': opinion, which was a rather tenuous opinion at best, at which

',,-

i,

-' ;1 he said, "A child up to the age of 19 is to be given a free

, ,e> ani appropriate education in the connnon schools operated by that

lu ~, Board of Education", but the Constitutuion right here as we
Ie
~:
~ are talking is talking about special schools, with defined with~ !'
i ~ in special schools Vocational Trade Schools. Now does that

mean really that Vo-Tech schools are within the connnon school

20 structure whether under the local Board's authority or whether

J; under some other Government authority. Now he never did answer

) that question. In fact in another opinion that he rendered he

indicated that they can or they can't charge tuition. So as a

result he's not clear. But I think the Constitution as written!, 2:; right now, and I always yield to the legal expertise, but it

- - - - , , - - - - , - , ----~-----------

PAGE 21
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~----,-,-,-,--,-'--'-'-----~

would be my opinion that that wording, if the Courts generally I
1
!
go according to the words, that vocational technical schools

would not be considered to be common schools, but would be

considered to be special schools and thereby if you wanted

, , tuition that's fine and then you wouldn't have to give a free

I, education to that nineteen year old beyond the common school

perimeters of grade twelve. If you put that in Constitutional

language you may be opening ourselves up to a California type

,'.;

I'

situation, where you're getting into the Junior Colleges and if

other kind of post-secondary entrance and look at the "ramifica-
,)
1:
11 .,.~.; tions of increased appropriations for that particular activity.

::' Once we give a child a twelfth grade education, if that child
.-,~,
:;, desires additional education through the technical school they

aTe provided, but he has an obligation in part to his payment
J;:; '~.~) to these schools or to the Junior Colleges or to our other
.:I
I: Q~ four year institutions. So I think that that could be a pro-
-<
~
'~1 blem that you legal people need to think about before you give

blanket kinds of statements as to what the ramifications are
1,1
going to be in the future upon who can get in, what kind of

barriers are we dropping down, what kind of dollars it's going

to cost. We already see what's happening to us in special

education. So I think that we've got to be careful because
,(
there are limitations in available dollars for escalating needs.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Next.

DR. MORGAN: I think my overall impression of what

Pi' GE 22
- -- - - ------ -- -- -- ------1

the Constitution ought to say in the area of education if you

I
I

follow the same structural format we have in the past that i i
there should be a State Board of Education. And I believe there

ought to be a statement as to what its functions ought to be,

broadly, very broadly. And I think we ought to have a second

" Section that says there shall be a Board of Regents. And

broadly these are the functions they ought to have. I, as Jim,!

have some question. The word that scares me is primarily. I

don't have as much problem saying that vocational provision or,

vocational educational opportunities ought to be a state obli-
.'
) ; gation, but what does "primarily" mean. You know, what per-

centage is primarily. Does that mean that local systems who

now contribute money towards Vocational Education will say,
, I, '.You know the Constitution says that's primarily State, so we' 11

1' pull back out of it". Another concern I've got, and this is
I\l ...'_{,l an ambivilant statement because I do believe that the State Cl Board of Education is to be responsible for Vocational Educa-

tion and we ought to say that - and say this is one of your

responsibilities ,but on the other hand it seems to me that as

you get into the specificities of proceeding then you are going'

to start opening yourself up, I think, again in parallel with

what Jim has said. Should it -- What is the State's responsibi~

lity vis a vis special education, or for a liberal arts educa-

tion or for other types of educations. So while I'm in favor

of having a general broad statement about what the Board of

I'r,

23 --, PAGE
- -----,., - --, ,------------ ,-,--------

I

Education should do, which we do not now have. It just says

whatever is in the statutes. I think we have to want a fine

line of how specific we want to be. So I don't think I would

agree with that, just saying that.

DR. NIX: Let me say this, David. I answered the

:-, question for funding.

DR. MORGAN: Yes.

DR. NIX: Now I didn't -- I don't subscribe and if I

'.J left that impression I didn't intend it -- that you ought to

write in the Constitution that, but it ought to be a primary , .,- responsibility of the State to finance it. Now that can be
;.
,.,
'" provided by statute.

DR. MORGAN: Yes, and I don't mean to disagree with

that.

J ~-

DR. FREUND: I tend to agree with the previous speak-i

!

.,: ers that it should not be put into the Constitution. However,
;:

I do feel that the welfare of the people, the productivity of

I, the people, especially looking at how transient people are mov-

l-} ing from place to place, should be an overall state responsibi1ii

ty. It's even a Federal interest that they have said since 191f
I
vocational education affects people allover this country. And
people are that transient and move around and what happens to

people in Alabama affects people in Georgia. and definitely

what happens in Waycross will eventually affect us somehow here,

in Atlanta. So it is mostly a State responsibility so I, while

PACE 24

I agree with the statement, I don't think it's part of the

Constitution.

VICKIE GREENBERG: I'm having a very difficult time

deciding why you have all considered that Vocational Education

should be a State responsibility, while other types of educa-
i)
tion should be primarily a local responsibility. Or have we

decided that yet?

DR. MORGAN: It's not.

()
DR. MULLINS: We haven't addressed that.

;u

DR. NIX: Let me see. Let me pick up on what you

J

7

! I /"-

-:.t'
,:"

are

saying.

The State's already carrying the big end of the

:'
,I stick on funding of all education, public education.

VICKIE GREENBERG: But why should we --

DR. NIX: Isn't the State appropriations of State

15
'" funds for the State Board of Education, to the local systems

J() ~

':: doesn't that exceed about 55 or 60 percent now?

z:

<:

. ~i

;":J.:

':\

DR. MULLINS: Fifty-eight I believe.

18
DR. NIX: At one time we were up to sixty-nine per-

VICKIE GREENBERG: I think it's because they've frozeh i
..'1
that, the required level

DR. NIX: Oh, that. You're all messed up on that,

dear. I mean wide local level is one thing, but the amount

they collect out there though is a lot different.

!.S L__

i

VICKIE G_REE.N__B__E__RG:

I was just thinking why not dis- , ----1

PAGE 25 tinguish between primary and secondary education and postsecondary education as far as funding or as far as responsibili~
! ty, why not say up to grade twelve vocational education shall b~ funded the same as other elementary and secondary programs and after grade twelve it should be the responsibility -- if you want to give the Board of Regents that responsibility. They don't have it right now though.
DR. NIX: No, the Board of Regents don't have it. VICKIE GREENBERG: It says and the Constitution 'Ii only speaks to the University System of Georgia. It doesn't I' ~, speak to DR. NIX: No and let me tell you why. I can preach a long sermon on this. VICKIE GREENBERG: Okay. DR. NIX: I did to Congressman Perkins and Adam Clayton Powell and a bunch of other people up in Washington on numerous occasions in the early sixties. If you will look, if you will just look about the different states and even in our own state to some extent, whenever you get to college trans ,.J fer credit and you get the name of college attached to an institution, then that institution begins to look at how am I going to move from a two year to a four year institution and how am I going to get from a four year to a graduate program and then I want to become a university. With all of those kind of things, they begin to look for people as instructors and pro4
!

fessors with doctors degrees in order to qualify under the

~ accrediting program to move on up, when it doesn't take a per-

son with a doctor's degree to teach auto mechanics or to lay

I brick and block. A higtrchool graduate could probably do just
i l
as well as, excuse me about a person with a doctor's degree, (as i

a person with a doctor's degreet So what you have happening in,
)
an institution called a college is exactly what happened in the
hig~ChOOIS across this country back in the forties and the fifJ

ties, because I was a classroom vocational teacher at the time.

I started teaching in a basement. r1y workshop was in the base-
il ~ ment. And I got whatever was left over. The teacher would sen4

me the slow learners. I had one teacher tell me one time,

,> .'Y'I\ '.';c\It \.-'

~.A- 1 \

"~",n __ "Jack, I'm going to send you Hugh Brown". This is an algebra

L .. ''';=-_ /

teacher. She says, "He can't do a thing with his head", and be~
I

fore I could think I said, "Ms. Warner, if he can't do anything

"

,~

!(,

--'
';

with

his

head,

he

su~e

as

hell

can't

do

much

more

with

his

hands". So that's what happened to occupational education

across this country. The School Administrators, bless their

h' hearts, tried to shift the poor student, the disp1inary students

~ I ' into vocational education. And you can't, you just can't do

the impossible sometimes. Some of these kids you can, because

that's where you can light a fire under them and many of them

can go on and get a college degree and go into other kinds of

profession. But they have to have a reason for learning. Just

;,- because Mrs. Warner would stand up and say, "Hugh, you've got

I'ACE 27
to learn to factor in this Algebra class" .~e'~ ~::;-~'llhat~~~~r1

I Ms. Waters?" You've got to pass". Well, pass, that's a hell
I
I
of a reason to learn something. You don't have to write all of'

this language down over there. You learn something because it

has some meaning for you. Whenever you throw it into a college

and you get the college President wanting to be a college Pres-

II ident of a four year institution then these things out here that ! don't measure up to get him prestige are the things that he's

going to neglect. So you've got to give somebody some responsi~ ,I
bility, and somebody the money to get the job done. And you'
',J
can't say that you've got to have a certain level of Math and

.' English and so forth to get into a lot of these courses. And

,~ some of these courses are not college transfer. But some of

1 1 >~..,. the colleges across the country have made them transfer.

'r""

I

I, ) 'J Cl

i
DR. FREUND: We have an example in an adjoining state~

'..:,:

:

'~I

When .7...,
!7:l

I

was

at

the

University

of

Georgia

in

1970,

Gre.enville

2:

I "I

'x
";1

Tech

in Greenville,

South Carolina was

known

as

one of

the

best

lie, Vo-Tech schools in the South. A couple of years later they

! ; became a technical college. Last year they asked to become a

four year college. They have completely lost their mission.

They got their hands slapped by the State people for wanting to

be a four year college and they are still a technical college

at a two year level. But they have lost the real purpose and

they are not providing for industry wanting to move into that

area and that is another booming area in the Southeast. They
,--_._~

PA(~E 28 .'----,.---.-----" .. _-- ..__.'--'--'1
are not providing the services that are needed down there. We i
i
I
hear a lot of repercussions. It's helping Georgia that they ar~ I
not doing their job, but it's because they've gone completely

'" State operated and wanted to be a college. CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Joe, are we not setting a course:I

h .: toward that same line. I'm thinking of over where I'm from,
I
~ Augusta,the Augusta area. We have Augusta Tech. Our particulat

situation in Columbia County we're getting ready to operate two
'i comprehensi~e hig~.hOOlS. So we've really gone and expanded,

IP Vickie, our secondary program, one through twelve, and really

11 ~ gotten into the vocational end; all the trades, you know, and o """j
!: '_I this sort of thing. But Augusta Tech are beginning to offer
,~. through tying in with Augusta College, you know, associate
OJ,
degrees and this sort of thing. Aren't we tracking down that

same --

. '. L' l..

DR. FREUND: No. I think Georgia has done the wise

l.'

-I

"
::;;

thing

here.

I

That

student

has

the

option of going

to

the

I
colleg~

i
I

l~ but he can still go to Augusta Tech and spend one year there

;,~, and come out being a cracker jack automotive mechanic. They've i

211 got a beautiful .program down there. I just visited with them.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Yes, it does.

DR. FREUND: If they have a joint agreement with the

college he can then go on and get an associates degree in auto-!

motive technology by taking a few additional courses, maybe

some physics courses and general courses and have that associatf

PAGE 29 degree for those people that are most concerned about it. But --1 2 Augusta Tech has not lost their initial mission. You can still!
if ,go in there and without all the college work turn out a cracker .i.
jack mechanic in one year's time. DR. MULLINS: Of course, Robert Ardley, the Territor-
ial Imperrative, would be very instructive of this conversation~ because that's what we're really dealing with is territories. Who's going to control this thing. You know, some of the thing"
i
Joe, and I'm sure you are familiar with this. I serve on a little group that is looking into one of our so-called quote ! i ,) "Community Colleges" and the only way that they feel they could
:';
I' _ go tuition is if a Vo-Tech student decides to take one of the, _, you know, college courses and when they do that they have to
1, , enter as a college student and then pay the tUition. There has, I been the assumption that many of the students who might be in .,'j ~ ,--"
~ ") ? the Vo-Tech school per se might be strongly encouraged to take " some of the college courses that provide, you know, a basis of financial support to that institution as you build up your EFT's, you know, through those particular individuals. So
" there's all kinds of mechanisms to skin the cat, even in a situation where the missions haven't been totally lost. And I agree with Joe that Augusta Tech hasn't lost its Thission, but at the same time there are possibilities for things like this to take place. COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I'll need to change

PAGE 30

the tape.

DR. NIX: Mr. Chairman, let me say one or two other

3 things along this line. This Fall in the next few weeks if you

1 will watch the newspapers in most of the areas of the State,

really the dalies, you will probably see ads where different

I) colleges are offering courses and tech schools are offering

courses. I would suggest that you look at those 'lists. I've

seen everything in the colleges from physics to teaching people:

to tapdance and play the guitar and all that kind of stuff beint
I
taught at a college. What they are doing studen~s are getting II

: I scarce. They're getting thin 6n the ground so ~ to speak.

they are looking for ways of building up that student number so:

, ''-~--- / ./~I
....., ---_.. /

they can come back to the Legislature and get appropriations.
I: ;; Now I don't mind my tax money going to help some kid that could
<,
1:
just barely get through the twelfth grade or he had to stop to

work about the tenth grade in some little low paying job. I

" don't mind my tax money helping him to get to be Joe, a, good

auto mechanic or an electrician or something like to whe~e he
I
can improve his income. But I sure as heck hate to see my money I
go to support this college student at the colleges spending
'1 their time teaching these little old things that don't mean a

hill of beans about people earning a living. We've got too

many people that need to earn a living that need to be taught
,,
how to earn a living. And to me that's what we set out to do

1< in August of 1960. We let the first contract for the first

___ .

._ _ .__ .

~

.

i - - - - - J

.,:;7:V/f<c,
~,\ \
."~~-t'f-:;;,J ,~\ ;-ry
/

PACE 31

- - -_.._.- - - I ._-.,-~

--~---

Area Tech School in this state and that was in Augusta. The

first one completed was the one in Albany though, Monroe Tech

down there. We called it Ben White, Benjamin White. He was

the director of that thing. We set out with one thing in pur-

pose and that was to take individuals and enroll them in course$

that they had the potential to be successful in and to teach

them ,~hatever knowledg" whatever English they need, whatever

Mathematics they need for that particular occupation. It might

take two weeks, it might take six months to teach those two

subjects to them. But then also have them develop the manipular

tive skills to get a job. Now the HighrChool program helps

people get a job to the extent of an entry level, Joe. I guess

that's the language that's used. An entry level skill, but they

want highly skilled and that's where your Area Tech school comes

in to me. If they graduated from HigHfChoOl and have anentry

level skill, they're not going to go out and make a thousand

dollars a month that first year. But if they can make four or

five hundred dollars a month that first year and let them get

into night school or day school and work at night, whatever

arrangements they want to and keep themselves enrolled, get

enrolled in a Tech School and improve that skill, they're going

to improve their earning capacity. That's the whole reason

for being at the very beginning of the Area Tech School program

and the comprehensive HighfChOOl program that we started in

'66, '69. I think we sometimes -- and I used to argue with my

counterparts across this country in National meetings about thi, business. You can't have an institution that will be sll thing~ to all people. You've got to stand for something in theinstit1l1tion. Now you take an institution that has a good rep and the students getting a job when they finish. You don't have to h worry about that school being successful in the future. It's going to be successful. You get a class of thirty kids coming out of a particular trade area and twenty-five or twenty of them get a job in the area exactly what they were trained maklil ing a good salary and five or six of the othersin a job related occupation. That's the best money you can invest.
DR. FREUND: I think my concept goes a little beyond that. I believe in most of education but especially vocational , education we are spending taxpayer's money not for the benefit
~
.~ of that individual but for the benefit of me, the taxpayer. I
,
~ want to have that person trained not to fix his own car, but so he can fix my car and that there are trained mechanics, that
[. there are trained physicians out there at, from Augusta Medical I" College that if someone wants to go to school for their own ::u enjoyment like macrame or something like that or dancing or i guitar playing, they ought to pay for it. But if it's going to ., be for the benefit for the whole population then the taxpayer
ought to pay for it. We could pass more bond issues if we had more people believe in that I think. Because old people bene" fit from' education by having trained people around.

DR. NIX: This is what I used to tell the local I supertendants. Joe. I said. "The best thing you've got here
in your c~tnty, your best public relations is your Vocational Program, particularly your co-op programs". Because you are sending a student out to work in a person's office and if they do a good job, if you send him a good student, then you've got a real supporter of education. But you better not send him out a sorry one, one that can't spell or punctuate or things of that nature.
DR. FREUND: And he's then paying taxes too if he's 1 i making good money too.
DR. MUlLINS: It's good that you've got all of these
.1
practical thinkers who have been delving in these things for years and this guy here is. you know, the tops. But you know we're dealing with a great number of the variables that ultimate,.;' 1y lead us into this question of governments . That's wh~re we
t.
are moving right now with, I think, most of this conversation. I'm not reaching a conclusion. I'm just saying it's going that 'I way. You take, and I agree with Joe and with Jack, that if )" you've got post-secondary under the Regents you've got problems. You've got some problems if you've got post-secondary under the State Board because each have certain missions that this particu1ar program crosses over and it becomes a difficulty. That doesn't conclude a third board. It doesn't conclude anything else. It does say that there are some difficulties in here.

:'AGE

Take an example. Vern Crawford realizes that he's going to have 'i
, to do something about how they fund higher education; how do i

they get their money for higher education. If you keep going

on the fulltime equivalent student you've got some problems.

So he's looking at program. It makes a lot of sense to look
(.
at program. Because it doesn't cost as much to teach a course

in curriculum and supervision as it does to teach a course in >~ I laser technology. The equipment itself demands higher cost for

one program compared to another. But if you don't have that

kind of mechanism then if education has got all of the students
I,)
2:
~ they've got all of the money in their minds, you see. And thi~

~"1 ..::r:

'~9.\'~\

~: is happening. You've got more people going to the college of

:: !Et~1))r"'.':'" education than you've got going to Georgia Tech. So as a re-

"

./

I

" ~: sult you've got some problems with the funding mechanism here.

(:'

"L'

1; :~ But not only that, the philosophy, if the University System is

.<

"<.'!,

1()

2".,
(-"

therefore

developing

the

academicians

and

the

professional

<

17 ~j

.)n,;

people

who

are

going

to

enter

in

and

provide

for

research

etceti

ra as opposed to being the technician who carries out the re-
!'J
sults of their missions, then they are not going to give as
)'1
much attention. and there's going to be something lost to the

post-secondary movement. But then, as long as we have what we

have got, and that is the reality. we can't talk about what

could necessarily be right now. As what we have, it does say

that there is going to have to be something perhaps a little

bit different or either we must change this whole funding mech-

I'AGE 35

I anism, because the philosophy up top isn't what guides. It's
I the dollars down at the bottom and where they go that determine

what's going to be.

DR. NIX: Let me add something, Jim. Not only the

last statement there, but organization doesn't make success.

People make it successful. So I don't care what you write into

the Constitutional statutes. And I used to tell the State

Board of Education over there, "We can sit over here and pass

all the rules and regulations and policies we want to, but the

tf' guys out there in those local systems are the ones that are

! i .. going to make it work or not work". c.

DR. MULLINS: That's a fact.

,

.\

""1 :11 C "I

';;:"=--_1 / /

DR. NIX: So I think the best thing to do is come up

with what would theoretically would be the best structure and

hopefully that the right people will get into the slots that

are supposed to make it work.

DR. MULLINS: Right.

MELVIN HILL: Well that leads us into our next

question.

qIAIRMAN THORNHILL: Moving right along. Very good,

Mel.

MELVIN HILL: "Should the Constitution provide for

greater centralization and coordination of vocation technical

education programs?" This is governments.

DR. MULLINS: That is governments.

!'ACi' 36

MELVIN HILL: This is what we were leading toward.

So what is the feeling of the panel?

DR. NIX: Well as I read that whoever drafted that

question or submitted something along that line, they are think~

) ing of a third Board.

MELVIN HILL: Not necessarily. No, no, I don't think

you could conclude that the Board would be --

DR. NIX: Oh, are you thinking that the State Board

of Education ought to assume the responsibility for operating

the area Tech?
I
7.
MELVIN HILL: Well that's one option. No, well I

'-- ,wasn't thinking about operation so much. Whether the Constitu-

:;:: tion should in fact express where the primary responsibility for
;J)

1 : vocational education should be. You know clearly. We've
<, 1:
I '~. already discussed it to some extent whether there should be

:.1

,:!' "

some

jurisdiction

or

what.

,J.

DR. NIX: I think it ought to be with the State Board;

of Education.

MELVIN HILL: With the State Board.

DR. MULLINS: Well I answered that question, "Yes".

I didn't designate which, you know, method. In fact we've got

a little report here I'll leave in your hands that indicates

seven alternatives that comes anything from the controversial

of third boards down to combinations of things, that, you know,

are some bit meaningless. But, yes, I definitely think there's

PAC;E 37

going to have to be some shared governments though.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: David.

MR. MORGAN: I don't believe that -- of course, it 'I would depend on how you phrased it. I'm not quite sure what you:

would have in mind to indicate that greater centralization is

needed. I agree with Mel. I think we have talked before whe-

ther you should mention vocational education in the responsibi-

lity in the State Board of Education. Now I agree with that,

but I don't know whether less or more centralization is needed.

IU
In other words you are prescribing what sort of -- In the
t')

1: ~ Constitution, you know, the way I read the question you could

,U

, . ) 'Y.

,...~l!{<'1'

',. possibly be saying that we need to set up an organizational

( "1\,\ (~,

r-<!'!!','" '.'

~., '".=~/:: framework. I don't believe that should be in the Constitution.'

. / " ,

-

! .J

DR. FREUND: I don't believe it should be in the

'J Constitution to have a specific organizational framework similat

:>

;

'n

iI' Z

~ to the reasoning I gave in the answer to "the first question

0')

",:)..

I, "1' that changes can be rapid and we can't even imagine what the

.~
;,',
changes will be and that could put us into a restricting sit-

uation which may nQt ~llow for good operation. In looking at

this the State Board of Education and the Board of Regents have

a fairly good working relationship and a means of coordination,

a sharing of facilities and a number of things. We have an

even larger threat to the waste of money and that's the CETA

Programs that are run without any coordination or by a junior

college that does not report to the Board of Education or the

Pl\(II.': 38

Board of Regents that they can go run, have or construct prog-

) i rams any place they want right next to our programs and dupli-

cate efforts.

DR. NIX: That goes back to '62 when Kennedy got ARA

~ through the Redevelopment Act and started those programs back

{ then, Joe, then MDTA and now CETA, you know. I kept trying to

tell them, "You know you've already got the framework in the

States " ,you know. 'If they'd just a funneled it in the right

manner, that money could have gone a lot further than What it's

gone.

,

DR. FREUND: Now they're setting up dual school

Q :>.
~

,4.'fyY!i..4 . .;, systems --Systems for training of people within the schools

/? .. \\.

~.

I\ I,,\,,1,1":.__..')j')If co,'.'"''',

0
.J

and

adjoining

the

schools

and

after

the

schools

run

by

the

\ ' ,...... ~

,1/1,./

<..")

,. Department of Labor.

~'

.:

1.

VICKIE GREENBERG: These are under the CETA Program?

'J

':">

1( ~

DR. FREUND: Yes, and part of the problem they say

.~

c!

7.

)1 &; is that education is not responsive so they set up a new system,

I
DR. MULLINS: That's what you call lobbying Washingto~

to get it changed.

DR. FREUND: Instead of working with the system they

abandoned the system.

..,"!

DR. NIX: No, I'll tell you why that came about. Be-

cause we've had stronger Secretaries of Labor in Washington for '", the last fifteen years than we've had Secretaries of HEW, that' ~

exactly why. We had some in the 60's, in the early 60's in

39

particular, we had some weak HEW Secretaries and some strong,

you know, Goldberg in the Labor Department, you know, Secretary

of Labor. He was strong. He's the guy that got all this stuff

started about CETA and that philosophy; education is not doing

it so we've got to give it to Labor, they know what to do with

it.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Well this new Department of Educa-

tion, do you think this'll change it?

DR. NIX: No, because it's not going to be a very

strong department.

!;

DR. MULLINS: I don't think so. No. I believe the

12 " Republican platform on that .
.'
DR. FREUND: The way it was originally conceived but

I,,;: then the politics got involved and much of their program

strength that was supposed to be in the Department of Education
.'i
1(i has been pulled out and given to the Department of Agriculture,
the Department of the Interior, the Department of Labor. Every~

one's running the education program.

,,/

VICKIE GREENBERG: But even

DR. MULLINS: Even wit~in education we have the

emergency Schooi Aid Act where you have the NPO's. You know

this is basically the same thing that they are doing and you

are finding that more is going in these areas than would be

going into the actual school situation.

VICKIE GREENBERG: But in Georgia education is also

PAGE 40

under the Department of Human Resources, right?

DR. MULLINS: What?

VICKIE GREENBERG: The Department of Human Resources.

DR. MULLINS: What about it?

DR. NIX: They have an educational program, special

education.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Aren't they also running special

schools?

DR. FREUND: And the Department of Corrections.

i'j

MS. COOK: They are training centers.

DR. FREUND: And the Department of Labor.

-'

DR. NIX: See the Congress is writing a lot of these

vo1ved.

1S .."1

DR. MULLINS: Section twenty and that type of thing.

,,'l

':",

~ () .~

DR. NIX: Build up more beurocracy. And that causes

u

C,

-i.:

~" the poor teacher out there then to have to fill out forms for

:~ all the different categories of people, you know, and they

19 don't have time to teach little Johnny.

DR. MULLINS: Governor Busby will find that out

21 though.

MEL HILL: We can't address that problem until we

rewrite the Federal Constitution.

DR. MULLINS: We'vegot all the Constitution --

DR. NIX: Well we can elect some more Congressman

PAGE 41

and Senators. Tying in with this one, Mr. Chairman, about

centeralization under Item (c) there. I think you already have

provisions for contractural arrangements between the Regents

and the State Board of Education. I don't much believe you

need anything in the Constitution because the statutes can take!

'J care of that.

DR. MULLINS: Well if we're going to (c) on that,

you know it does say, "encourage cooperation", and I think I

said in one other meeting when the same question came up that

],1 "encourage cooperation" has no meaning. Basically as much mean-
.-.,
ing as agreements has. Because agreements can be made and can
"
~
f'" :< be broken without any recourse in law. Because agreement is

c-

'.'.J
u

just an agreement.

We've found that between DHR and the Depart~

,. ment of Education. It hasn't existed yet between Regents and
"
1-;~: Board to my knowledge but it very well could. Once Joe works

with his counterparts in the Chancellor's office and they come
<
';i up with one of these cotmlunity college type set-ups. who then

is the controlling factor, after the money is put in. Who's

, property is it on. Who's administration is it under. Then

what obligations -- What if Joe then decides with his other

counterparts in the Department that, "Okay. we've done all of

this, but we now see the need for a new direction. So where-

as we started that and we've been supporting it with our fair

share up until this time. We're going elsewhere". What's
,
going to prevent their doing that, you see?

DR. NIX: Jim, excuse me for interrupting you on

this thing, but --

DR. MULLINS: Yeah.

DR. NIX: I think the agreement, once Joe and his

counterparts work it uP. as I envision the thing, and I guess (; Charlie Mack does the same thing. I have Joe sign off on it
7I
and he'd bring it to me and my Board would approve it, the

State Board, this agreement and Crawford would do the same

thing with the Regents and once the two Boards signed off on

it and approved it, it would be an official part of their min- ,
'-z"
II ~ utes that they've approving it. Now the contract ought to

~
:"' ':..
~"'41\ ". ~ specify who's going to finance cons truction and wh::>' s going
;"LJ))r'!"!.''o ,~ to finance the equipment and who's going to hire the teachers ';

]},
,n and so on down the line. So I don't see that Joe could just

'( :1"

IS ~ all of a sudden back out of it . .,

i (- f~
~,
,:)
z. <

DR. MULLINS: Oh, no, no.

DR. NIX: Because it would embarress his Board, his

Supertendant.
,)
DR. MULLINS: Oh, no. no. I wasn't saying that. I

was just using the example of the, "what if"? and the"what if"

still applies. Yes, it is true that when they do these things

it's said that the Department is going to put up so much money

for capital outlay, so much money for equipment, the college is

going to put up so much money for grounds and administration and

personnel and so much for equipment and M & 0 cost and such.

rr-----------

PAGE 43

Ii

i
i

!i So that's very definitively determined. Then they come over I

~

IiiI
Ii

across

the

street

to

Budget and

they

ask for money

to

,I
carry outi

Ii

; :1
I this agreement. All right, General Assembly gives them the

!

i money and they carry it out. Now there's got to be something

that continues after that. Then it becomes part of a continua-'

tion funding item, thus

DR. NIX: And thus a part of their budget.

DR. MULLINS: -- yeah, but if you don't ask for that
.I
9 in your continuation funding, you need to redirect those dollar~

~ into other priority needs into either of the two categories,
7:
1] ~
",') I don't think that there would be anything binding that would
"-,-
l""1 r:
j - .' hold you into that in the future.

DR. NI}{: No, but I tell if I wa~ in Charlie's place

I /~ ,)-- and Crawford didn't have it in his budget request,I'd let the

,-

15 ,"~

",
;::t'

General

Assembly know

it when

I

got

before

them

for

my

budget

-'

1I,

."~.',
"

and

I

bet

you

Crawford would

let

them know

that

I

hadn't

asked

<,--

!I

,,"' if)

for

it in my budget

too,

if I

was

DR. FREUND: Crawford's budget you can't tell.

DR. MULLINS: That's right.

DR. NIX: I know, but if you asked for it from the

General Assembly and it's your budget and it's line item, be-

cause you have more of line item budget than any of the Depart-

ments of State Government, it's a line item in your budget,

appropriation in your budget and then you put it up and they

don't fulfill their end of the stick, then it comes back to thei

4 4 'j-. ' A . (l"'.}.~' room downstairs, the appropriations room and the Legislature

will make the decision then as to whether the Regents are going

to live up to it or they're not going to live up to it.

DR. FREUND: That' would be a quick way for them to

get line items.

DR. NIX: It sure would.

DR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in favor

of (c). It may be because I think I'm partially responsible

'} for it being in there. So I may be the only one speaking for

:u it. My memory serves me, and it's only very limi ted memory,
and there are others, especially Dr. Nix would have better
o
J' " recollections. In the recent past it has been my experience u ". that often the Board of Education and the Board of Regents have

seen their responsibilities in the Constitution or in the sta-
<
15 ,~ tutes and have narrowly seen them and have sometimes refrained
o
C<
~ !ll' from taking the initiative to seek out the other Board to work o." T
17 ~ together on a project, saying, "Well that's not our responsibi-

lity to do that, that's theirs and let them worry about it".

i. I .)

In the two cases that I can think of where the two Boards have

~;) I actively worked together, one on the joint agreements betw~en

21 Vocational Technical Schools and Colleges, I believe there was

,~ per -- that case and also the case of the recent establishment

.:.: of the liaison committee between the two Boards -- that these

:.1 were two events that were triggered by Governors that were in

.~s some cases forced by Governors saying, "We're going to have

PAGE 45

these types of schools working together", and in the other

case saying, "We want these two Boards that have worked in the

past previously on the liaison committee, but that committee

is now defunct and I'd like to get it started again", and it

happened in the basement of this building. So I agree with

, Jim that it would not have any power to make them do something,

but I think it would speak to them, saying, "You should be

working with the other Board actively and it shpuld not take a

:, Governor to step in and make you do it". I have something in

i'.l mind on the order of, after mentioning the two boards and their,

,"
z

I

1t ,".- responsibilities, saying that these two Boards shall work to-

.J gether to enhance educational opportunities of the state citi-

zens. And in my comments I do not mean to say, and I think Dr.

;: Nix understands, that I'm criticising his administration at all, ,<'
but, and I'd like for him to correct me on any of that.

J (I L~I

,.U

DR. NIX: Well in the Spring of 1966 Mr. Peters and

"

~ -I
"' Bob l-Jright, Chairman and Vice Chairman of the State Board of

Education told me to go see Chancellor Simpson to see if we

could get us a program started. I don't know whether you

found that in your study or not, but anyway Jimmy Dunlap from

Gainesville was Chairman of the Board of Regents at the time

and John Langdale down at Valdosta was vice Chairman and we

used to meet at the old Athletic Club. Some of you people

from out of state and new people around here don't even know

where that thing is. It's gone now. But we used to meet over

PAGE 46 I and we'd have dinner and talk about, you know, what problems 2 we were having and we did that once a quarter. We kept that up
for about two years I guess ~d then it just kind of dwindled away and we didn't keep going. I really don't know what caused us to drop out but anyway out of all of that came this basic 1\ two year program at the colleges. We were concerned at that time about getting enough teachers. They were just not turning ~ them out and we didn't like the idea of having to give provision, al certificates in the Fall and just get any good housewife> \0 you know, to come in and teach and as a substitute too, you
',:)
it L know,sometimes clear on up to Christmas. You remember that don't you. It was tough staffing the schools. So we talked to them. Fred Davidson was Vice Chancellor at the time. We talked to them about coming up with something where if they
<,
:r: came from a Junior College, they would have already been intro-' duced to the field of education. And I think all of the Junior i Colleges now offer at least one course in education or they used to. Do they still do it? DR. MULLINS: I'm not sure. DR. NIX: I think they have one that they offer and it's a -- the same is supposed to be the same thing allover the system. It's just an introduction to education, the profession, teaching, public education and so forth. Hopefully trying to alert some of them at an early stage, you know, that they would: select teaching then as their major then at the senior colleges~

PAGE 47

We started out doing some of those things, but then the Univers~

ity system started growing by leaps and bounds and they could
,
keep their head above water and to house the students that they!

were getting. But I suspect now with the student population

in the colleges across the country dimenishing. There are ways

'j that would get their attention, you know, to get more students.

MELVIN HILL: Dr. Freund, let me ask you something.

Do you think a statement in the Constitution that would speci-

fically authorize the State Board and the Board of Regents to

1) contract with one another for the provision of vocational educa-

I,

..c' ~

tional services would be either necessary or recommended?

That

."

'1

'.~ ;.J

would do what

David would

like

to

do,

I' think.

is mention it

and would specifically authorize it. Is there any worry that
": I' " contracting between these two bodies might not be authorized
~
r
I'; :j and therefore it's subject to challenge at some point? And if

c, we included a specific authorization for enter contracting be-
,..
.oj tween those two Boards for this purpose that that would solve
j ~:
any potential problems?

DR. MORGAN: I'd like to respond. I don't think it

would solve my problem particularly because you are speaking

of just vocational education and it seems to me there are a

number of other areas the State Board and the Board of Regents

can and often work together on; teacher preparation perhaps.
.,'.-1
So I -- I

DR. MULLINS: We will separate that.

DR. MORGAN: That's another issue. I personally

wouldn't be in favor of restricting it, Mel, to just vocational;

DR. FREUND: The Board of Education contracts now

with the Board of Regents for the provision many services. We

do it for staff development, research, working development.

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of millions of dol-

lars.

DR. NIX: Yeah, we use a million or two dollars every!

year, teacher training contracts, vocational benefits.

10

u

1~

_.
,...~
:..1.

allowed.

DR. MULLINS: Yeah, that's already, like you say, DR. FREUND: There's other parts of the Department of

Education that also has many contracts for test development,

validation of instruments, --

1~
'.'/

DR. MORGAN: Television.

~

;<)

:.;1
7

'"

DR. FREUND: Television, yeah. So I don't know I'm

/.

l~

",;'
" not

a

Constitutional

lawyer

and

know

if

it's

necessary.

If it'~

not in the Constitution we can't do it?
,q
MELVIN HILL: Well there's a broad governmental con-

tracting provision in Article Nine that would probably cover

your situation. I don't personally feel it's necessary, but if

it were added it would at least indicate the desirability of

a contract between the two Boards. But I don't know. It's

being done already and the authority is there already. Perhaps:

you should be silent.

PAGE 49

DR. FREUND: Right. Maybe it's not necessary.

MELVIN HILL: Yes.

DR. FREUND: Guard against restrictions. You know

f we've got so many restrictions that you can't do anything in

most situations or you can't do something because of ten re-

strictions. Then you have to have a form printed. And you

can't get a form printed until twenty people approve it and

'< then you have to get it through the budget and another twenty

people approve it and by that time it's not needed anymore.

{\

; DR~ MULLINS: The Constitution, if you want to deal

- with the Constitution, I would guess. where you are going to

have to have authority given where it can't be accomplished at

this particular time and if you've got two Constitutional bodie$,

I -~ State Board and Board of Regents,and they are now both in the

~, business of vocational technical education, which comes under
::J
. the category of post-secondary education, and if there are dif-

.~ ficul ties in duplication, if there are difficulties in not being

able to relate to say other kinds of facilities because of pre-

l} I sent attitudes so that we have duplication not just of personne]

2t, or of programs, but of facility alike. Then something needs to

be done to empower somebody to make some kind decision after

these things may have already been put in place. Now if it's

before~and, you can do something, but once it's built and under

the power of a Constitutional authority they govern how it's

going to be used and who is going to have access to it. It's

:'ACE 50 i
not according to, you know, how the thing was developed. Now
'1
that leaves us, I think, we've got (c) and (d), which are reallt not that different except one is just making sort of a sugges- : tion to encourage and the other one is just saying do you do it~ On that one I still say that if we're going to envision this thing that Governor Busby insists upon happening, and that being that the Regents and the Board will meet and do their legislative, I mean their discussions and their liaison meetings, I you could. And that is an alternative. I'm not suggesting that this be it because if I had, I would be just the opposite of Jack. I would go for a third Board if I had my druthers, but and include the kind of people necessary to make the kind
\
of long range kind of decisions and plans that Joe talks about ., as the changing state of technology comes upon us. But we're , not going to get there. That's not very realistic. There is
resistance from that within the House, the Senate, the Governor.. the leaders in every division. So I don't even think that's worth the discussion. But on the other side there are some alternatives that might be a little more appealing and I'm not saying that what I am going to say is appealing at all. I say .. 1 as an example. If you have a liaison empower them. Don't encourage them. Empower them to make decisions. Have an equal
,'3
number, three from the Board, three from the Regents. Let them make decisions relative to vocational technical education" not from an advisory standpoint but from a plenary mandatory

PAGE 51

decision point of view and that would be impinged back upon
i
.I
both Boards. But they would be coming from both of those Board,

with their entire staff's advice as to what might need be done

on the issues to agenda. In that manner you might be able to

overcome many of the kinds of problems that seemingly are with

us now and perhaps we are going to have in the future. I do

think personally that we are going to need some mechanism and

only the Constitution can address that mechanism because of the:

two Constitutional authorities that can't abridge one another.

DR. NIX: But, Jim, you have a Governor and you have

I! ... a Legislature. And if you have two Constitutional Boards and

~ "I

:!~

/~;9\U~ ' . both of them have to face the Legislature for funds, both

~(~6~))r"""" " Boards, I think there's some question as to whether or not you -,- . -.-,/ ~

could let say three members obligate all ten of them or all fif~

teen of them. If you're going to try to give them power to act

and bind the rest of the members of the Board, I think you're

getting on something a little dangerous there. The other thing

is the Governor nominates and the Senate confirms the members

on both these Boards. Now if they would do more than select

someone because of who he voted for and who she voted for or th~

person. I think that' the way. If they would select a person

on the basi's of that person's ability to think and to do what's

right, then the Senate, when they have a hearing for the con-

firmation should let them know that they expect this to take

place. Now having said that, it is a simple thing for the Gov-

PAGE 52

ernor to have the administration legislation introduced and if

he did I am sure in an area like this the Legislature would

pass it almost unanimously and without saying by statute that

they would have to work together, which I think would perhaps

get at what you are talking about.

DR. MULLINS: I think it would fall in the face of

Constitutionality though. A statute can't abridge the Consti-

, tution.

DR. NIX: Yeah, but the Legislature can pass a sta-

" tute saying that the State Board of Education and the State

! J Board of Regents should meet periodically or that connnittees r:-, of the two should meet periodically and submit annual reports

to the General Assembly and to the Governor as to what they

met and what, you know, they did.

DR. MULLINS: Well they could resolute them, but I

:) ,~ don't think they could statute them.
{;)
VICKIE GREENBERG: We could put a broad provision in

the Constitution under the Preamble saying the educational

system of Georgia shall be managed by the State Board of Educa-

Jj tion and the State Board of Regents or any combination thereof,

" would that --

DR. MULLINS: I believe Jack might fight that one,

wouldn't you?

'1

DR. NIX: No. Oh, Lord yes. You're going to mess up

.'S everything with that.

_ _ _--- -----_.-._,--- .. ..

.. ~---_._._--

.. ---._~-~----~---------

_~--_._--~-----_.-._--_._._~

PAGE 53

VICKIE GREENBERG: Okay, wait. The Board of Regents

only gets involved in issues of the State Board or issues of

!: vocational education when it comes to sharing facilities, right

DR. FREUND: No.

VICKIE GREENBERG: There's others?

DR. FREUND: They run some of their own programs.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Why sh -- that's the question,

why should the Board of Regents really

",

DR. MULLINS: Dollars.

l(j

VICKIE GREENBERG: Pardon?

(~

DR. MULLINS: Dollars.

,,,::.

1" ':"r:

DR. FREUND: In their Community Colleges they run --

VICKIE GREENBERG: They run the program. But it's

" '>- also because of the physical structure isn't it?

I',

,~)

DR. FREUND: Well they have licensed practical nursin,

i~

: l)

,z~"
1",1

and we

have

licensed

practical

nursing.

They have dental hy-

(:1

L

,")~. giene, no we don't have dental hygiene programs yet. But they

have those kinds of associate degree programs that you can get

)'! an associate degree to or you don't need to, courses in busines$

office, education. We are accused of duplicating efforts in 2J Albany at Albany Junior College. They have a rather large

business education program with typewriters where people sit , ., down and learn how to be secretaries and typist. They can also

go over to the Area Vo-Tech school. We have typewriters and

they can sit down and learn how to be secretaries there. Un-

Ii
I

54

fortunately in that situation neither facility is so larg,e thd,C

we are having unneccessary duplication of effort, but the

possibility does exist that both institutions in Swainesboro

could have too many preparation of too many secretaries or too

big a lab space with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of

I, equipment and over at the Vo-Tech School have the very same

thing. They can duplicate. So there does nt;;cJ to be some

kind of coordination or the taxpayer's money can be wasted.

'I As a matter of fact we think Swainesboro Junior College is going

HI to start a marketing program and we have a marketing program

at Swainesboro Tech.

; l ..

I

~. j

DR. NIX: Well is that that's for survival though.

DR. FREtmD; Un hunh. So there is a possibility there

i~ that in the future the taxpayer's money can be wasted unless

l:~~. there is some coordination. Now through the Liaison Committee

we thought we had a way of resolving this and the staff develop-

ed a system where we would start out at the local level and re-

quire local people to get together where there is a Junior Col-

lege and aVo-Tech syatem in close proximity and are serving

basically the same service area.and that any new program they

wOuld have to aSree on, who was going to operate that pror,ram.

It would then come to the L1aiaon Comnittee, three members of

each, and that only if it was approved by the Liaison Committee

would it go to the respective Board dor approval. Now the State

Board of Education approved that. The Board of Regents would

- .. .. .._-,----- ,.------... .. "-~--_ ~------.- ._._~-_._

_----~._~-_

_

..

PAGE 55

- - - - - - - - , . _ - - - - - - - - - ; ---"~-~----"'-

.

not approve that. They said that is usurping their authority i

1

to operate any program when and where they want to.

DR. MORGAN: Well let me add to that. That's just

the two public sectors of post-secondary education trying but

failing in a sense to get together. That leaves out our pri-

vate colleges in the State and our profit making schools we

know as propietary, such as Massey Bussiness College.

DR. NIX: Yeah, but we ought not mess up with those

-- No, sir. Don't put anything in the Constitution that's

going to get the State Board of Education and the State Board

,c.'
1\ ;: of Regents into the business of private education.

...()
0.

,,

)' ~

DR. MORGAN: No, I didn't. I just meant to point outl

i
i

that even with those two working together they were just talkin~

i
11 ,~ about duplicating among themselves. They didn't have to take i

"J:
,~,

into

account

what

private

institutions

were

offering

in

the

e,
lJ ~: area that may have further duplicated effort.
(.)

DR. NIX: Now your talking about this business of

I
i' coordination, the Regents didn't do such a good job of coordinat
i
ting thems elves. lfuat they did in Savannah. They bui1t two

colleges. They did the same thing down in Albany even after

..:1 the racial business was already before us and all they built

",) that second college in Albany.

,,
~\

DR. FREUND: And they talked about building one in

Athens.

DR. NIX: Yeah, I know it. I don't mean to be criti-

PAlr1'; 56

1-,-----

--~-.-.. --.------.-- - ' ,

cal of the Board of Regents, but they've just got an awful lot I

of money in the last decade or two that I think could have been

~ used part of it for public education.

DR. MULLINS: Well I really appreciate some support

for my view because what you're saying is you can't trust

h either one of them. You've got to put them together, you see.

MELVIN HILL: Joe, do you think that anything should 1
be added to the Constitution to try to address the problem you '

() face- or it's not appropriate1

10

DR. FREUND: We did reach a compromise on that and

) J ~: that is that all applications will go to the Board with the
,.~)

:; f i\~li,/-- "....'7'.V. ~b.~(j
'. ~;L."'-._>f

1.'
e'"""'D

'"
.c.J.:
Si

recommendation from the now is cause each Board

Liaison to jump

Conunittee and what it will do through two more complete sets

- './'

.i

14 ~ of hoops before a new program is implemented at a time of de-

r
15 :, creasing enrollment -- not in the Vo-Tech Schools their enCO ;:.:
C>
16 ~a rollments continue to increase, but the availability of people 7 .;,
l" .~ in that age bracket is decreasing. I think all State agencies

18 need to jump through a few more hoops before we start new pro-

l'-J i grams.

MELVIN HILL: So in other words you've worked out

I
i

[
21 the problem basically under the present system and so you don't,

2' see a change necessary?

23

DR. FREUND: I have no reason to believe that it will'

I

I

not work. But I don't know that.

i

VICKIE GREENBERG: So there would be no more duplica-iI
!

PAGE 57

I: tion of services and there will be a clear delineation of authority between the Board of Regents, the State Board of Edu-

, cation and all their programs1

. DR. NIX: He didn't say that.

DR. FREUND: As long as honorable people work togethet.

DR. NIX: Now that's it.

DR. FREUND: That will work.

...
u

DR. MULLINS: You see that's the whoLe thing about

9 it. When you set up an organizational structure, you can't

III think about the good people that you 'have in office now. They
7
II TI may not be there later. Some other kind dastardly person may
."
1) ;~ come in and cause all kind of havoc.

C,,,T,,,,.r..
.'

DR. FREUND: Yeah, but you can't legislate against

.1 >- every dastardly deed.

I.) ~)
~."

DR. MULLINS. No.

i: ~:

DR. FREUND: They'll think up new ones.

c-..,.

l ; :.t.

DR. MULLINS: Basically the .observable ones.

." '

DR. NIX: Anymore than a~l ministers preach everybody:

into heaven, you can't do that. DR. FREUND: But I would caution you against getting

too specific where you do not have the possibility of changing I

with the times. If you have a new Constitution and it gets approved by the general population., we're going to be stuck with it for twenty-five years and what this world's going to

look like in the year 2005 none of us has the vision of seeing.

P1 GE 58
-----',

DR. NIX: Specificity ought to be limited.

I

,I

2

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Authority through Constitution

and regulated through statutory provisions
"

4

DR. NIX: Right.

,

5

MELVIN HILL: Do you think the Board of Regents would!

Ii I I

(, object to a provision that we were talking about earlier to

vest in the Board of Education responsibility for vocational

education programs?

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: They shouldn't.

DR. FREUND: Yes, I think they would.

,,
~ ~ ...,.

MELVIN' HILL: Because it would impinge on what they

>:

C

"-

I ~ ~; see to be their --

~.'9XI1.ti"

"

. i\("'~\-~__":~'l)/\'i.I r-~'"'''"

C
is
9-

DR. FREUND:

It's a very minor part of their program

1 i ~: now, maybe 2%, but I expect that they anticipate it will inv; < I:
IS ~ crease and there is whe~e, if it does increase tremendously,
''.-x""
j(, :~ this is where we have the possibility of duplication of effort. ::>

I' :;

MELVIN HILL: Well did you and David respond to (d),

18 question (d)?

19 ,I

DR. MORGAN: My information, Joe, is that they are

,;0 on considerably more than 2%, especially in the Junior Collegesi,.
~
2J In some cases it approaches 50% of what I would call occupation~ I
71 al programs. So I

DR. NIX: But not joint enrollment.

DR. MORGAN: No,sir, not joint enrollment. So what

I was saying was, "Yes", I agree with Joe. I think they would

PAGE 59

object unless you define vocational to only mean things that ': are funded by Federal funds or something like that, which is

currently the only way they'd have, but in other words if it

appears that you are giving to the State Board of Education the I responsibility for everything in the State that is occupational~

ly oriented, no they wouldn't go along with that. Because many
(,
of their programs, as Joe has pointed out, are and it's increas~

ing that way.

')

DR. FREUND: I know how one state solved that and it

was by statute that all programs that require an associate

\.')
li ~ degree would be the responsibility of the Board of Regents, like
-1:
.~,; the medical lab technician in two years will require an associaie

, degree for accreditation. And so, then that would be their
'J v,
" .: responsibility. All programs that do not require an associate

L,~' degree would be considered vocational education and would then

I" '~be under the auspices of the State Board of Education by direct 'I"
)! :~ operation or by agreement. That is how one state solved it and I

they hassled this about three years ago. And I was in that

II' . state at the time.

DR. NIX: It kind of makes sense.

CHAIRMAN nIORNHILL: Mel, Dr.Nix is going to have to

), leave very shortly, could we go on and get into the next Sectio~,

'; Dealing with Exceptional Children and let him go on and give hi$

". responses and then we can excuse him.

DR. NIX: If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, let me just

PAGE 60
--.- -"~. -----,
tell you how I feel about each one of these things and then I'l~
1
leave and y'all can chew me up anyway you want to.

.1 I

MELVIN HILL: And anything else you want to respond

'\ to.

DR. MULLINS: Jack, you better respond to that (e)

too. You know, we never got to it.

7

DR. NIX: (e)?

DR. MULLINS: You know, on the "Should the Constitu-

tI I tion authorize the State Board of Education to contract with

:0 private educational institutions for vocational training?"

",-

DR. NIX: I don't have an (e) on mine.

MELVIN HILL: Oh, here you go.

DR. NIX: Oh, "Should the Constitution authorize th'e

1.4

~..., ;;,

State

Board

of

Education

to

contract with

private

educational

-<t;

] 5 ,~ institutions for vocational training?" ,0

!~:

::-'

..r;,;;

6]

.~

'

:'1

MELVIN HILL: This came out a Attorney General's

l

opinion. 1-,

<' 'L
".{)

1"

DR. NIX: Okay. I would say that under that particu-

i,) I lar -- and ,David, you'll be a little surprised --

DR. MORGAN: I'm listening, go ahead.

DR. NIX:

only if the private institution would

subject itself to minimum standards that the State Board of

Education requires its 9wn institutions to meet. Do you see

what I'm talking about, Joe?

DR. FREUND: Un hunh.

PAGE 61
------- -_.. __._-- - - - - - - - ,
DR. NIX: In othdr words there're a lot of fly by night
private schools and sOme place in this ,thing, in the Consti>tu-' II
.i,l
tion you ought to make it possible because the Legislature,

.t they haven't had the grit to bite the bullett on it in the

past because we drafted legislation in '67 and'68 to give the

" State Board of Education the authority to set minimum standards

for elementary and highfCh001S and vocational schools. We've

only got just a smattering of legislation through on it. We

l\ got absolutely nothing on it in elementary and secondary. So

the State Board of Education they can't set any minimum unless
':. '7
:' they've past it since I left down there. You can go out and
~

", start a school and hire anyone you want to to teach school.

1...

e'

I. w
'.'

And

no

one

can

say

anything

to

you

about

it.

There are many

.'.,.-, kids across this state that are being shortchanged because of
1-
15 ) that, both black and white. It was tough in the late sixties ~j r~ ~
and early seventies at the kids that were being shortchanged,
.:-
1 J.
: 7 ,. it really was. It's not so bad now. But I would say only

the Constitution -- I don't know that the Constitution ought

to even address private education. I think that can be in a

statute.

DR. MORGAN: In the Attorney General's opinion on

.- that and I've just looked at it. It's 67-29 by the way. It

seems that he's keying his objection to doing that based on

State statute on code.

MELVIN HILL: That's right.

__. ~

.~

..__~.

---J

PACE 62
DR. MORGAN: So if that is the case then that could

DR. NIX: Yes, I think tha t can be handled by s ta tu te;.

DR. MULLINS: Yeah, that's what my statement was.

DR. NIX: Okay. Let me, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair~

f) man, get number two, three and four right quick here.

"Should the Constitution contain any special provi-

" sions for schools for exceptional children?" Only to the. i iI
4 extent that the State Board of Education would be authorized

lu to establish the special schools that would not necessitate

1. ~: every system having one of those kinds of schools. For instance: :,.' ',' a deaf school or a blind school, every system can't operate u
one. You can't have that in Columbia County. But someplace

in the State the State Board ought to have the authority, if

. :;

15

<'~
Col:

we

have

special

people,

and

there's

always

a

small

number of

:oJ

ib

{
'c,",

them,

then

I

think

the State Board ought

to

have

the

authority



1
J

,:x;
"

to

establish a

special

school

for

unusual

individuals.

Rut now;

!."' if a local system can possibly do it the local system ought to

19 do it, not the state. I believe very strongly in local con-

trol.

21

(a) under that, "Should the provision of educational

opportunities for exceptional children be made primarily a

.".."" State obligation?" I'd say only as a part of the total funding

24 program. They might set up by formulae a different way of dis-

:' tributing the money to a local system. For instance if a child

PAGE 63 ! i,--~~-~~cep tional o;ha~iica;p-~d--~-;-~om~~~-y~~~-~;~~-~uld-~~ve-;h~-l

more dollars per child for instance. But that can be done by

statute or by appropriation or by State Board policy. I don't

know that you'd have to write it in the Constitution. "Should the responsibility of the State to provide
educational oppor,tunities for the handi,capped be specified?" Here again I'd say only as a part of the total re-

s sponsibility for all citizens. And I think that the State
'J Board should have the responsibility to provide public educatiolt
I
::, without discrimination agewise, colorwise, sexwise or anything'

else
..
c.r:

"Should the Constitution", Item 3, "contain any

special provisions for schools for adult education?"

I'm not quite sure. I think now Adult Education is by statute. I don't think it's mentioned in the Constitution ii- at all.

MELVIN HILL: Well it's one of the special schools that can be created by referendum locally by local legislation subject to a referendum. These three kinds of schools are

lumped together, the Vocational Trade Schools, the Schools for

Exceptional Children, and the Schools for Adult Education. All three of those are considered special schools which can be

created by local legislation subject to referendum and the question was whether there should continue to be a special provision to that effect in here or should it just be left

PAc;\"; 64

to statute and left to Board po1icy.in order to determine

DR. NIX: Well let me say this. Local Boards of

Education ought to have the authority to establish schools

for adults that for some reason or another did not complete an elementary school education or a hig~Ch001 education and/or

an occupational program regardless of their age because some of

the happiest people you run into are people with forty or fifty

years of age and all of a sudden they get a highfchool diploma i

from actually attending school. And I think that is just

marvelous and we ought not do anything that would prohibit somet
'I
thing like that. Okay.

Item Number 4, no I don't think that ought to be

L retained in the Constitution because that relates to these

four, five, six schools, Joe, and that's what that's referring
-
1,) to is like Lanier Tech. I think they ought to be turned over
~ to local Boards of Education
.'
7
Now could I comment on just two or three items

that I've mentioned here in the margin. In Section V under

i Local Systems, paragraph 1, we just didn't have the power be-

;; , hind us at the time we got that thing introduced to get it

.'.1 I passed without accepting that amendment. Fifty-one percent of

the registered voters. We never will get a school system

,'1 consolidated under that provision.

.'.1

CHAIRHAN THORNHILL: Let me tell you what this Com-

~~ mittee has done in respect to that. It is our recommendation

that fifty-one percent be eliminated.

PAGE 65
- - - - - - --- ---- ._-- - - - I

DR. NIX: That's mine too. Okay. That's good.

Now I'd suggest that you consider this. I don't know -- I

" haven't spent but just a day or two thinking about this. But

'- I would suggest that in some way -- and I think you need to

put it in the Constitution probably in some fashion -- that

the State Board of Education would have to submit a school

b district organizational plan to the Legislature at least once

q every twenty years or twenty-five years. At one time I had a

1ft school district organization drafted of fifty-four school dis-

;,,1

Jl

;:
;.:

tricts

in this

state and I

had the justification I

thought to

:>
".
~
I,' 0 put .it across, but I couldn't get anybody over here to even

"
"". :. look seriously at it. And you are not going to get much conso-:

, lidation in the administration and the op~ration of the public l~ schools of this state until some of the counties start consoli- l

,') i dating. The closest thing to that is Marian Sly in Webster '2"
c'
.~ County, where we've got that one highrchool to take care of all

of the students in three entire counties. But that is by con-

,,/ tract. That is strictly by contract. Now when that contract

.,,; expires I don't know what will happen but in some fashion the

Constitution ought to make it easier for citizens to consoli-

date. We need a hundred and eighty-seven school systems like

we need a hole in the head. A hundred would be a gracious

plenty in this state. Now I know, Mr. Superintendant-to-be,

that may not sound real fine, but it makes absolutely no sense

PACE 66~

to have one superintendant and one Board of Education operating' i
one school and we have those in the state. That's too expen-

sive. Jim can get up all the information on that for you.

An Item -- Let's see what was that? B under item 1,

I mean Item 2, where it says the General Assembly shall have

the authority to make provisions for local trustees. You

don't need local trustees. And I've already mentioned the one

under paragraph six.

The last thing I would say to you is this, whatever
,u
you do do not write that Constitutional provision to where you

i;

~.

have an appointed Board and an appointed State Supertendant

.,

;:';;,Y'1 \ I ~, I'll tell you why in just a minute. Had we had an appointed

1

,,!'~il:,;~)\r-"!'!''''''~ ~ State Superintendant and an ~ppointed State Board of Education

. __ .'

I

Lj

" in about '67 or '68, when John Mitchell, the Attorney General

1) ,.1:, brought suit against me and the State Board in eighty-one of
1() ~
r., the local school districts, we would have had chaos in this
I
~
; 7 ,<> state. Lester Maddox was governor at the time, bless his heart.

And he was easy to work with except in this one area. When
;9
, that suit was filed the'news people ran to Lester's office, or
)".
Governor Maddox I guess I should say. Put that in there. Say
_! 1' Governor rather than Lester. They ran to his office with their

television cameras running, "Governor, what have you got to say

about this?" Well the Governor said what one expected him to
',J
say. He said, "If I were the teachers I wouldn't teach and if

I were the children I'd let the air out of the bus tires".

PAGE 67 Well here they came across the street the newspeop1e, "What , have you got to say? Governor Maddox said " so and so? Now
,
" had I been appointed, do you know what I would have had to have' said? I would have had to have supported the Governor or walked out of that office. But I was a Constitutional officer and I got my office just like he got his. I was elected. And I could do what I thought was best and he couldn't touch me. And that's what I did. I said,"we'll abide by the law. I don't: like it but we'll abide by the law." Now another example as I told Governor Dunn in Tennessee one time when he talked to the chief school officers at our annual meeting and he was for an appointed superintendant.
..J. He appointed Mr. Stembridge up there and then fired him about four months after he made his speech in support of the appointed
I " .~ system, because Stembridge wanted to do what he thought was
,_~'
.1 '" best for education and the Governor wanted him to hire some Cl
I' ," of his po1itical cronies and he wouldn't do it. When an elected superintendant walks across the street
and stands before the Legislature. he can ask for whatever he ~i) thinks is right. He can come to this room and testify before
education committees for whatever he thinks is right. He doesn't have to ape a Governor. He doesn't have to mimrnick or quote his Board and try to take their position. He can say the Board's position is thus and so. but my position is so and so. Many times I would disagree with the State Board of Educa-

!i tion over there.

MELVIN HILL: But that's what's hanging up the

; Committee responsible for looking at this, the fact that the

't Executive Director of the State Board of Education is not 5 accountable to the Board that he's supposed to be adrninistering~

,>

DR. NIX: No. He administers. If he violates the

I law the Attorney General can kick him out of office. The State

h ! Board of Education can't kick him out of office and that's the

',j way'it ought to be. Now if you appoint the State Superintendant

u then you ought to get the Governor out of the business of
'.? 7
~ appointing the State Board.
;,
MELVIN HILL: You wouldn't object as long as one of

the two bodies were elected?

DR. NIX: Well my public position all the twplve

h ~ years I served as State Superintendant was that public educa-

,0

",

.~)

j (.

l~~
~,

tion was

too

big

a

business

and

too

important

for

people not

z':~

<'

:~ to have a vote on it"at some point. And that either the

State Superintendant or the State Board of Education ought to

1') be elected by popular vote, one addition. If ten members of the:

State Board of Education ran for their positions by popular

Jl vote they could run for Congress just as easy over aCongre'ss-

I ional District. Who would pay their dues or their entrance fee

and campaign for membership on the State Board of Education for

what $36.00 a day once a month or twice a month, whatever it is:.

> It doesn't make sense. But what would happen if you go to that!

PAGE 69
- --~------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
then they are going to want ten or fifteen, twenty thousand !

2 dollars a year a piece for being a member of the State Board

of Education and what are you going to have? You are going

to have ten administrators,one in every Congressional District

" trying to tell the Superintendants in that District what to

t, do.

'7

MELVIN HILL: What if they were selected by the local:

x elected Board Members1

DR. NIX: No, because I don't think that would do.

i') Too much cronieism would be involved in that. It makes more

,; sense to elect the superintendant. But if you are going to
;.1 l.
""' change it. If you are going to appoint, then you ought to let

the Legislature elect the State Board of Education .

MELVIN HILL: The Legislature or --

DR. NIX: ,The members of the Legislature, the members
,.
> of the Senate and the House in each Congressional District get
;:~ 7
together and elect the member that would serve that district.

MELVIN HILL: Oh, and that would satisfy you?

DR. NIX: No, I didn't say that would satisfy me.

\ MELVIN HILL: You would support that?

DR. NIX: No, I wouldn't support it.

MELVIN HILL: You wouldn't oppose that?

DR. NIX: That's the way they do the Highway Board

now.

MELVIN HILL: Well what's hanging up that committee? ,

l' j\CE 70

"~

~_._._.---,

i

It's not this Committee that's worrying about that, but they've!

1
been

DR. NIX: I've been misquoted to that Committee

somewhere. So I've gotten the word and-I told Judge Smith,

Sydney Smith, in the courthouse in Gainseville, I ran into him

one day. And he said, :"Jack, I understand that you would agree:

for the State Superintendant to be appointed". I said, "No,

,; Judge", and I says, "That's not right." So we had a little

discussion. I think Robin Harris may have said that I was

MELVIN HILL: It was corrected in that Committee.
;":'
Ii ~ Judge Smith indicated that you would only approve that only ::> 0.
J.~ .1 if the Board Members were elected.

2:

DR. NIX: But I tell whenever you stand before that

1'1 t; Appropriations Committee down there as a State Superintendant
.(
1:
15 .~ of Schools, it's good to stand there with the assurance that ..? )
I c, .i, they can't touch you, the Sta te Board can't touch you, you can (j
1; :; speak for the kids of the State without anybody interfering
i
with you. I got thirty-five million dollars in teachers salar-

le; ies one year when Jinnny Carter was fighting me tooth and toenail

o down there. Jim, I don't know if you remember that. You may

2) have been in the Department at the time. Anyway, Jimmy, he

didn't let us have a nickel for salaries that year and he

accused me of not being for children, you know, and not doing

anything for children, was going to put it all in teacher's

"', salaries. Well what's better for a child than a good teacher?

. ....__ . .

._ ,'

. . __. . ~

~,.__ ....__. .~_. . ._.__ J

PAGE 71 l,
You can't do anything for a child any more important than im-

proving the teacher. So I could go down there and ask for the

money even though the Governor was fighting me tooth and toenail

and we got it.

MELVIN' HILL: Of cour~. the difference between the

State School Superintendant and every other one of the elected

executive officers is they have the Board that is supposed to

be setting the policy for education

DR. NIX: I have no quarrel with that.

jll

MELVIN HILL:

and then the Superintendant is

'I ~ their Executive Director. So that's what's troubling them.

e
o.

I

_~. It appear~ that the Board should have more authority. managemenh,

,
y, control. whatever. over the Superintendant than they have. Be-!

_. ..--,-
U . cause you could have a situation. and we haven't had it eVident~

<i j:
':; ly in Georgia in anyone's memory. but you could have a situatioh
I

') ::: where the Shate School Superintendant would ignore and not

I
I

i:'
<
" really follow the wishes of the Board.

DR. NIX: Oh. no. About thirty days before I retired! I
I had two of the Board Members come into my office and one of

them said to me that they'd like for so and so to get promoted.

a little secretary down in the Department happened to be their

friend. So I just got up and closed the door and I said. "Now

look here. the Constitution says there will be an Executive

Officer to the State Board of Education and I am the Administra~ ,i
tive Officer of the Department of Education and I will decide
-------------" ------_..~._---- ------ ~-~,-----_.. _-_.._,---

PAG[,~ 72 -------------.- ---'---1
who gets promoted and who doesn't get promoted as far as salary:i

is concerned. The Board is powerful as long it's setting

policy, but you don't administer it as a Roard. You set policy.

And one of them said to me. "You mean you wouldn't carry out

one of our policies?" I said."I'd carry it out if it was legal,

but the Attorney General has told me that if the Board adopts

a policy and orders me to payout money that's not legal I am

responsible, not the Board. And I said, if there's any questio~

') in my mind I'd clear it with the Attorney General and if he .

10 said it was illegal I would not do it. But other than that. ye$

;.:)

7

11 :; I would do it. I swore'to do that when I took the office, but

',.

I ,,,

,sVEr,

,; not for the Board Members t'o come in and administer the Depart- :,'

(~--~\

-

((Lj))r'~~"'" '~ ment of Education. And not for the State Board to have it's oW1J1

/ .~:::'~=_~/

,J)

staff out here some place." I told the Board on numerous occas

ions. I said, I'm your secretary. If you want something done

I've got a staff here and we'll do it, but you don't need your

own staff. But you get a superintendant that's kicked in and

out every six months or every year or every time you change

Governors as they do in some states and you will have a problem

VICKIE GREENBERG: But isn't it the reality of the

situation in Georgia that no State School Superintendant for

the last what forty

DR. NIX: Oh. you're corning with that old song and

dance now. Go ahead.

VICKIE GREENBERG: -- has been elected, I mean have

PAGE 73
----- ---------- ------ ------ ------- -------- --------- ---- ------------------ ------------,
I
been independently elected. They've always been appointed and

then reconfirmed by election at the next election. I mean

they've run unopposed.

DR. NIX: I had an opponent.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Oh, you did.

DR. NIX: I sure did. I carried his home town after

I'd been in office eight years. Dr. McDaniel had one last yearl
!
VICKIE GREENBERG: But they've never been victorious

over the appointed State School Superintendant?

[',..1

DR. NIX: Oh, yes. Dr. M. D. Collins did. He won

out over Dr. Dugan, when he was State Superintendant.

() )

)

MELVIN HILL: Well in any event that's a different

subcommittee and it has to make that decision.

DR. NIX: Okay. I've had my say and I know I'm

I retired

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I want to say something here,

Mel, I appreciate Dr. Nix coming and being here with us today

and bringing us this information and I -- while we're de4ling

with local schools and not the State Board and so on, would it

be possible for Dr. Nix to maybe come back and meet with us as

a Committee, as a whole Committee to express these views.

t~LVIN HILL: Of course, if he'd be willing. It will

be in September sometime. If he will be willing to go to the

whole committee.

DR. NIX: As long as you pay my transportation. I'm!

l.' n\ (u'I"' 74

not going to pay my own way down 'here.

)

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think it would be good to have

this view. We've had the other view, very heavily we've had

the other view and I think it would be good for the whole com-

mittee to have this view.

t!

MELVIN HILL: Maybe we could invite Dr. McDaniel at

the same time and we'd have a debate.

DR. NIX: Now Charlie and I don't agree on all of

this. Charlie he likes the appointed part the best. But I

1I'.I' tell you that seat could get awfully hot if you were appointed. I

:;:

11

VICKIE GREENBERG: One last question. The Section

on special schools, do you feel it's necessary to retain that

in the Constitutuion, which is Section 9 that allows for the

special area school to be established by either one district
<

15 '~ or combination of districts.

:J
(tl L~
,":,1.'

DR. NIX: Yes.

]7 '
VICKIE GREENBERG: Cannot this be done under Section

five, under the power of contracting or the power of merger. I' Was there a reason for this to come in 1960, which allowed

counties to form area schools.

".-.1
DR. NIX: Are you talking about the Woodall Amendment

),
passed in November of '601

.,. ''

VICKIE GREENBERG: Yes.

DR. NIX: Well the reason that was passed we could

not get local boards to agree to put in substantial vocational

____ __._.

~.

.J

programs.

PAGE 75 .... -_. _ - - - - - l ----.-~-----.-. Mr. John Woodall was a member of the House from down,

, here at Woodbury. He was a real supporter of people trying to'
i"
get a job. He had a little plant and all down there and he

couldn't get employees, you know, that were worth anything.

That's one of the first things I did as Vocational Director,

Joe,was to get out and politic to get that resolution passed,

that amendment to the Constitution. I think that if you in

s some way you make for State Board of F.ducation to have the

() authority to establish educational programs to meet the needs !

i

1' i \/

of the people of the state to that extent you might get by with~

,!

1J '7"- out it, but other than that you'd almost have to put it in ther~.

~-:

':1

>.

I)

." Now as far as area Boards,
.J

there's another section dealing with!

:; the mergers on the 51% deal. I think you ought to retain that, I

1 f '.. but get it down to a simple majority. If you get it down to

'"

ti

..
{~;

a simple majority you might be able

to

get it

through.

And

:

=,

h

Cl
1.

also,

where

it

says

the

taxation and so

forth,

that ought

to

7 be a simple majority also for those area Boards where two or

more counties would come together.

But, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm sorry

H, I took up so much of your time talking, but I haven't talked

) about' education in three years. I kind ()f got it back in my

"" blood there for a few minutes.

DR. MULLINS: I enjoyed the education myself, Jack.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Has this ever been utilized to

create an area Board, Section 9, has it ever been?

DR. NIX: No.

VICKIE GREENBERG: So no Board has ever been created

under this. No area school has ever been.

DR. NIX: No area school that I know of has. Do

you. Joe?

DR. FREUND: No. but we do have a problem in trying

to provide vocational education services for highrchool students

in some of our very rural areas. There are about a hundred and forty comprehensive hig~SChoOlS now and about fifteen more are

about to be opened. Those are the easy ones to build. When
',!J i:
11 you get down to those little bitty schools many states have ~:i
gone the center route and students will spend about half a day

at a vocational center and about half a day at their home

; highschool. That's done in some of the urban counties. but
1)::r it also could be applicable to rural areas. I guess. from my
i-J.
understanding of what's in law statutes and Constitution now.

17 that could be carried out by contract.

IS

DR. NIX: Yeah. we did that in Pike County. where old

I' Jim used to be Superintendant before he got there. Harold

Daniel, his predecessor, he would send students up to Griffin

Tech and the only problem we never could get him to send any

money with them. But it has been none just a half day in the

State in two or three places. But it seems to me like it

),
._'-t

should not -- you should give the State Board broad authority

without having too many specifics in it. Don't hem them up as

PAGE 77

rr--------""----'

-_._-_.---------- - - ~- ---------- ..--- ---------- .... --_._--- -.. - --- ------,

! I,I. I think Joe used that word awhile ago. Don't make it too re"

strictive. But anything you can put in statute I think you

:,
will be better of to put it in statute.

Thank you.

Don, thank you, I hope you get elected.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Thank you.

DR. NIX: Several times.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Dr.Nix, we appreciate your

coming.
,, ..

DR. NIX: Joe, good to see you.

,\

l'~'

r:

DR. FREUND: Good to see you, sir.

(Dr. Nix excused himself from the Subcommittee.)

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Well why don't we let Joe and

Jim just respond as Dr. Nix did and we won't hold them up and

go on and wind it up. , i Jim, you want to give us your thinking on number two, I

three and four there please?

DR. MULLINS: I can pretty well say just about what

Jack did. I guess that I have a one problem that I think we

need to at least layout again for legal research. Saying you

are talking about exceptional schools. You've got to also

look at one of the things that have come about since, you know,

this particular item was found in our Constitution like 94-142

and Section 504 of the handicapped Act. There are so many

things in exceptionality that are now provided through these

PAC~E 78

statutes and the administrative law through policy and regula-

tion that's developing is really' something tremendous and even

the statutes that we are having given to us here in the General

Assembly that's passing or not passing, you know, are contribut~

ing to this particular problem. When you say in the Constitu-

tion that you feel this ought to be, then you need to ask your=

self what Pandora's box have I now opened. So I'm very cautiou~

anytime I see these kinds of programs being asked to have the

blanket of Constitutionality given to them. So I wouldn't be ]() that specific. I'd leave those kinds of things to statutes
..'
7-
j! .. if I could. Then that leaves us to three." Should the Constitul.

tion contain any special provisions for adult education", and

I said no. Even though I do realize it happens to be in that

I.; :, special school section and I say that again due to the fact

'" Li ,'j that we've got a problem, you know, that has some foginess

i:;

J

~,

i () ,1": about it. That is what is a common school? What is a vo-tech-

0

,~

I .,/

...:
';C I'::J

nical

school

education

that

the

State

must

provide.

And I

I ~; think again it is the same question as we find in special edu-

!9 I' cation that if we must give in the common school concept an

.:0 education to a child as long as he has an extended free educa-
i
.~ ~ I past the age of nineteen. Then we encompass adult education anl:l

) ; make it part of the quote "so called common school"concept,

-' then we may be extending to the age 100 or whenever people ..,1 might live under the actuarial table one day. So I think that

we better be very very careful about what we accept. There are,

PAGE 79

so many of these things are given to us in the form of a motion]

or emotion or in the form of let's just clean things up and

i put them all there. It's a lot simpler. It may well be at

first flush, but it's after that that problems arise and I

personally think that we are heading for some very very diffi-

cult times in terms of special education or some of the trends

of court unless the Supreme Court abates some things like ex-

tending 180 days. These types of things are going to cost us

tremendous amounts of dollars because it subsidiary services

that must go to special children, psychiatric, therapeudic and

'J
2:
;, so forth. Here we've got the same kind of question. It opens
"
~:: a box of worms that well may be directive as opposed to supportrI

I

ive.

I

"

CHAIRMAN THORNHIL: What about Number 41

'.
1.
DR. MULLINS: Number 4, I think that it hasn't

necessarily caused us any difficulties in the past. I come

from, you know, a state where if it's not bothering us we'd

better find out what it means if we take it away. It's there

for some purpose. It's nothing but a grandfather clause to

begin with. It grandfathered those prior to. Now if you took

it out what would it mean. 'fuo would take them over. What

kind of support would these particular area schools get from

whatever school they are given to for their governance. So,

I think Joe could answer the specificity of that question bet-

ter than I could, but from the standpoint of taking something

h\GE 80

I ! out of the Constitution I think again the staff research might I 2 tell us better who they are, who would they go tOt what are the

receptiveness of those systems to take over that particular 4 kind of support. Once you've got that question answered and s it's in the affirmative and it looks like it's not needed then

I think you could get rid of it. But I would be hesitant to

remove it at this time not knowing its implications.

MELVIN HILL: Did you respond to the contract. I
I)
mean l(e) "Should the Constitution authorize the State Board
10
to contract?" Or we just felt that it could be handled by
.J
Z
:i statute.
0-
o.
DR. MULLINS: I think by statute just like tuition

equa1iztion grant. I wouldn't fool with that in the Constitu-

14 ,, tion.

15,~

'"

MELVIN HILL: One other question if I might, Do you

,

:J
,",

1 (; r..., feel Article, I mean Section nine should remain in the Consti-

l'.

1/

;,
.11

tution

and remain basically as

it

is now stated,

with exceptioni

!v 'J of adult education as a specific reference?

j9
DR. MULLINS: I see no, I see no problem. I've

.~o
talked to a lot of people about it and a lot of people that I'~

,1

t

talked to that I thought would know a lot about it didn't seem I

-.,
"
-

to know about it. Now that bothered me because I knew nothing

- ~ about it either. That bothered me to come up and talk with yO~

'j
folks about it. But generally speaking I don't have any fears

of this particular statement as presently written.

PAGE 81 MELVIN HILL:~Nofea.rs~~btltby~~the-same~token~is~t--'

needed if it's never been used. To what extent are we just

carrying forward a dead letter when it really would not -- does

i not serve the interest of education and state? DR. MULLINS: But could it? You know, I don't know.

I honest to goodness don't know.
I,
VICKIE GREENBERG: The original provision that, as Dr
7
Nix said.was 1960 amendment to Article 7, which was to finance

<) I taxation and public debt of the '45 Constitution.

IO

DR. MULLINS: It was to contract for facility use.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Right, and this was under the

-~

'Y.

(;

I~'

"c,.
0:

Section

on

contracts

for use of public

facilities.

So it was

_I

/. just placed here under the '76 provisions. So it's just really:

'I ~ reorganized.
,

1.

DR. MULLINS: Un hunh.

; (,

~1

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Joe.

~,

Z,

DR. FREUND: I haven't responded to the item about

contracting with private educational institutions and I agree
)" ~. ,\
1(; with the statement that Dr. Nix made, but and also feel that itl i should not be in the Constitution but that it should be by

statute. :Rut I must say something about it because I know that
.:.1
there is a tremendous lobby by private schools to make this a

, ~. legal basis for them to obtain state funds to pay tuition for students attending their schools. If they are not -- well I don't want them to lobby it in. I think it ought to be by

82

statute with plenty of controls or we could have the. state pay-

ing the tuition for most of these private business schools truck



!

driving schools,cosmetology schools allover the place. That

,
"f

if there is a statute, which I would be in favor of, to allow

I it to happen that the State Board be able to promulgate such

rules and regulations and evaluations that would assure (1) tha~

it is a quality education that the students are getting and

, that (2) that it would be being done at a cost that would be

less to the taxpayers than states did operate that in their own I>.n schools. If we have a cosmetology school at Atlanta Tech, we !

11 ,:<, do not have to start paying for cosmetology schools in the rest o.
. ~vEi J' ~ of Atlanta. However, I have been familiar with situations where
(~. ~~\_C!.!""~ ~ we did do exactly this and instead of building a new school
"\'~"~~~::.:;.,..
J1 for cosmetology we contracted with a private school and it only

is ~ cost $800 a year for I think ten students and we then had ten

;.l.: ~-)

I'

-:"1

1,.' ',~ students trained in cosmetology for S8, 000.

Now if we'd have

'.
built a school that that lab would have cost us a couple a

hundred thousand dollars and costs us fifty thousand dollars to

equip it and our teacher would have costs us about fifteen

thousand dollars a year including taxes too, fringe benefits
-,), and everything. It actually was to the benefit of the state .. ) to contract for those situations. And we are not allowed to

do that now under present statute as I have interpreted it to

mean. So I think it should be made possible, but that we need

to be protected from political pressure and all kinds of abuses.!

PAGE 83

MELVIN HILL: What if we said something like, "The
,,;, if,
State Board shall be authorized to contractAprivate educat~onali
\I".:..htt"tfi"i'\ ".
(\ subject to such limitations and conditions as provided by law." I

'! Or some such thing. So that there wouldn't be any direct auth-

orization by the Constitution without a law coming in to estab-

C, II lish such limitations and then if they didn't want to do it,

they wouldn't exercise it and if they did then you'd have your

x conditions here.

DR. FREUND: Yeah. We really can't even cover every='

1(', thing by law. There would have to be, I think, a State Board

II "

u,:
t-

of

Regulations

also

that would go into

it.

The law just can-

not be that specific or that flexible. So I think that it

should be made possible to do it that it can be of the benefit

of the state.

J > ,~;

DR. MULLINS: Let me ask a question right he~e?

,~)

'. :":)
1 r~' fixing to show my ignorance.

If there is nothing in the

,~:'

II

<:
r".t,.

Constitution

that

addresses

this

then

it

could be

done

by

I'm I

statute anyway couldn't it?

DR. FREUND: Correct.

.'u

DR. MULLINS: So why should we mention it if it's --

DR. FREUND: I don't think you should. But I know

if you have the private schools getting their say about it they

are going to say yes. They are going to say yes to the Con-

stitution Committee. They tried to say yes to the Legislatures

every session and they are also at the State Board and the Stat~

84

Board went so far as to get a ruling from the Attorney General.

MELVIN HILL: Well, what r' was worried about what we

really would be saying here is that this would be deemed to be

a public purpose. Because you cannot expend public state money

if you ,do not have a purpose. So there's some question whether

(, Court would corne in to say that contracting with a private firm,

for public education is really a public purpose. So that's ;. the only reason I was thinking to put it in the Constitution

directly would clarify that potentiality. Again it has never
to been subject to a lawsuit. It was subject to that Attorney
'.'}
I, .. General's opinion, but that relates back to the statute. So

I think it does have a potential Constitutional challenge even

if the General Assembly does it under this public purpose
:1 ~". motion. So if this Committee's manner of policy felt that it ,:' r ~ should be allowed, should be authorized that was just to get ':x,:
I" :"~ around it.

DR. FREUND: This is done in most states of the

country. It is permissable to spend Federal Vocational Educaj) tion dollars in this way.

MELVIN HILL: Un hunh.

21

DR. FREUND: It's Georgia statute that prohibits it

.,-"" ....
~e. I don't k~OW much about the special schools and have to

plead some ignorance about number 4. As a matter of fact I

went to some lengths for some additional information. But

Item 4, does that pertain to those schools that are under
1..'----

PAGE 85

special boards? DR. MULLINS: Right. DR. FREUND: Like the Area Vocational Technical
,; Schools?

DR. MULLINS: Un hunh.

DR. FREUND: And what this would do would be to -- I I
' I,
don't what's it do?

VICKIE GREENBER~: Well apparently those schools were
to not created the way this Constitution allows them to be created~
;U This is by referendum and by the voters in those areas affected~
C1
1:
correct? It also allows for the tax let's see.

DR. MULLINS: Wasn't it so that before --

VICKIE GREENBERG: Any pol~tical subdivision which

I + : establishes such a school is authorized to levy taxes. The

~

1<

,~) ~.:'

support

of

such

schools

regardless

of whether

it's

located

in

~

"In

11,1

'?:
'-'
"~

the

territorial

limits

of

such

a

subdivision.

Now I don't know

if that authority is granted to those area' schools that are

created pursuant to or prior to '66.

DR. FREUND: Does this mean that people in. say

in Walton County. can tax themselves to pay for schools in

an Area Tech School in Clark County?

VICKIE GREENBERG: That's how I would interpret it
if they are using the services o~I"t that school pursuant to this
I
section.

DR. FREUND: Right now some of the people in Clark

PAG, E 85 ._--------------.., _._---,._--- --- ,'--

.~-~----- -'"

. . - .. _,~--_

County, including ~he Grand Jury, feel that the people 'in Clark

and Walton County residents are able to use that school. I

" maintain that's not a problem because it's a big favor to the

) people of Clark County to have that school ~ight there so

convenient. They are already receiving special benefits form

it. In addition to that there's about two million dollars of

, State money that goes to Clark County that's mostly spent in

Clark County because that school is there. We've got towns

falling allover each who aren't big enough to support a com-

prehensive highrCh001 wanting a vo-tech school until they have f/ to start paying for it a few years down the road. So I think

.1 there ought to be something that would allow that.

DR. MULLINS: Well this does that. I say and it does

that.

DR. FREUND: Well then don't take it out.

!". :~:

VICKIE GREENBERG: Is that this provision that there

would be no authority to levy outside of that --

DR. FREUND: It's my understanding that it's still

'() legal to spend tax monies in another county.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Except under Section 5, paragraph

4, empower Boards to contract with each other you would be spen~-

ing money outside to another county, outside of your coun~ on !

education.

DR. MULLINS: That's more of a dollar following a

PAGE 86

student receiving a service which that sendin~ school system could not provide. Therefore, it would not be an illegal expenditure of dollars.

MELVIN HILL: What upsets me with this kindof a

provision is that nobody knows what it means and to carry it

I. forward. I mean, it's just gobble-de-gook the way it's put to-i

gether. I don't mind if we keep the exceptions, but whatever

it is referring to I'd like to at least clarify it so we would

know what in the world we're talking about. You know this kind

., of thing is the very thing that we're trying to clean up. We'll
i l t keep looking at it and working on it and see what we can do. "'
j' '. We certainly are not going to eliminate it if it's giving a

protection in some way that should be ret~ined. But at the

14 least I would think we could clean it up.

., t S ,',I

DR. MULLINS: Well I think that is the exact state-

,~, () 'r""~ ment that we've all made. You know this is something that need$ :.:l

,;,
" to be researched by you and your staff.

MELVIN HILL: Right. You're not objecting to uh --

i')

DR. MULLINS: We are not objecting to the researching.

Once you find that it's not going to hurt -MELVIN HILL: Un hunh.

DR. MULLINS: -- it's not going to -- if you remove ", that section -- leave those people without a governing struc. I ,'~ ture or means to collect the enrichment taxation to support that

school beyond state allocations, then you know it don't mean

_-_ _--_._-_ , -_._-_....._----_...

.._.._----_.- .._... --_.. -.. _--_ _ .. . - - - _ ..

.. _---,~

PAGE 87

anything. But if you removed it and by that removal you took

away those statutes supporting that Constitutional statement

that says. "Hey. you can't levy a tax outside your territory.

You can only do it in here". Then they say. "Well, where 'am I

going to get my money? Well, you better contract with that

adjoining system and hope they'll give you some. Well the ad-

joining system won't give me none", Now they are left to

suffer their program. So those are the kinds of things I am

making reference to and we don't know the implications until

such times as you look at each of those individual schools,

:,,) T.
~ the authority for their funding. where it is coming from, what
~)
"-

,,'v'." it is being used for and the authority that that particular

..";~;'? .ct,(/\

_.

(r~"t.:.~~\ lr~'~'''''''E ~ Constitutional Amendment gives to them or excludes them from

" "-"-.-._--- '//':

the Section Nine.

.\,.)
" ,~

CHAIRMAN nIORNHILL: Gentlemen, I want to thank you

16 ~ for coming and being with us and sharing with us your thoughts.

2.
<l
l 7 ';; and your expertise in these matters. You've been a tremendous

help to us. Joe, I don't believe I have ever formally met you

through our Associations in Education so it's been a pleasure t~
I
me to --

DR. FREUND: If things go right we'll probably see

each other quite often.
,1
CHAIRMAN nIORNHILL: I hope so.

Jim, it's always a pleasure to see you.

DR. MULLINS: My pleasure.

PACE 88

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: I think what we'll do at this

point is we'll excuse you gentlemen. You've been most bene-

ficial to us and we'll discuss a few little things about our

4 , Committee and then we're going to be ready to go. The hour
-,
is getting late.

DR. MULLINS: Well we're always fun to talk to.

DR. FREUND: Yeah, with Atlanta traffic is getting

rough.

DR. MULLINS: You may have a copy of this I don't know~

i

1U

I MR. HILL: No, I don't think we do.

!I

DR. MULLINS: This is a study, probably one of the

a couple of years ago. But I'm bringing your attention to an

", :~ Attorney General's decision as it relates the this contracting <i r
lS .~; and how you give up the school and there's another one back in .", ::>
1 f~ ~
,o" here that you might find of some interest.
T
MR. HILL: Oh, okay. Okay.

DR. MULLINS: But anyway that gets you into the

govermnents.

MR. HILL: That's one the best meetings we've had.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Yeah, it was. I really enjoyed.
o,
I enjoyed Dr. Nix's comments and so on. Although, there might

be some cQntroversy there. I think it's good to get both sides

,'.- ~
and their view.

_ _ _ ~ ~..

COURT REPORTER:

._~

._~_.

..

Pardon me.

... "_.,. _ _ __ ,~._. .

._.~

Do I really clean up his!I,

. .~. __.__'_._ .. _.__ ._~

._.

....J

language in your transcript.

""""""" ~

PAGE 89

-------, -- --"-" ----"

"-"- ------------"-""--"--

!

MELVIN HILL: No, no. Absolutely not.

COURT REPORTER: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: It wasn't that bad anyway.

VICKIE GREENBERG: No.

I just want to hand out -- last meeting Clark Stevens~

Director of Office of Planning and Budget had spoken about two

-, computer handouts he had on the various county systems and I

l) ii copied those for members. What it does it shows the rate, the

!'-l dollar amount generated per mill based upon the average daily

":z
I. t attendance of each county. And the first one, the top sheet,

c

."

~' > i: ~ is alphabetical. Okay? And it shows also your number of mills

,::... ,j!j.,

..

) for your i ~;_j" ~~ / I~' . "'-':,,''.,

I:~

1 1\ \

_.

,"'!:"'U
i,!

~;:

\ "-

'.

'"

DELORES COOK: Averap,e daily attendance.

VICKIE GRiENBERG: Well that's the dollar amount

"

~~~~county , (\

::'
,"2",

per mill

generated

and

the

second

one

is

in

order

of

the

county

7-

~

I " 'c't',' which generates the most, which is

down to the

, county which generates the least, which is Jefferson. On that

!') ! first sheet the second column represents the local millage for

education less the required local effort rate.

21

Which is interesting. It shows you the great diversi~

-~ 1 ty in what each county has to play with, you know. Some coun-

ties have what -- Some counties have like, like -- what is it 'J I called? 'Do you know?

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Tolliver.

independant systems as well.

CHAIm-fAN TIIORNHILL: Do we need -- I guess we need

to address the decision agenda that we've heard spoken today.

I, Do we need to go down it on an itemized basis? There are not

but two of us here.

VICKIE GREENBERG: Right.

,)

MR. HILL: Well if we're going to --

1(; 1,.1

CHAIRMAN TIIORNHILL: I think we've pretty well got a

11 ~ general consensus from all the people unless there's some

D'.

i~':;'Yl1.cJ ' j ,'; violent disagreement, Mrs. Cook, that you might have concerning

(rd)Jr"''''''" ~; any of thos e

-,,:/1/

,;'

I,..'. ~

MS. COOK: No.

" 1:
CHAIRMAN THORNHILI~: Do you have enough direction,
".:,J
:;
l () ~~ Mel, from the thoughts of our speakers that
".'

MR. HILL: I think we have enough to draft something

for next time and, you know, the Committee will be reacting
l'i i: then to it. I see that they do feel there should be a statement i I about the j~risdiction of the Board over Vo-Tech programs and
21 I perhaps something which we might decide to eliminate but at

least for purposes of looking at it the contracting with private

educational institutions. No new Board created. I don't know

where we stand with respect to whether or not to give the

Liaison Committee anymore responsibility. I guess the feeling i

_._._ .. ~-~----~"-~._..

i
----._-~._-------'

PAGE 91

was no, don't give them any extra authority.right now.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Right.

MR. HILL: So, and I don't know whether we ever did

resolve anything or not about l(a).

VICKIE GREENBERG: Well I think you got --

I)

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Well I noticed this. There

ought to be some provisions for vocational opportunities to be '

? made. I said yes, but not Constitutionally. That was pretty

II much what I picked up from what they were saying.

!U

MS. COOK: In favor of --

\.:z.1
I,

MR. HILL:

,j'

:c,'

'.&.1

} 1- ~~ to address it.

There's nothing we can really say in here

,.'L

r

CHAIR11AN THORNHILL: Right.

i1 ~

MR. HILL: Then I guess then in 2 -- Well the whole

!.~

I
, , thing goes back to that Section Nine, whether or not we should
:,
) ILl keep carrying that ,forward. I think before we make do for I.: i.;,'

'f I~

purposes

next

time

is

keep

the

Section

Nine

in

there

to

try

to

editorialize it and --

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Right. I think that's --

MR. HILL:

and let's reduce it and see how much

2i we have to retain of it and do some more research and see

whether it could be eliminated. The fact that it's been there

an~ it's never been used makes me feel it may not be worthwhile

to retain it and yet as Jim said how do you know it might help

you in the future.

CHAI RMAN THORNHILL: Tha t 's right.

MR. HILL: There may be some broader authorization

in this respect would be enough rather than all the details

.1 1 I feel like that goes on and on with an awful lot of specifics.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: That's my opinion. I think

that's where we get into a lot of things that we need to do

with our present Constitution and that's to get some of the

MR. HILL: Junk.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: -- junk out of it. That's what

\(1 our job is.

7-
I'~

VICKIE GREENBERG: It could almost be made -- well

L ,I I'll have to take a look -- a part of paragraph one of Section

five, which talks about consolidation and merger of systems

into area schools or into

1~l (~I

MELVIN HILL:

Well let's keep it special

Itl <0 first.
()
L
!"7 '~

VICKIE GREENBERG: -- or into paragraph four I which

x talks about power of the Board to contract. There may be some

way we could incorporate those provisions.

,I

MELVIN HILL: Let's just first of all look at what to

do with it itself and then maybe we'll decide we could merge it

) " with another section.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: This whole business of quote

4 "special education" I kind of take Jim's stand on that thing

we're getting ~o many Federal laws and legislation and this

PAGE 93

sort of thing and like he said I'd try to go very light on that

and anything that we put in the Constitution at this point.

MELVIN HILL: Well I think we have enough at this

'f !I point.

.l

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: We might be putting ourself in

a box that we can't afford.

Very good. So we are scheduled 'to meet the --

MR. HILL: Twenty-first of August at 10 a.m. with

,,' ~ an understanding that we will probably here after lunch.

)u

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Will you conmunicate this and in

,:.:,)
.: l t- your communication to the members of this Subcommittee emphasis! ":"': ::0.. that we are going to be looking at the draft now. It's going

to be -- it's really very important. None of them haven't been

important, but I think that one is going to be.
"
J.
Mel, do you think we will be in shape to present
", :1':
:~l
Ie ~' something to the full Committee after that meeting?
l1R. HILL: Well remember we've already scheduled

i ": a meeting for September 4th of this Corrmi ttee as well. CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Oh, that's right. I forgot
:(, about tha t

MR. HILL: We will then on the 4th have a final

draft -CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Final draft.

MR. HILL: -- just get our stamp of approval and get it to the full Committee the week of the Sth.

PAI:E

94

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Very good. Are the other

~ , Subcommittees shaping up with what they're going to be --

MR. HILL: They seem to be moving fairly well. Of

course, that one Subcommittee they've just been rehashing the

same old thing. for the last year.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: Which one is that?

MR. HILL: State Board.

CHAIRMAN THORNHILL: State Board still

')

VICKIE GREENBERG: Oh, yes. I thought they had

III given up. Forget it.

MR. HILL: I've heard the same argument stated at

:.

.. least thirty different ways and thirty different times.

i~~)r'='''" .

(Whereupon the meeting was adjourned at 4: 30 p.m.)

,

/~//

- .../" /

1-1 ,

PAGE 95
C E R T I F I CAT E
I, Mary Lou Stokes, GCCR #B-36l, do hereby certify the the foregoing 94 pages of transcript represents a true and accurate record of the events which transpired at the time and place set out above.
,)
,I
,0 7-
II ;::
;. :1
.:.l~
" I{ ~
z <
,'I)
'11

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VIII Subcommittee Meeting Held on July 31, 1980

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 7-31-80
Proceedings. pp. 2-4
SECTION II: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Paragraph I: State Board of Education (Jurisdiction).
Vocational Education. pp. 4-41, 75-77 Cooperation with Board of Regents. pp. 41-59 Contracting with private institutions for vocational training. pp. 60-62, 79-87 Special schools. pp. 62-63, 74-75, 77-79 Adult education. pp. 63-65, 80 School district organization. pp. 65-66
SECTIONS II: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, and III: STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT Appointment. pp. 66-73
SECTION VI: LOCAL TAXATION FOR EDUCATION Paragraph I: Local taxation for education. pp. 89-90

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 7-3~-80
Proceedings. pp. 2-4
SECTION II: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Paragraph I: State Board of Education (Jurisdiction).
Vocational Education. pp. 4-41, 75-77 Cooperation with Board of Regents. pp. 41-59 Contracting with private institutions for vocational training. pp. 60-62, 79-87 Special schools. pp. 62-63, 74-75, 77-79 Adult education. pp. 63-65, 80 School district organization. pp. 65-66
SECTIONS rI: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, and III: STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT Appointment. pp. 66-73
SECTION VI: LOCAL TAXATION FOR EDUCATION Paragraph I: Local taxation for education. pp. 89-90

PAGE 1
Proceedings of the meeting of the Select Committee onConstitutiona1 Revision, Subcommittee on on Article VIII Education Section IV, Board of Regents Tuesday, August 12, 1980 Atlanta, Georgia
-,
1"

__._---_ PAGE
- ---_ ...-_ .. -. . ..

2 ..... _._--,

PRO C E E DIN G S

MS. HAGER:

Since everyone was not here at the last meeting

we might want to first review the conclusions that

were sent out. Why don't you just sort of run down

those briefly and then we'll get into the wording

of this proposed draft.

MR. HILL:

Okay. I'll review for the committee what the
~ ,i
questions were. We had a decision agenda prior to
.J T
the last meeting which you should have had a copy
" "
of. And we asked Mr. Jim Mullins who is the Director

of the Educational Improvement Council to come and

speak to these questions on the decision agenda.

And Jim did come and he spoke for a half an hour

to forty-five minutes answering these questions. And

then the committe itself went back through the agenda

to decide how it felt on these various issues.

So in order to bring the committee up to date

so they understand what's happened up till now, Iill

just go through this briefly.

The first question: "Should the composition

of the Board of Regents be changed?" And Jim Mullins

said no, he thought it was working well and there

was no need to change the composition. The committee

also agreed with that,

that

there was

PAGE 3
- -~~--~--~._. ~.~- -~---- -~--~-~-
no need for

changes on this.

The next question goes to the method of selection

of the members of the Board of Regents. Jim Mullins

said, no, that was not necessary either. That was

working well. And the committee agreed.

Thirdly, "Should the term of the members of the

Board of Regents be changed?" Jim Mullins felt that

yes, a four-year term would be preferable. He also

felt, you know, similarly, the State Board of Education

should also have a four-year term rather than a seven-

year term, which they both have now. But the committee

felt that a seven-year term was appropriate and decided

to retain the seven-year term.

The fourth question was: ~Should the position

of Chancellor be provided for in the Constitution?"

The committee felt that no, there wasnQ, need for

that and Jim Mullins felt there was no need for that

either. That should be handled by the Board and by

statute.

The fifth question was: "Should any of the specific

powers and duties of the Board of Regents 'as provided

by law existing at the time of the adoption of the

Constitution of 1945' be brought forward directly

into the Constitution?" Jim Mullins felt, well, no,

";
-';:1
J\

~'Y.L~

~

:' \

" l~:h0) ,

~,,'

' <~_:~/

'-'
c
z '"
~:
"1 e "1:
'" i ~~ lp ..::> " w 0 1
..:,
cti

1~~

I9
',; 'I
,.
,., 1
,,1

~

PAGE 4
not necessarily. He felt that the language was satisfactory the way it was and he would have preferred to leave it the way it was but the committee in considering this question felt that, yes, some of these laws that are referenced in the Constitution could be brought forward and particularly the lump sum allocation provision and from the other statutory provisions in the Code. And when we get into the draft, you'll see what has been brought forward. And if you have any questions about why this is altered, I'll be happy to explain again.
The sixth question was: "Should all state-supported institutions of higher education be required to be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents?"
Jim Mullins felt, no, not necessarily. But the committee felt, yes, that was something that was important, at least henceforth. There was no feeling on the part of anyone that the present situation DeKalb College should be affected by the Constitution but in the future they would prefer--the committee felt that it would be advisable to have all the statesupported instituions of higher education within the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents.
The seventh question was: "Should independent school systems continue to be authorized to 'add thereto

PAGE 5

colleges' ... ?"

"

'

Jim Mullins said, no, that wasn't really necessary.

It hasn't been done by independent school systems

and it would be inadvisable in any event, which many

agreed with that. They should not continue to be

authorized as colleges.
"
The eighth question was: "Should a statement

be included in the Constitution encouraging cooperation

between the Board of Regents and the State Board of

i!

Education in the development and administration of

vocational-technical education programs?"

Jim Mullins felt, no, that a statement of that

kind to encourage cooperation really had no place

in the Constitution; although he did feel that he

would have liked to have seen a provision for the

governance of vo-tech education through some joint

liaison be provided. The committee itself discussed

this and felt that no--this was not something that

should be included, either a statement encouraging

cooperation or a position on the governance of vo-

tech programs.

The ninth question was: nShould public educational

institutions be specifically authorized by the Constitu-

tion to contract for private educational services?"

And Jim Mullins felt, no, that should be a matter

,I
Ie
ct.
!"
(')
1:.::
," , (, ].
t,;,l
... i
1x ;9
,~\,.
I

PACE 6
of statutory law and the committee agreed. The tenth question was: "Should the provisions
concerning the 'Program for Elderly Citizens' ... be continued as constitutional provisions?~
And Jim Mullins felt, yes, probably from a practical political standpoint that it should be. He would prefer that it be statutory if it could be but he wasn't sure that it could be. The committee felt that it should be continued as statutory, if possible, so that's a decision you'll have to make today about that.
Finally, "Should"--there were two questions that were mo~a matter of housekeeping and organization than substance and they were: "Should Section VI of Article VIII be incorporated into any other Sections of Article VIII?"
This is the section that talks about grants and requests of the Board of Regents and the State Board of Education and the University System. And the thought was that could just be transferred here and then eliminated as a separate section. And the committee felt that would be a good idea.
And also: "Should the provisions in Article X relating to student educational assistance be incorporated into Article VIII?" And the feeling

PAGE 7

was, on the part of the committee, that yes, that

would be a good idea as well. In Article X there

is a section relating to student educational assistance

and it would have a logical relationship with this

Article and it would be easiest to have it here.

So that's a brief summary of what transpired

at the last meeting. And based on the decisions that

were arrived at by the committee at that time, we

drafted the proposed revision of Section IV on the

\.

Board of Regents which you have in front of you. Any

questions about the meeting we had last time with

the Decision Agenda or any of the debate?

MS. HAGER:

I guess we'll just start on our discussion of

the proposed draft then. Shall we take it sentence

by sentence or would you---

~~ MR. HILL:

Well, first of all, has everyone had a chance

to read through it? I guess that's the first question.

And I can explain some things rather than go through

it sentence by sentence. Now, I can explain why I

have done a couple of things that I have done and

that might answer some questions.

The present provision contains quite a bit of

information on the filling of a vacancy on the Board

in the case of the death, resignation or any other

cause before expiration of a member's term, how it

should be filled. The Board appoints a replacement

until the next session of the legislature at which

time the Governor appoints someone and then it has

to be confirmed by the Senate.

We have eliminated from all of that about vacancies

because in Article III--excuse me, in Article V on

the powers of the Governor, one of the provisions

states that unless otherwise provided by this Constitutio~

or by law, the Governor shall fill a vacancy in any

public office.

And there's a provision in the statutes right

",
-1
; c, ," <1 '":) ,~rJ
I (', Z
Cl
-..: .c:
"'

now that authorizes the Board to appoint a successor to itself until the next sessions. In other words, the exact language we have here is now in the statute. And the Constitution in Article V says that the Governor appoints unless otherwise provided by the Constitution

or by law. It's presently provided by law. There

doesn't seem to be any reason for a c,hange. :!
And, as a practical matter, the Board goes to

11

the Governor to find out who they should probably

appoint anyway so that they don't have somebody on

there for six months and then somebody new. So I

don't feel that there's been any change in what's

PAGE 9

going to happen based on this omission from the draft.

So that's one thing.
,i
We've retained the seven-year terms. We've re-

tained the same number. And I don't feel there's any real difference insub~paragraph (a) than exists

(\

under the present situation.

And sub-paragraph (b) is the same, the first

sentence. And the second sentence is a new sentence

and this is one you may want to discuss. But the

I, t'

second sentence was the recommendation of the committee

in its discussion of this to the effect that the Univer-

,I

sity System should include all state-supported institu-

tions of higher education in the future. So that

they're all under the ambit of the Board of Regents.

As you'll notice, it says "created after July

1, 1983" so that this will not under this new proposed

revision have any effect on DeKa1b College.

MS. HAGER:

What is the definition of state-supported? Some

of the people were under the impression that maybe

some private institutions receive funds from the state.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

I was going to ask that same question. It's

rather broad. Under the Tuition Equalization Grant Program we have, we really support almost every institutio~
,__, , J

PAGE 10

of higher education in the state, public and private.

, MR. HILL:

"

I think that's a good criticism although that

wasn't intended by the language, we have to change

it. I remember this coming up and we had agreed upon

o~her language, I think, at that time but it didn't

i

hit me when I was writing it.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

One thing I would also want to ask about that

Ii)

particular sentence. Now, it appears that what you've

Ji ~ <r:
(>
'~

left unsaid may indicate that the present units are not members of the system because it talks about created

after January 1, 1983. What about those in existence?

I know it's obvious but it doesn't appear--I don't

.'".,

think we're saying in that language exactly what you

3:':">
J6

mean.

Q

7.

1'"-, ~" MR. BRYAN:

That would be a real problem trying to define

1'1

which schools are under the Board of Regents and which

aren't.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:
,)
But I think if you have state-supported, there's

either going to have to be a definition somewhere

in there or either some other terminology for that.

MR. HILL:

i

__._-_P_A-G- -E- - - -1-1_ . _ _-, - .. -._---_._---~~-----~--._-"~-~_

..

.

jt
:"

Let's just discuss the policy issue, first of

I

all. Do you think this is advisable assuming we can

perfect the language? As a policy matter, should

this be included or is it better left unsaid?

MR. BRYAN:

Tell me again about DeKalb Junior College. That's

the one that's out of the system now? That's the

only oddball?

'I, MR. HILL:

II)

Yes.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:
y '.)
::~. \iJ
Well, you've really got another--although it's

not under the Junior College Act, you've got another

oddball situation, I guess you'd call it, down in

that Thomas County thing. Didn't they vote to--
"
:0
~ MR. HILL:
r.
I think they're going to vote in November.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

Well, maybe it's this November, but to create

Thomas Community College in connection with that old

privateinstuut.iondown there. Anyway, they've passed

legislation, I know, statutory as well as a resolution

for a constitutional amendment. You're right; it

will be this November but it was last year when that

came up.

PAGE 12

MR. BROWN:

2

What are we trying to do here? Are we trying

-,
",

to say that all post-secondary education exclusive

II
of vocational is to be governed by the BoQrd of Regents

"

unless it's exclusively private? Which we all understand

(.

is--is that what they're trying to prevent--further

7

state-supported schools from being created outside

k

the unive~sity system, whether they be county, city--

9

I
:j

MR.

HILL:

10

I think they're trying to prevent a new DeKalb

1J ~,

College and a new Thomas County from occuring because

they feel that if state money is going to be expended

in this area, it should be under rubrick of the Board

of Regents.

j "; '~ MR. BRYAN:

';

t~

:)

''::;;
Jo '7.

We want a c..ent.ralized university system in the

'a"

'[

L' ~

state and that's what we ought to try to word into

this.

19 MR. HILL:

20

Of course nothing that we do here will prevent

~: i

a local amendment from being passed to set it up and

write itself out of here. So there's a limit to how

,~

--'

far we can go to accomplish what we want to even if

we could say it right.

MR. BRYAN:

PAGE 13

Is there any discussion about that local amendment?

MR. HILL:

It's under discussion but it's not likely that

all local amendments will be prohibited.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

There may be some control put on them but I just

don't see that.

" " MR. BRYAN:

'I

To answer your question, yes, I would like to

see it in here if the language can be perfected so

:;

that all--maybe not state-supported but publicly-

supported by public funds or public institutions

of higher education.

MS. HAGER:

Non-private?

MS. GREEBERG:

Are we trying to prevent local systems from creating

colleges? That's the only purpose of the provision?

It's not to make sure that all--

!\] MS. HAGER:

No, I would say it's more what you said, trying

to get them all under the Board of Regents, not prevent--

because we really can't prevent it with the local

amendment, they can do it.

It's not too common that they're going to do

PAGE 14

that, though.

, i MR. GIGNILLIAT:

No, the expense is the difficult thing. Really,

4

I think the Thomas County situation and any others

that may be planning it are doing it on the basis

of the arrangement that the state has with DeKalb

College. Frankly, DeKalb Junior College is funded

to an extent greater than, to my knowledge, any junior

college in the system from a dollar standpoint, based

on so many dollars per year per student. It's an

ii,
"---
"

appropriation that's in the neighborhood of six to seven million dollars, if I recall that. And I think

that some of these other community groups that may

'--

! ; ...:..

:>

1h

,:':",>'
?-,

C

7

", -,

I!

r.;-

Ig

j ()

be thinking--I don't think they can take it on--I don't know anyone can take it on and ask the local taxpayers for education from that standpoint, but if they can get a grant from the state similar to DeKalb Junior College, then that's what might make it feasible in some areas.

I think it is important that if we have publicly-

funded junior colleges--and again, that Act which

DeKalb Junior College was chartered under is closed

..") ~,

out now through the legislature but you can go this

..'.:.,."1.,

other route as Thomas County is doing with a local

constitutional amendment. Then they're going to have

PAGE 15

i"

to try and see if they can work out some funds from

the state. They won't be able to get it under the

Junior College Act by which Dekalb College is funded

but I think that if we're going to have a public system

of higher education in Georgia, then the decisionmaking

authority to determine the need for additional insti-

tutions somewhere in the state should be with a central-

ized board like the Board of Regents. And they do

have criteriia for establishing additional institutions

and I think that's what we need to preserve and protect
:;
as much as possible with whatever language we can

put in there.

I think the thing that is going to discourage the

; ._~

local community colleges corning up would be economics

more so than anything.

If MR. HILL:

''I

Well, what if we said: "The University System

of Georgia shall encompass all public institutions

"

of higher education except those in existence on June

I,

30, 1983." Now, I'm not sure--does that still--does

that solve our problem of public institutions of higher

education? Would that imply--I guess DeKalb College

is a public institution.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

I don't know if you need to make some reference

PA.GE 16

to the statutory provision or the Junior College Act

of 1948 or whatever it was.

MR. BRYAN:

Maybe you want to bring DeKalb Junior College

under the university system.

i MR. GIGNILLIAT:

Well, that's something that's been discussed

for a long time. DeKalb County is--some folks out

there would like to and some don't want it. But the

state's paying more and more of the cost out there.

:1

t'

~.

(

But I don't think it's something we can do under this.

Those institutions in existence or system not,

!I

or those institutions not in the system as of a certain

date? I mean, just exempt DeKalb College or Thomas
()
,<

Jh ~ ,~ o

County because they would be exempted also under this.

~

1 -1

r'.Ir:
::r;

MS.

HAGER:

Well, they've got a long ways to go yet because
they have to get--even if it does pas~he voters,

they have to get the funding and all straightened

.1 I:

out.

MR. BRYAN:

Maybe it's a good idea to have all the institu-

tions under the Board of Regents and we ought to put

them there.

MS. HAGER:

PAGE 17 ------------------ -------------- ----------- -------------------,

Well, public institutions of higher education,

that would be your junior colleges and colleges, wouldn't i

it?

DR. GREEN:

Technical schools are perceived as pos~secondary.

Postsecondary would be perceived as higher education.

MS. HAGER:

I think the term "higher education" may be a

term of art but I don't know whether or not it includes

,-

vocational education.

';":,

, ''""1';.1 DR. GREEN:

Vocational and technical school is normally referred

to as postsecondary schools. And it may be that post-

secondary differentiates them from higher education .

.i MS. HAGER:

~~

And it may be that "postsecondary" differentiates

i,

them from higher education, or whether higher education

1'i

would include postsecondary.

\,r

DR. GREEN:

But that's not technically correct. Post secondary

means just that, that it's past secondary school.

MS. HAGER:

Not necessarily higher education, you mean? So

you could stay with higher education and it wouldn't
.._._----~----_.... _-----------. -_ .._-- -_. __.__..~._----.--------_ .... _ - - - '

PAGE 18

necessarily include vocational?

DR. GREEN:

No, I misunderstood. I mean, postsecondary educa-

tion can be--

~ MS. HAGER:

G

Anything after high school?

-; DR. GREEN:

That's right. That's the way I see it.

Q i: MS. HAGER:

1i)
';z'_J
" 11 --"-

So you would need to define those two terms really. It's my feeling they wanted the technical schools to remain under the State Board of Education, right?

And that would not do so if you just put higher education

here because th~ would include the vocational schools.

MR. HILL:

Let me bring Henry up to date on the discussion.

1 f ?~ MR. NEAL:

I apologize for being late.

19 MR. HILL:

We're on sub-paragraph (b) of this proposal and

we had talked about this earlier. In the second sentence I

where it says~ "The University System ... shall include

all state-supported institutions of higher education

created after July 1, 1983."

There have been a couple of questions r_a___i__s___e___d__._.

J

PAGE 19

about the wording, just some technicalities of the

wording. I think the committee as a whole agrees

with the principle but they're not satisifed with

the way it's said. So there's a worry that "state-

supported institutions" may encompass more than what

they should so the question is whether "higher educa-

tion" is understood to mean what we want it to mean

and not all postsecondary educational institutions.

And that "created after July 1, 1983" would sound

like you were--just excluded everyone that's in it

today and could only include those created after that

date. So there's just some problems with the language.

'.w MR. NEEL:
'.1
You're right.

I can see the points.

All of

I

l,~

them are good ones.

:J
'(, :~. MR. BRYAN:

There's kind of a basic principle in here that

when I read the original Constitution, it seemed to

me that the University System of Georgia was defined

by the Board of Regents. They were to establish the

University System of the State of Georgia. It didn't

necessarily try to say anything about what anybody e 1 se was t ry1, ng to do . It was J'ust charged with pro-

viding a University System for the State.

And

now we're

trying to come back and say, okay,
:

.. - -------.--- _~-_.--_._~--_._- - _._----~----_._--_ ..

_._._-------.-~-,--------_._----'

i)A(;E 20

anything that is university status, that IS publicly-

supported, should be under the Board of Regents. And

3

that's kind of a basic difference to me in what the

4

Board of Regents is supposed to do.

MR. NEEL:

May I respond? You may be correct in your inter-

pretation. The General Assembly-when was it--in

1964--authorized the counties to establish institutions

'j

of higher education and DeKalb County was the only

IU

county that I know of that took advantage of that

law and established DeKalb Junior College, which is

the only, to my knowledge at least, publicly-supported

by state and county funds institution of higher education

~.~

'i J:

.I ) ">

,"'"
::J
, ,..". 1 :,'J ,!

:':>

"

<

!

'".':':'.l

Ig

in Georgia that is not under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents.
I don't know what the intent of the drafters of the Constitution was but at least it had always been my interpretation as far as that statute that

I \)

the constitutional provision which created the Board

20

presupposed that all of the state-supported colleges

would be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents.

')-,

But, periodically, in the General Assembly when

a bill is introduced into the General Assembly authorizing:
!
the creation of a publicly-supported institution--

I think the most recent one was the one down in Thomas

PAGE 21
-----, I
county and that triggered again in my mind, well, do they have authority to do this. And so I go back to the Constitution and look for some wording in the Constitution that says only the Board of Regents has authority to establish institutions of higher education and it's not there.
So I think maybe that's what prompted the chairman's1Mr. Freeman, who at that time was chairman of the board, in his initial remarks to this group, and it certainly prompted me to recommend that from the standpoint of educational philosophy that perhaps it would be best if all institutions, especially those created after the passage of this Article, were under the jurisdiction of the Board.
Now, it may be the committee1s feelings that it was purposely worded the way it was in the Constitu-
z
"
tion so as not to preclude counties from creating their own county colleges or mostly county-supported, although DeKalb College does get, what, Art--seven hundred dollars a year now per student?
li
MR. GIGNILLIAT: It's in the neighborhood of between six and seven
million dollars. MR. NEEL:
I started, I think, about three or four hundred

6
lL
.j
7. i1
14
\)
u: ::,
it ~ .:> ]7
.l
.)3

PAGE 22 dollars per year so that DeKalb College is directly supported, of course, by DeKalb County and by the state as well under legislation which it could be argued there was some question about but we never have raised it and I don't know that the Board ever would raise the question of whether or not that was a lawful expenditure of funds.
But your point is well taken. It may be that this committee in its wisdom would be of the opinion that counties should have that authority. Now, that particular statute under which DeKalb County Junior College was established is no longer operative. And because of some limiting language--I forget the technicality of it; I have to go back and review my express recollection each time as to that also. But I don't think that there's anything in the Constitution, at least so far as our powers are concerned, that would prohibit the General Assembly from re-enacting some sort of statute that would be an enabling statute by which a county might establish its own college
But I suppose in theory at least we believe that it is--it makes more sense from an edicational standpoint and from the standpoint of the taxpayer to have all of the institutions of higher education, or whatever wording we arrive at under the jurisdiction of one

PAGE 23 board. Your governance cost goes down. Your ability
I,
to plan and to coordinate programs is enhanced if all the institutions are under one board. MS. HGAER:
If we were to put a phrase in here that only the Board of Regents were to have the power to establish institutions of higher education, then the General Assembly--this would have preference over their creating statutory law then that the local systems could-MR. NEEL:
nthink so. I think it has been done in the past. The General Assembly would not of cOurse be tstopped from asserting its will by passing a resolution recommending, as they did in the case of Gordon Junior College, that we take over--that we assume--that we take over the operation of Gordon Junior College which was a private school.
Now, if St. Mary's, Georgia, for example, were to blossom into a metropolis of fifty thousand people as a result of the new navy base going in there and the General Assembly felt like that that area should be served by a junior college, I'm sure that the General Assembly--I'm sure if they passed such a resolution, I'm sure that the Board would give very, very serious consideration to the recommendation for the General

4
:
-j
iU
-'"
",il
j 'J Z -,'.j ~
10
".~

PAGE 24 Assembly so that the General Assembly would still have that input into the establishment of junior colleges in given areas.
But they would--it would be under our jurisdiction. I don't want to give the committee the impression that we are out to take over DeKalb Junior College. We're certainly not. We've got--we have thirty-three institutions now and that's a full load. But there are questions of transfer of credits that are involved from DeKalb Junior College into institutions of our system even as there are questions of transfer of credits from private institutions into our systems.
But all of our credits within the system are interchangeable, at least insofar as the core curriculum is concerned. We are very proud of the fact that Georgia has a system of higher education which we think, and from what other people tell us, is the envy of other states. We can't claim credit for it. Governor Russell and the depression, I'm sure, were responsible for putting all of the institutions of higher education under one board. But certainly I think that they do a good job in DeKalb Junior College and we're not out to take over that institution. It would just seem to be that if I were on this committee that my recommendation would be that any

PAGE 25

------ ---,

institutions of higher education, or whatever wording

i

"2

you decide upon, which is established are the effective

date of this Article should be under the jurisdiction

of the Board.

The Board has statutory authority now to create

institutions and it has exercised that authority creating

a large number of junior colleges and in elevating

some of the junior colleges to senior college status.

I know of no plans at the moment to establish other

junior colleges, although from time to time delegations

of people come in from counties like Gwinnett County

which is a very fast-growing county and Lawrenceville,

there's a group over there that's interested in the

<
h -~
'z"
1
v

possibility of a junior college there. And the Board under those circumstances weighs the effect that a new institution would have on existing institutions insofar as cost and accessibility of young people

.(

to the instituion.

I) I MR. GIGNILLIAT:

.:0

I don't think that the committee ought to try

and decide the pros and cons of the DeKalb situation

in this Constitution. I think that that could be

decided outside the Constitution. There's presently

a DeKalb County Board of Education committee working
I
on this specific question; there's a legislative committee:

PAGE 26

working on it. And if there is going to be a change

or any kind of--in the governance of that or taken

into the University System, I think that would be

4

done without the Constitution. It would require sub-

stantial appropriation of state funds to the Board

6

of Regents to do it, I'm sure.

However, I do think it is important to try and

unify under the Board of Regents any further development

in higher education in Georgia. I do think that's

lU
"z.
i-
"()
"
t,.,
'"

critical. As a matter of fact, in practice, the trend has been that way.
Henry mentioned Gordon Military College requested to come in. If you go back a few more years Augusta,

".,',,:
I'
\') 1.-';)
to
~:
I 0 "z' w ':l 7-
17 ''""
16

Armstrong, in Savannah. I don't know about Columbus--I think that was started initially by the state. But Armstrong and Augusta Colleges were both local institutions that came in.
Georgia Military College in Milledgeville, while

19
.;-
20

they're not trying to get under the Univesrity System, they're trying to get all the money they can out of

21

the University System or from the state. Because

2.2 ,
I I
I,i'
23 il
Ii
.~4 I't
it
2:'

like any private institution they're having problems. I think the trend has been for a lot of institutions to come under the Uni~ersity System and not so much the establishment --this Thomas County situation is

_--- _ - _ - - - ---,,,._-.-. .. _..---- _._-------,,- .... - .....

....

... ,

PAGE 27

unique in itself because of some certain local situation.

And I really don't know how that's going to work out
".,
but I do feel that we ought not try and capture DeKalb

..[

under--I don't know that we could frankly without

an awful lot of work going on anyway. I don't think

Ii

we ought to try and capture them under this situation.

I do think we ought to try and cap any further developmen~

that's not under the sponsorship of the Board of Regents

in higher education.

; I ~ MS. HAGER:

This was the general feeling of those who had

met before too.

DR. GREEN:

Well, you may recall in the initial meeting that

\.') J
~:i."'l
i"

this subcommittee had, you and I and Mel were in attendance at that meeting and this question carne up. And the question carne up because of Article VIII, Section

V, Paragraph 6, which of course is not under the one

that we're discussing at this moment.

And the question that I raised, as I remember,

was, why is an independent school system allowed to

create a college but a county school system is not

provided for in the Constitution. That was the initial

question that I remember about this, in reading this.

It says here the independent school systems are given

PAGE 28

authority to add their two colleges. And my question

was, why only independent school systems? Why not

school systems, you know? I don't know---apparently

4

someone else--some other committee is relating to

5

this particular question.

6 MR. HILL:

Yes. And they're recommending that being eliminated

is

The other committee's recommending that authorization

')

be eliminated so that that will not continue to be

h)
"
II

allowable, assuming their recommendation is carried forward.

So the Constitution provided for an independent

school system to establish a college but did not provide

for a county school system? Now, DeKalb is a county

school system. So apparently there was other type

legislation.

\1'\ MS. HAGER: !i

19

There was. There was special legislation. But

20

we could still put excluding DeKalb if we do write

in here that we would like only the Board of Regents

)1

to have power to establish the system.

MR. NEEL:

I think we could get some wording there, Mel,

without too much difficulty. The point's well taken.

~

J

PAGE 29

MR. HILL:

If we just said that all public institutions

of higher education, assuming this wording, we'd just

have to come back and see if that would do but all

public institutions of higher education created after

July 1, 1983, should be under the jurisdiction of

the Board of Regents.

MR. NEEL:

In existence of created. Somebody raised the

\/k''yi~-d~):\

. ~

"._

. ,

/.....'..

/

;,

question whether or not that would--

. '.'
I 1 >.. DR CRIM:' c..: 0 ,'-

:.:.
c.'

Could you be a bit more precise with the language

.~.-.

,.
~

by simply just saying colleges and universities, which

\.'

;.-

would differentiate that from the, say, technical

:;..

<;

.. j "

\"

or vocational/technical schools?

"

1.'-

:J

. I "

iI.,;
2 MS

HAGER:

(",-

I>.

There wouldn't be other institutions, would there,

except colleges and junior colleges?

19 MR. NEEL:

2(\

Well, there are three--at least insofar as we're

concerned, Lonnie, we have classes we refer to as

junior colleges, senior colleges--senior being four-

year--

DR. CRIM:

I'm not quarreling. I'm just suggesting that

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- - - _ .

PAGE 30

the language would be much more effective if it were

2

more precise and it wouldn't lose itself in interpreta-

tion of saying vocational/technical schools, which

4

currently, for the most part, come under the State

Board of Education. I mean that' sanother battle.

(: MS. GREENBERG:

Have vocational/tech schools been called vocational

~'

colleges? Is there a problem in that?

<) MR. NEEL:

iO
11 'z~"

No, in some states I've heard--in South Carolina, I think they have vocational/technical college in

Greenville.

E.

DR. CRIM:

Well, usually they're called community colleges.

15 ~

":'")

j () .'z"..

0z

<

7 1
I

"""'

If they're largely vocational/tech, they would be community colleges in the sense that they were training both for occupations and for higher education.

I I) MS. HAGER:

-

j9

What wording do you have now?

20 MR. HILL:

/1

Well, we wouldn't say colleges and universities,

~" .:.~

right? Because it's the University System.

.,

~,

.:.~)

MR. NEEL:

24

I'm embarrassed I didn't bring the constitutional

25

provision creating the Board; I had it on my desk .

.. .

.

.

.

._.. ._....

---.J

PAGE 31
.. _ ..... ._---- _ .... - . _ - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - ,

The language in the present Constitution has pretty

I

I

i

., I:::

well been accepted and pretty well been defined. I

':

ii

don't know whether they say colleges or institutions

of higher education. This says "institutions."

MR. BRYAN:

I wonder if you're giving the Board of Regents

some things they don't want. They may be forced to

take some things if we start saying they're in charge

of everything, period.

MR. NEEL:

;:

t-

ooe:

,~

Well, I don't think that--of course I couldn't

l.,;~

speak for the Board. Let me thank you gentlemen for

letting me come to this meeting today and letting

t

,

me say a few words.

I don't think I can speak for the Board. I don't

..; s.

), ,~.,'

think the Board is out looking for institutions. Neither

.c,



r~

do I think it's trying to shun any responsibility

which you gentlemen and lady may feel is desirable

..;

i"

from a constitutional standpoint .

I think that the Board, from my conversations

with the Chancellor and the chairman, would agree

that ideally all colleges, universities and institutions

of higher education created in the future, publicly-

supported institutions, should be under the jurisdiction

of the Board of Regents, however we get around to

PAGE 32

that wording, I don't think they would object to--

2

if we were taking in DeKalb Community or DeKalb Junior

.,'

College, the Board might have something to say about

that. But this isn't going to do that.

But you're talking about created after some date.

\ .~

MR. BRYAN:

There's just something running through my mind

that I think we have a great Board of Regents; they

(i

do a great job and everything is hunky-dory right

<r.:> I.

now. But suppose we get a cantankerous situation. Supposing the University System becomes kind of stagnant

for some reason. Suppose appropriations for the General

Assembly aren't forthcoming to do the job that needs

to be done for higher education.

If we pull this thing under their responsibility

higher education in Georgia becomes stymied except

<I

i7 ~

for the private--purely private institutions. And

18 ii ,
ii
i "I II : I
"7 l
20

I wonder if we want that kind of exposure or liability in the thing.
I agree with your thinking that it's a whole

lot better and, ideally, you said, that these things

should be under one board. But I wonder if it wouldn't

be important for the Board to say, well, Legislature,

General Assembly, if you don't supply us the funds

and the manpower and the wherewithal to keep this

rr----
II
\1

PAGE 33
University System under control, we can't stop the people from going out there and building their own

things and ending up with a hodge.podge of colleges

that may not be what we want for the State of Georgia.

And for that reason I tend to lean toward, just

oI

in principle, of leaving it the way it is. They're

responsible for defining and understanding what we

~ ::

need in the State of Georgia in the way of higher

I

.;

education and looking at whatever's available and

~.:

if)

c1

Z

i

.:..:

0

"'-

~

;

,- ~(,.r:6:..;s.'.~ll)i,.j'.\1\ ... '-"f,lIl; ..-11 c

.. ,..
."

\'-\.. '--

/ii
/'

'.'

, 'j- >..,-

';<

r

j~

,~

"ce

::>

..'" .~ ~.:' z

r

i:

7
'c"o

trying to justify that in front of the General Assembly and, as you say, establishing institutions or taking over institutions or whatever's necessary to build the University System into the kind of system that doesn't need anything else.
And I feel like that with the recission of the DeKalb Junior College Act or legislation that enabled that to happen, that we've had enought experience in this area to where the general feeling in this

i;

state is that we're not going to have a raft of county

colleges and independent school system colleges and

things like this that's going to be built in competition

_. ii

with the University System .

.-' MR. NEEL:

May I respond to that? There's certainlY merit

in w, hat you say. But let me give you an example of

2

7
q
10
:'-r".
1l ,
;.;;:
o
o.
'C
"'" .....

;4 ,-

....

<J. J:
J5 .:>

"'c
;;,

16

co 2-

"0"

Z

<l

1 7 ''""

J8

19

20

21 ,1

PAGE 34

what--of the concerns that r think that the Board

may have in a situation where a county has the authority

to establish a junior college. And using the most recent case of Thomasville and leaving out any personalities because Thomasville's a fine community and they're prosperous.

But if that instituion becomes a public institution it becomes in competition with other institutions of the Board of Regents. And after it is created and if it is created and becomes a public-supported institution, then there will be a demand for state

funds to support that institution just as there is

a demand for seven hundred dollars per student per year for DeKalb.

The Board might say, and probably would say in

a discussion, if the people of Thomasville came to us and said, we want a junior college--r think one was authorized there years ago and they never did take up the option; they do have a private college their now and that's probably involved in the conversion

of that private college into some sort of a public institution., ,

Now, r don't know right off the );~at whether there

is a sufficient demand of the young people to go to i

i

I

college, whether._. there is. a. need. for a. publicl.y. -

._.JI

PAGE 35
- - - - - - - - --------------------- -------------- -----------------supported junior college in Thomasville. We make

extensive studies of that sort of thing when the occasion

arises and a request is made. But we are more or

less powerless to stop the creation of a junior college

in any locality, even though we might have a junior

college. And that's fine if the county wants to support

it. But traditionally, as Art knows, where you make

substantial contributions of funds to one county-

supported junior college and if you create another

one, then they're going to come back and ask for the

same amount. I think the Board's concern is that

that would not be the wisest way to spend the educa-

tional dollar that you might have. That the Board

might say that there is another junior college or

senior college within x miles and it has generally

been the philosophy of the Board in the last ten years

at least to try to have some institutions of higher

learning within a radius of thirty-five to torty miles

of ninety to ninety-five percent of the population

today.

MR. BRYAN:
- I agree with you. But whose widom should decide
that? Right now, wouldn't it be the legislature's

wisdom, saying we don't want to appropriate the money

for another one.

Isn't that what's going to stop
-- ----------- ---- ---------- ---------- --------------- ------------------

PAGE 36

Thomas County if it stops?

MR. NEEL:

I'll let Art speak to that.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

I was going to say this. Henry made comment

that the Board of Regents was powerless to do anything

7

about--I don't know if they'd get involved with it

if they did have the power--on this Thomas County

o

situation. The General Assembly was too. That was

JO

handled under local legislation.

And unless you--and there wa~ no debate on the

floor as to whether Thomas County should have a junior

college down there; it was handled strictly as a

1" ..:) ..:.' 0: :,)
16 ~
c
)'
<l
:7 ~

local bill and under the courtesy system which, unless you turn that upside down and the legislature's not going to do because of the many other ramifications, it's really going to be up to their voters to decide

10

through a local constitutional amendment this November

whether or not they're going to tax themselves to

2()

provide for it.

Now, as to that, if that goes to that extent,

there is no provision right now for that kind of opera-

tion to have funds but I'm sure that the representatives

and senators from that area will then come back with

some sort of legislation and say, we're doing this;

PAGE 37
we're doing that; you're doing thiS-fO-~-~~~~~~i~;'-------l I
pretty similar to what we're doing down here even

though that Junior College Act is closed down.

We feel that you either ought to take care of

us under the Tuition Equalization Grant Program or

you ought to fund us because we're a county-supported

operation. In effect, what that does, in my opinion,

is forces the state in the position, if it's going

to show any equity at all in the situation, to fund

'""

something which it really has not gone through any

I:

kind of educational planning to see that that's the

place where you ought to establish education.

And I think if that did catch on and I think

that the economics of the situation are going to prevent

it from doing that to some extent, but I think if
.:.i
that thing does catch on, it's going to dilute the

~

available resources that we do have for state-funded

higher education in Georgia. And that's my primary

concern about it. That if an institution is going

..". u

to, be developed, it ought to be developed under the

umbrella of looking at it on a statewide basis and

not simply because a community thinks--if that community

was going to fund it entirely, ad infinitum, I'd say,

., ,

.I'~

let them do what they want to do. But they're not

going to do it.

__ I
... .. _~_._---------------------~

DR. GREEN:

PACE 38
-- ...--,,--_. "-------'''--'--'''--''-',

By precedent, funding will follow.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

I
4 Ii

I think it would. If you're doing it for great

bid old rich DeKalb County, you're not going to do

b Ii

it for these poor folks down here in Thomas County?

-; MR. NEEL:

i<.

That's exactly what they were driving at; the

cJ

funding will follow if they do it for one.

I

1() DR. GREEN:

.. 11 t'o"'

I'

~

.!.;., U

"',l\~,':.'-I~f-.;.:;v;;'::~J;,) ;-e-. ."' "",.

,"
u

":.:.;.:'//

VI
.+ >~,
<f
:::

::'
~ {l ,~o,' 2: .\
l7 ;

Well, I spent eight years in Thomasville. As you said, it's a very fine community. As I reflect on Birkwood Junior College, it was two old rundown buildings when I was there. Now, they may have done
Ji some thing it appears to me that it's going to
require significant capital outlay. Those two old buildings were ready to be torn down when I was there.

18

So apparently someone's put a lot of thought into

]'i

this and apparently it looks like a real possibility

that that can be developed.

But is it being requested by the Thomasville

Board of Education or is it Thomas County Board of

Education?

''+ MR. GIGNILLIAT:

It's Thomas County, as best I can recall. I
___ .._. __.

i
._......J

PAGE 39
__. _ . _ - - - - - - - - - ... --_._-~--_
don't have anything to do with it. But the incumbent

senator introduced a resolution and it was defeated

in the Primary.

il MR. NEEL:
Yes, he was very active inthe support of it and

(,

I'm sure that that--that he will--was prompted by

the need for funds from the leadership of that college

that had been down there for a longer period of time.

He felt a certain obligation to the institution because

"~I

it had supplied an educational need in that area.

_. DR. GREEN:

Didn't the Board of Regents or any other power

indicate back several years ago--didn't they have
~eferendum down there to try to establish a junior

Q.
:.)
Ih 'e\

college and the voters turned it down? MR. NEEL:

Yes. I think that's correct. I would stand

corrected. But I know that at one time Thomasville

had the option--and I'm not sure at this moment whether

they actually turned it down--but I believe you are

correct.

DR. GREEN:

:~

Wasn't one put in Bainbridge?

:1 MR. NEEL:

Yes, it was. One was put in Bainbridge. And

_. _.._...__ .. .__..

..

. _.._.

._ . --..J

~
~
'I', I: i D:

~?
Z
! 1 '.>.:,.
C c.
w ", ~

,l

~y~\

~

r'h~) )r~~~ :~

'----/,/)
'~,._-,"----~'

i
j' >
l-
V> x
]5 " ...:;: :'">
16 az> w 0z
17 '""

l.q

19
20
:'j

PAGE 40 to the same effect down at Gordon Junior College, I do know that Spaulding County and Griffin had the option of establishing or, as we say, picking up the option for us to go ahead with the planning of a junior college under which--under our plans the county pays for the initial cost of the physical plant.
And the voters in Spaulding County turned it down, principally, I think, because of the proximity of Gordon Junior College. And it was at that time that their heads came together and said, look, here's a junior college over here that--a private school that's having all sorts of financial trouble. Why, when it has valuable buildings and land, why should we build one here right next door to it and put it out of business. And then it was decided by the Board that--with the General Assembly concurring--that we should take over the operation of of Gordon Junior College, which we did. But it's not--I assure you, it's not from a selfish standpoint nor a greedy standpoint that the Board wants to go out and take over institutions nor really to preclude counties from establishing colleges. There's only so much--as Art well knows, so much money that the General Assembly will appropriate for higher education and it becomes a sort of competitive proposition with us as to

PAGE 41
---------- --- ---------- -----.-------- I
whether or not we can get our share of that dollar

without having to compete with a county college that

maybe was not necessary in the first instance. And

that certainly was not the case insofar as DeKalb

county.

DR. GREEN:

It appears to me that the center of the conversation

that we're having right now really is who should have

the authority to say that a college or junior college

should be established in a certain area? I would

l'

think that that power and authority should be vested

in the Regents. Now, that's the way I feel about

it ..

-.. MS. HAGER:

1-
-"
'J..
Maybe we should just poll the members of the

I,')

":.>

h~

committee here because it's a subject we've been dis-

cussing for the past thirty minutes and we're going

to have to come to some decision that we're either

for it or agin it, as at they, and maybe work up the

wording if we can agree on the wording. How do you

2.1

feel?

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

Yes, I feel that they should have the sole authority

over any state-funded institutions of--well, it would

probably be junior colleges only. I don't think we're I

___ .__.

--.-J

PAGE 42

worried about anybody establishing any senior colleges

~':'

-,

or universities.

, MR. BRYAN:

-!

I feel differently but--

:5 MS. HAGER:

Okay. Well, that's what makes the world go round.

7

Dr. Crim?

8 DR. CRIM:

9

I agree.

10 MS. HAGER:

I agree with you too.

MS. GREENBERG:

Are you distinguishing, number one, between the

creation of a college versus the governance of that

'<"f.
1:
J5 .~..,

institution?

:':">

16 .~.. DR. GREEN:

o

Z

<f.

17 ~

I think from my point of view the Regents should

18 Ii

have the sole power to create and to govern, manage.

19 II MS. GREENBERG:

20 II:i

Because the way that this is presently drafted,

21 Ii

I don't think it would prevent, at least under paragraph

I i 22 I
11

I(b), it would not prevent a system from creating

'I
23 Ii
IIIi

or establishing--

2,.

:1
i!

MS.

HAGER:

Ii
:-:,')" I1'i1
L!l.. . .

Yes. It doesn't say anything about establishing.

._ _.

~ .~

.

._~. .. ~_._~_ . . _. .__~ . ._._~_._ - --------------. -----

PAGE 4,1

~~ s~~~==----- L [- -- just

-----------------~7->1"C-.----

,I MS. GREENBERG:

II

i\

,i

"The government, control and management "

ij

4

II
IIii

DR.

GREEN:

But isn't that what we're determining now by

straw vote that we also would wish to say that the

Board of Regents would be able to establish--

x il MS. HAGER:

i!

II
) II

Can you word this, Mel, to--not only the maintenance

"

11)

but the establishment--shall have the sole power of

establishing? MR. BRYAN:

I think that was pointed out in the statutory

<t 1:

'j

<:J

'"::J

, z;J,J (,

w

0

~?

.::

'" -;!

i~l

provision. The Board of Regents has the authority to establish institutions
The fact of the matter is it's a whole lot easier to give somebody the power to do something than it is to give the power not~to do something, and that's

what we're trying to do.

MS. GREENBERG:

21

We could provide for the prohibition under the

")

section on local school systems prohibiting those

systems from establishing institutions of higher educa-

tion. Possibly it would be better to prohibit it

in that section than to mandate it in this section
-------------- -------------'

------l r------------- --.----.-----

I

under Section V under local school systems.

PAGE 44

I

2 I MS. HAGER:
II

i
I

II

It's a matter for the attorneys. What do you

I
I

II

4 III'

think?

i
I,

I

5 II MR. HILL:

t i\

I don't think it will be hard to draft, you know,

il

II

7 I,

what you'd like. I don't think we're going to agree

it
I

I

8

on it today. I'd say that we understand the intent

9d
10

of the committee here. And Henry's here to work with us on it so it will be agreeable to the Board, at

.." 11 ~z
~ ~,~~ I."o.". lJ ~

least. So we'll work on that. I would say we won't need a meeting of the committee again just for that i f that's all we have to do and we can just submit

l 14

this to the full committee as part of the I report.

l-

'"

.15 ~J: "

This may be the last meeting you'll need together.

::>

16 ~... MS. HAGER:

o

Z

;7 <~l.

And you will define higher education?

18 \1, MR. HILL:

19 1

Well, I think public colleges and junior colleges.

20 \I

I like Dr. Crim's idea.

21 IIII

And now (c), sub-paragraph (c) that I s here is

22 IIIt

presently in the statute, i.if you remember when we

I,

I[

23

I'
it

went through this before. The present Constitution

"

J4[

states that the Board shall have such powers and duties

,

25 I

as provided by law existing at the time of the adoption

ll . -------. ----.--- -------------.-------

PAGE 45

of the Constitution of 1945 together with such other

l

powers and duties as may thereafter be provided by

'1

I

i

law. In an effort to identify what powers and duties

I
I

I

I

of the Board really should have constitutional status,

this by reference attempts to encompass all the laws

in effect in '45 and give them a certain constitutional

status.

And we looked at those laws and very few of them

needed to be--a lot of them are repetitious of what

{~:
Z

1-

C< (",

"-

i2

'"
Ct.

.-
1: t

we already have here so that we've tried to identify with Henry's help some_of the provisions that ought to be brought forward and (c) is the most important one from the Board's standpoint.
And this is language that is identical to the

language in the statute.
'""'::1
1(1 .~;.:... MS. HAGER: Well, the lump sum was whatever we had all agreed

on in one of our previous meetings and that's included?

MR. HILL:

Yes. Okay. So there it is. Does anyone have

any objection to the wording of this or changes?

MR. BRYAN:

Just to get the money thing off the back of your

legislature, what would the possibility be of inc!lnding

all appropriations for higher education, not onl,y:

- ~

.

. ---~

_

__ _ - - _ __. -------_._---------_.- _.

._----_

PAGE 46

just those designated for University System, be channeled

"

through the Board of Regents?

-' MR. GIGNILLIAT:

-,

Well, you've got some appropriations that are

)

made through the State Scholarship Commission which

()

would be, I guess, probably classified as higher educa-

7

tion purposes. And that's a different authority entirely

(j

set up to administer funds and grants to Georgia students

9 Ii

The DeKalb appropriation is appropriated through

10

the Board of Regents.

,.:;
z
;; MR. BRYAN:

')

u.

"'"'

It is line item?

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

1'": '" 15
' '1..'
:::>
16 zco w 0 Z
17 l:ei;

Yes. As is all the contractual arrangements that the state has through the Southern Regional Education Board for cooperative programs with Maharry [phonetic], Morehouse, Emory and all the medical students

l:~

and veterinary medicine and that type of thing too.

19

I would say right now, there's probably about--

20

I know at least nine-tenths of the appropriations

:1

21 II

for higher education do go through the Board of Regents.

II

22 Ii I'

The only one I can think of really that doesn't--

.~3

maybe Henry can think of others--would be that for

:)4

the State Scholarship Commission.

, ('
l MR. BRYAN:

PAGE 47
-------- -_.--- ------------------ ----- -----l

I was thinking still along the sames lines as

!

i

before of trying to devise some way for the Board

of Regents to control higher education in the state

and prevent some of the wildcat things.

MR. HILL:

()

Well, the Board hasn't requested any extended

jurisdiction on what they now have.
I,
~-<, 11 MR. BRYAN:

50--

I was just trying to give the same jurisdiction

in this way ad in the other. It just sounds like

it's not practical because the legislature can appropriate I
line item things as well as lump sum things.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

; ..i~.
I <\ J:
~
t::t
"

Well, I think for what you're talking about they could as easily appropriate the Department of Education if they wanted to get around this, if we had something in here and there really was a consensus to do that,

you could do it in any--several other budget units.

'" ! MR. BRYAN:

Does this--did I understand the Board that there

are certain funds designated, like the DeKalb County,

when I said line items, is that line items to the

Board of Regents despite the policy of lump sum? Does

the wording in the Constitution preclude any of that

kind of thing? It says: "All appropriation already

--------- -- ----------- ----------- ---

-- ------ ---- - - - - -

____I

PAGE 48

made or hereafter made for the use of ... shall be paid

to the Board of Regents in a lump sum ... "

, ' MR. NEEL:

4

I don't think it would preclude it because of

the present language "for the use of any or all institu-

tions in the university system.. "

Actu~lly we're nothing but a funding vehicle

for DeKalb Junior College. We're also a funding vehicle

'l

for other items too, Art.

iU MR. BRYAN:

,...
' }..j
12 ~

Well, this won't prevent you from continuing to be a funding vehicle?

MR. NEEL:

<' T
lS ','
':J
',"'
1b 'z" w ., "z C~_ I
i ;,.) ; i i"!
Iq
20
,
l
,
,

No, I don't think it would. And I don't really think g that--because the Board really wants to cooperate with the General Assembly in what its desires may be insofar as funding DeKalb Junior College and other colleges, other county colleges. I don't really think that the--I think this language here would suit the Board fine. In the wisdom of the General Assembly if they wanted to fund DeKalb Junior College at the rate of seven hundred dollars per student and they don't have any other way to make the allocation of

"

those funds except through the Board, or if the General

Assembly thinks that that's the propeOr way for--

PAGE 49

-------..---- ..- -------- . . - --.---- -_.--- - .-- .- ..._--.-----._---.- -__-----------1

that's not really a problem for us except it doesn't

!

fit out budget sometimes. It makes it look like we're

getting a lot more money, a greater share of the educa-

tional budget than we should if we have these other

items in there.

There's another appropriation this year, for

example, for Gordon Junior College--I'm sorry Georgia

Military College. And some in there for Morehouse

and other allied line item appropriations.

I really don't know of any other place the General

,

Assembly could put it unless they put it in the Scholar-

-)

C"

)::

ship Commission or some other agency. But that really

,.-

L

is not designed, as I understand it--and I'm not a

fiscal man--but that really has not been too much

<i':

f

.:.

of a problem. I never have heard'--of course the Board--

I.')

1'4 .0

.";.'

I want to emphasize the Board wants to cooperate, as

Art knows, with the General Assembly and its wishes

insofar as being a conduit for funds so long as the

I'

legislature understands that that's what we are.

DR. GREEN~

I apologize for having missed the discussion

in relation to this lump sum by maybe this will bring

me up to date on it. "In a lump sum" means not in

a line-iterm manner?

MS. HAGER:

PieGE 50
f"
i
Yes, right. This is what--their uniqueness,

too, I think you mentioned before. And it's what

they wanted and it worked and this is one reason why

we put it in.

DR. GREEN:

And then I'll have to go from there and say "in

a lump sum" could also be interpreted as at one time

in a lump sum. And I assume you receive allocations

on a monthly basis from the state? I don't know how

If;

that works.

MS. HAGER:

The budget is passed at one time. I don't under-

stand what you're saying. You mean, it's all just

JJ

given at one time or--

o MR. BRYAN:

It says "shall be paid to the Board ... in a lump

.~.
[i g,

sum... "

U' I"': DR. GREEN:

19

"In a lump sum ... " Like you said, all the money

through the Regents--a check would be written to the

Regents in one lump sum at one time.

MR. NEEL:

No. We do not, as I understand it--Art, you

. -,

can correct me. We do not get every dime we're going

to get from the General Assembly at one time because

the tax collected monies don't come in.

-, PAGE 51
------------------------------

I

But I think

I
I

.1

what--the broader definition that you have discussed

as it's not being a line item for a specific purpose

or a specific project is what we would object to.

DR. GREEN:

Do you think that politically that could become

a reality in relation to the desires of the legislature?

MR. GIGNILLIAT~

Being paid all at one time?

DR. GREEN:

No, just having all monies flow and no line items.

You see, I'm not sure how the Regents receive this

money, whether it is a line item now or if it is a

lump sum.

'J MR. GIGNILLIAT:

It's lumpier than any of the others.

DR. NEEL:

Over the years there's been a gradual encroachment

of the lump sum idea. As I said, I'm not a comptroller

and we can get that person to come over and speak to

that specific question. But there has been an encroach-

ment. The General Assembly has tended to line item

for, say, certain projects--a gymnaSium at a certain

particular school or a swimming pool at a certain

particular school. And a legislator, to his credit,

PAGE 52

ofentimes is very much supportive of his or her par-

ticular junior colleges and they feel like they know
1:'
the needs of that particular colleges insofar as its

buildings or facilities are concerned. And it's pol-

itically expedient for them to put in or attempt

to get the appropriations committee to line-item for

a dormitory, for example, at Georgia Tech. Now, of

course, when that happens, that interferes for the
I
overal~:?lanning for--not only for Georgia Tech but
! i
for the citizens in the way of priorities. And so

'J :=-

~)

.,1-

r:.

we have at times, with candor and with understanding, tried to point this out to the General Assembly that,

no, that's not in the best interest of the state,

as desirable as it may seem to you to build a dormitory

1.-:, .'J
v 'c ::>
'" !Il Z ~, :'1 Z ~<
:7 '

at Georgia Tech because you have hundreds of letters from constituents saying you don't have enough dormitory rooms and we can't get in and so forth, to let us

do that planning and to let us have a general plan

and we'll sit down and discuss with you what our overall

2(j

plans for the system in general and for that institution

in particular are.

i,

"

We have on occasion pointed out to the General

Assembly that there is a statute that says--and that

,.
,.'t

statute now has constitutional status and the language

is very, very similar; it's not identical to what
I1..1 __

PAGg 53

paragraph (c) is--that appropriations be made to us

in a lump sum basis. But it's principally designed

to prohibit specific or line-item appropriations for

specific projects.

Now, Art, you can speak to that much better than

I can from the standpoint of the General Assembly.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

I think the General Assembly has really meddled

and stretched it a little bit while we haven't, to

my recollection gotten down to a specific project.

One or two were put into the Bill but I think it was

worked out prior to the conference but the message

got to the Regents as to what some key projects, or

what the General Assembly thought were some key projects.

nd to me that's the importance of keeping it on a

~;

lump sum basis, is the worse thing we could do is

to go back to appropriating it to each institution.

When you're talking about even capital projects

at ceratin institutions, I've been guilty of expressing

my interest in my area on the Regents too. But I

think the spread--if you'll look at the budget you'll

see a couple of pages in there on the Board of Regents

and you'll see several lines, a lot of which to my

understanding, have been initiated from the Regents

themselves to the extent, for instance, we do fund

Eugene Talmadge Memorial Hospital on separate line

basis but it was pulled out from the Medical College

of Georgia Corporation since we do not determine--

the Regents determine that.

The University of Georgia right now wants a veter-

h

inary medicine teaching hospital pulled out and made

I
a separate item. And that's something that's between

;..{

the University and the Board of Regents not the legisla-

'I

ture unless it's requested that way. But there are

It.:

!"

about eight or nine different things including the

Z~J

2

""

central office budget, the Marine Resources Extension

and some of the new things that have developed in

thft University System are treated--and especially

when I think they're uniquely different from an education:

., "" I:::) "%:
v,
c
l..
1"; ~

al institution--'are treated a little bit differently on a line item basis.
I think probably the broadest invasion of a lump

I:"",

sum concept is in appropriations for teagE~pay increases

I I;

which have pretty well been spelled out in the appropria-

if}

tions. They don't--and the Regents have generally

followed it, although technically they do not have

to.

MR. NEEL:

That's well put.

MS. HAGER:

,

PAr,E 55

Does that answer your question? DR. GREEN:
Yes. MS. HAGER:
Okay. Any more discussion on (c)? MR. BRYAN:
Just that this is identical to what we have now?

MS. HAGER: It wasn't written into the Constitution but that's

the way they operate now.

MR. BRYAN:

This is the way the law is now that is referenced

it

in the Constitution?

MS. HAGER:

Yes.

MR. HILL:

So paragraph (d) is another provision that was

in the statute, not these exact words but these topics

were addressed in the statute that's referenced. And

this was an effort indeed to call forward these provi-

sions because of their importance. And some fear that, for example, the power of
eminent domain which has been given before would be withdrawn from the Board at some point if it were i removed from the Constitution; that would be depenl1ent

" I,E 56 on the statute. So sub-paragraph (d) is similar to (c) although it's not identical language to what the present law provides. MR. NEEL:
That's perfectly acceptable. MR. BRYAN:
I have no problem with that. MR. NEEL:
We do acquire a good bit of property, not too much by condemnations because we usually will work
"'.'
out with the landowner an equitable price. For example, we instituted many years ago when we began the process of acquiring property and the negotiating process wi th the landlord, we try to be very. -bend over backwards to be very, very fair.
We, for example, get three independent appraisals of registered appraisers. And generally speaking the purchase price is the average of those three appraisals which has worked out pretty well. The landowner is pretty well satisfied. Now, if there is a building on the premises, for example, at Savannah State or if there was a building on the premises that was leased for some type of store and the store owner contended that he had some--and he did"'~'some interest in--some leasehold interest in the property that he had on

lease because he had a store there that was operating. And we worked out something there without going through condemnation. We got some appraisers back in to figure out the value of that particular leasehold interest.
Fully--I would say fully ninety percent of the property is acquired by friendly negotiations. And in most instances of eminent domain is where there's a defect in the title. That about the only way that it can be cleared up is through the process of condemnation.
We are the only agency that has the authority to condemn and it is a--if we had to wait for example for the General Assembly to approve the acquisition of property we would---again, we wouldn't get the property when we absolutely needed it, number one, and the property would be enhancing in value all the time and we're better able to negotiate a purchase price if we're dealing from a position of strength knowing that we do have the power of eminent domain. MS. HAGER:
Is that agreeable with everyone? MR. HILL:
Paragraph (e) is the Section VI of the present Article VIII which relates to grants, bequests and donations and it's just been moved over. It has been

broadened some but basically it's the same that we have in Section VI. It's more a housekeeping matter than a matter of substance. MR. NEEL:
It's good to have it here because oftentimes we get requests from IRS and other individuals or foundations or corporations who want to give us money as to whether or not we have the right to accept it and whether or not we are--gifts to the Board of Regents are deductible. And this strengtheons our position as to that. MS. HAGER:
Let me just clarify. We heard so many people speak I'm beginning to think what I'm thinking about goes to the Board of Education. Were they the ones that said that the State Board did not have the power to take over an institution? It wasn't the Board of Regents, was it? If you all vote to take over an institution, you have the power within yourselves to do that? MR. NEEL:
What do you mean by take over an institution? MS. HAGER:
Well, wasn't he the one that mentioned that there was some--do y'all remember?

PAGR 59 DR. GREEN:
I believe Dr. McDaniel made that statement in relation to the State Board of Education does not take over and operate any local school systems except as--through the courts.
And the question was whether or not the court was able to-MS. HAGER:
Okay. DR. GREEN:
If someone wanted to give you a college, you could accept the college if it was a private college. MS. HAGER:
That's basically what I wanted to know. MR. HILL:
Sub-paragraph (f) is a provision that comes from Article IV which is the constitutional boards and commissions Article. And it is a section that was added to all the boards and commissions that we're working with in Article IV. And we put it here as a matter of form but also as a matter of discussion so the committee may not wish to have such a provision but it was felt advisable in order that the boards-in other words, it's not a matter subject to objection by the boards. So this is not in the present Constitu-

tion, in other words. MS. HAGER:
'" :~
Why was that not put under (a) just as a matter of--? MR. HILL:
It was a matter of style. We, in the other boards, used paragraph (a) to establish the board itself and whatever the mechanism was for setting it up. And then (b) or (c) or (d) would be the powers. And the last one would be the general provisions about removal from office in composition. It's just a matter of style that we adopted earlier. MR. BRYAN:
Are those pretty well established by law now? MR. NEEL:
I don't know that there are any--well, there
c.
are some provisions in the Constitution which y'all have probably run across about holding public office. I don't know that there are any qualifications as such set up for--by statute for board members. MS. HAGER:
Is there a residency requirement? MR. NEEL:
I don't think so. MS. HAGER:

[-,,-'ICE 61

There is, isn't there, for the Board of Education?

..: )

MR. HILL:

':;-i

Yes, there is for the Board of Education.

MS. HAGER:

But not for the Board of Regents?

MR. NEEL:

The General Assembly generally sets the compensation.

There is one statutory provision about removal of

board members who fail to attend board meetings. If

they miss three meetings in a row without excuse they're

certainly autmatically removed. But compensation

and removal, there are some statutory provisions as

to that.

But as to qualifications, I don't know of any

statutory qualifications have thave been adopted by

the General Assembly. But there may be--there may

be, in Title 40, of the Executive Department or somewhere

else in the Constitution or the statutes about--about

qualifications of public officers generally that might

touch on this.

And of course the constitutional provision about

being--having been convicted of a felony, I think,

would also apply to the board. That if they were

convicted they could not hold that office. I think

the board or board member is a public officer.

p\GL 62

Now, the General Assembly might pass some Act

saying that all members of the board should be Georgia

Tech graduates.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

One other thing I would like to ask Henry about

this. I know we've talked about it several times,

statutory authority. Should there be or is there

any protection in the Constitution somewhere about

sovereign immunity as relates to the Board of Regents?

MR. NEEL:

Yes.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

If in something like the--

MR. NEEL:

I believe that's already covered. There has

been a--the General Assembly several years ago passed

a constitutional amendment or they did pass--they

adopted a constitutional amendment and the people

approved it for setting up a State Tort Claims Board.

But that was never .implemented by the General Assembly.

'i

And the court in effect said until the General Assembly

implements that constitutional provision, that all

agencies of the state including the Board of Regents

would enjoy sovereign immunity.

I think that we would like to have such a section

PAGE 63
insofar as the Board of Regents was concerned. But if I were in some other agency, it would immediately raise the question in my mind as to whether, having given it to the board in this case and not giving it to other agencies, we might weaken the dfense of other agencies of the state and I believe it possibly would be best here to leave that alone.
It--the reason that legislation came up, Art-and it did come up--was because of an old provision that was in the establishment of the University of Georgia a hundred and ninety years ago that the university had the authority to sue and be sued. And in consequence of that the legislature had waived sovereign immunity insofar as the University of Georgia and its derivative institutions were concerned.
And, therefore--and that was in the teach pay raise when the teachers sued us and we lost the case and then we came back the next year and spelled that out. So I believe that's been taken care of. But it was quite an inssue at one time, you're correct, because we were singled out until that Act was passed. MR. HILL:
Madame Chairman, one final issue and that's the program for elderly citizens which is on the draft which was sent to you, Paragraph II, which reads

PAGE 64

essentially as the present provision. And the question

is whether you would like to reatin it in the Constitu-

tion or provide for it statutorily.

MR. BRYAN:

r think it ought to be statutorily provided for

simply because you've got every special interest group

in the world who would claim, if you look after them,

look after me. And if it is provided statutorily,

as a practical matter, it's just going to be there

"1

and we're going to provide the services. rd' just

as soon leave it out of the Constitution.

MR. NEEL:

r--again, r apologize, Madame Chairman, for speaking

too much. But let me respond to that by saying the

reason this was put into the Constitutin is because

we felt--and the attorneys, you know, felt that we

didn't have authority to let citizens sixty-two years

of age or older attend units without constitutional

authority. In other words, the legislature couldn't

do it because it amounted to giving away state funds

\;

and that's why it was put into the Constitution with

limitations that it should not include attendance

at dental, medical, veterinary and law schools.

That probably could be taken care of elsewhere

in the Constitution but I'm not so sure that under

the present Constitution--or indeed I am sure that

;',' ,~

it would not be possible for us to do this without

a constitutional amendment.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

Mel, isn't ArticleX--I know it was voted down

but we went through this because I know it came through

my committee. We took it out. Then we allowed the

General Assembly to provide by law for certain things

like this but took it out of the Constitution?

MR. HILL:

Yes.

MR. GIGNILLIAT:

Is Article X going to--what's the situation on

the Article X committee?

MR. HILL:

The Article X committee won't be meeting again

but their recommendations are part of the package

and they'll be the same. The problem is they were

recommending something at the time that is now in
.~
the jurisdiction of another~ticle committee so we

have somewhat of an overlap problem.

And so if this committee felt strongly that it

should be in here, it might reverse that earlier recom-

mendation of the Article X committee. But I'm getting

the feeling--we haven't heard from everyone--but if

it could be removed, you would like it to be? MS. HAGER:
I think that was our general feeling. MR. GIGNILLIAT:
I agree with Sibley. I think it should be. Now, I'll say this. As a legislator, I don't remember being lobbied harder for everything else other than that by the senior citizens. That was their big project for the Senior Citizens organization. That was their big project that year. And when Article X came up, we got an awful lot of flack about taking it out of the Constitution.
But I think as long as there's language in the Constitution somewhere that the General Assembly can provide by law for such a thing where they can do it because Henry's right. It would be a gratuitytype thing which we're state-prohibited from doing if we didn't have some sort of constitutional authorization. But I think it should be broad and this language ought never to have been--well, it had to be if we ,; wanted to do it. But I certainly don't think it ought to be part of the Constitution. MS. HAGER:
Does that take care of that? MR. HILL:

Okay. MR. NEEL:
It's a very active program although we don't have nearly as many people sixty-two years of age and older attending college as we thought we would. MR. GIGNILLIAT:
Last time I checked there was less than a hundred; it may have increased. DR. CRIM:
By the year 2000 they will exceed the number of children in school under age eighteen, in terms of the total population. MR. NEEL:
May I say, Madame Chairman, that Mr. Freeman asked me to express regret at not being able to attend this meeting. He had a longstanding vacation plan for this week but he wanted to attend and he asked me to express his regret in his ability to attend and to assure you and the other members of the committee that his absence toddy is not to be construed as a lack of interest on his part of anything that this committee is working on.
May I also say in conclusion that I know what you're going through. I served as chairman of a committe for seven years on criminal code, the criminal

procedure code. And we worked for seven long years.

We got the criminal code by but the procedural code

didn't last very long when it hit the General Assembly.

And I'm very sympathetic with what you are doing, what you have done and the work that you've put into

it and we appreciate it. Certainly the Board of Regents

does and I personally appreciate what you're doing

and I hope that your Constitution will meet with approval

by the General Assembly. I know it's disheartening to work as hard as you have on a document and as we

did on the procedural code and we had a good procedural

code. We just couldn't convince the General Assembly

of that.

MS. HAGER:

Thank you for coming very much. It helped us

i {, Z

out a lot. I guess the main thing then is this section

(b) that needs to be worked on.

MR. HILL:

We'll work on that.

MS. HAGER:

And you will send that to us and I guess if anyone

has any real objections to the wording, they should

contact your office? Has a date been set for the

full committee?

MR. HILL:

PAGE 69 No, no. You're the first subcommittee to complete your work. I think it will be the middle of September, the week of the 15th or the week of the 22nd of September before we reconvene the full committee. But we'll prepare a report from this committee with this draft and recommendations and a summary of what's transpired to the full committee and we'll send a copy of that to you so you can review it. And if there's an objection to the rewording of (b) you can let ue know and we'll handle it at the full committee meeting. MS. HAGER: All right. Thank all of you for coming. And we'll see you in September, then. [Whereupon, the above-entitled proceedings was adjourned at 3:15 o'clock, p.m.]

1
INDEX Committee to Revise Article VIII Subcommittee Meeting Held on Aug. 12, 1980

1

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 8-12-80
Proceedings. pp. 2-7
SECTION IV: BOARD OF REGENTS Paragraph I: (a) Composition, appointment, etc. pp. 7-9
(b) Jurisdiction. pp. 9-44 (c) Appropriations. pp. 45-55 (d) Duties, etc. pp. 44-45, 55-57 (e) Acceptance of donations, etc. pp. 57-59 (f) Qualifications. pp. 59-63
SECTION VII: EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE Paragraph IV: Waiver of tuition. pp. 63-67

PAGE 1

2

STATE OF GEORGIA

3

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VIII

4

OF THE

5

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

6

7

8

9

10
"z
11 j:
'oG.".o.
@;i ! 14 II:-zIcI: 15 .: "'":;) 16 .~.. Q -Zc 17 :

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND STATE SCHOOL
SUPERINTENDENT

18

19

20

21 Room 40l-A State Capitol
22 Atlanta, Georgia
23 Monday, August 18, 1980 9:00 a.m.
24

25

PRESENT:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
CHAIRMAN CHARLES MEREDITH MIRIAM GRAHAM ODELL OWENS WILLIAM PRESSLY TOM VANN
ALSO PRESENT:
MELVIN B. HILL, JR. VICKIE GREENBERG
HARVEY FINDLEY
JENNYE GUY

PAGE 2

! ;~

PAGE 3

PRO C E E DIN G S

~. 'r

2

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think it is past the hour to

3 come to order.

4

I have a slight problem this morning. I have a

5 Board of Trustees meeting that I have to get back to at

6 around 10:00, and I have spoken to Mrs. Graham,

7 co~chairperson of this committee, and she has graciously

8 agreed to lead you through the rest of the agenda.

9

As far as I can tell, the only agenda item we have

10

1:1 Z
11 i..a0=..:..
12 a:

@rl

14 !

I-
-cIII
:I:
15 .:I

1a::1
;;)

16 .zC.D.

Q

17

-aZc:
CD

is to review the draft, the first working draft of Section I and Section II of Article VIII unless the staff has some comments relative to this document that you just passed out. Would you like to lead us through this?
MS. GREENBERG: All right. What I did on this memo dated August 18th was to provide for fifteen states, constitutional e~erpts of the State School Superintendent and State Board of Education, and I just randomly picked

18 fifteen states, and you'll notice as you briefly scan the

19 provisions that most of them either simply mention the State

20 Board of Education and State School Superintendent and provide

21 that their duties and qualifications shall be provided by

22 law. Very few of them will 11.s t specific duties and 23 qualifications except for possibly if you'll look at for 24 example Illinois, the Board may establish goals, determine 25 policies, provide for planning and evaluating of education

PAGE 4

programs and recommend financing, so it's in very broad genera]

2 terms, nothing specifically as far as prohibiting them from
?',:'
3 being a member of a school book publishing company or anything

4 like that.

5

In some of the states you'll notice there's no

6 provision at all for State Board of Education or State School

7 Superintendent, and therefore I would assume it's being left

8 to the discretion of the General Assembly in providing for it

9 by law.

:.~ '.";'

10 .,

MR.. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I was going to respond to

Z

11

i=
.'0."....

your request

the last

time for some information about

@r~~12 '" qualifications in other state constitutions, and I think that will become relevant when we get into Paragraph I, Section II.

14 ! t-

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: California has an interesting

O:-zcI:l

., 15 011 situation, right, where their superintendent is elected and

'";)

16 ...zIII he nominates the board. No, I'm sorry. I read that wrong.

-z~c

'" 17 III

Okay. Then why don't we just -- has everyone had a

18 chance to read the first working draft, and maybe we can

19 proceed with the first paragraph and see if the first

20 attempt to capture the many discussions we've had to date is

21 satisfactory.

22

MR. OWENS: When you said satisfactory, you had

23 reference to being satisfactory according to the motions

24 passed, or to the feeling of our --

25

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I think both. First of all,

PAGE 5

we should see if they're inclusive enough of the discussions

':'::

2 that we had, and if they seem to be adequate for us to

3 recommend adoption or modification as the committee sees fit.

4

I have a question on Paragraph I. I thought we

5 had arrived at a decision to indicate that that section would

6 read,-be titled --

7

MR.. HILL: Elementary and Secondary Education?

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Yes.

9

MR.. HILL: I went back through the actual transcript

\.:

10

"z
11 ~0c....r..:
12 cr:

@rl

14 !... ':"z: 15 .:
.".cr:
;;;)
16 .z.. D
..17 cZr:

of our minutes, and it was somewhat uncertain. At one point that seemed to be the agreement, but then there was some discussion as to whether this Paragraph I really applied more broadly than just primary and secondary education because public funds are expended for the support of other than just primary and secondary education, and so I felt we had not reached final agreement on the title of this, so it is up for discussion again.

18

We could entitle this Primary and Secondary

19 Education, Support by Taxation, and then just indicate the

20 same language as we have here.

21

DR. PRESSLY: I do feel that the State does

22 finance other education, higher education for instance, but

23 in Section II we're obviously dealing with elementary and

24 secondary all through when we start dealing with the State

25 Board of Education and the State Superintendent who is not

PAGE 6

in,.charge of the universities, so I really think this ought

!.:~

2 to be elementary and secondary.

~,~,

3

MR. HILL: Section I, of course, is the Section I

4 of the entire article, and then Section II is State Board of

5 Education; Section III is the Board of Regents -- well,

6 Section III is the State School Superintend,nt, but then

7 Section IV is the Board of Regents.

8

DR. PRESSLY: I see. And Section I is also over

9 the Board of Regents?

,,'.

10

'?5' zI.iI

11 ai=:
0A....
12 a:

@;I

! 14 ... ':~"r
15 011
Ia.i:I
::;)
16 I.z.I.I Cl Z
17 a~: III

MR. HILL: Yes. It's to some extent a policy statement.
DR. PRESSLY: I see. All right. MR. OWENS: The discussion that we had that made that change, I don't remember the exact change that we made in it, was the adult education aspect that~ brought in, and that's publicly financed, and that was the difference between the elementary and secoftdary education.

18

MR. VANN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hill, the draft; would

19 seem to propose then to deal with all education in Georgia,

20 in other words whatever the State of Georgia might provide,

21 both primary, secondary, vocational, higher education.

22

MR. HILL: It appears to.

23

MR. VANN: In that respect, I have no objection to

24 this because I feel that this section deals with education,

25 however and whatever might be provided in Georgia, but I do

PAGE 7

have some concems that have come to my mind since I have

2 been reading the histories provided in this particular

3 document, and I have a concem about stating that the expense

4 of public education shallbe provided for by taxation if it

5 covers the whole gamut of education because at certain levels

6 it may be provided for by taxation and otherwise, and there

7 may be no intention to limit it to that by this constitutional

8 provision.

9

MR. OWENS: What's the otherwise you had in mind?

10
.."z
11 j:
.o.....
@;I

MR. VANN: In higher education, for instance, tuition, public funds that may come from sources other than Georgia taxation, contributions, gifts. I recognize the fact that in the second one with reference to the State Board of

14 ~I Education it would give them the power to accept bequests,
'".c(
:I:
.15 ~ donations, grants, transfers of land, buildings and other
"::I
16 .~.. property, and of course I expressed the view before, I had a
aaz
17 concem about -- you know, we were discussing equal educa-

18 tional opportunity. To me in my review of the constitution,

19 and I think you said to us there was no specific provision

20 that you were aware of providing for equal protection in so

21 many words in the constitution; is this correct?

22

MR. HILL: That's right, in the present constitution

23

MR. VANN: The closest I found to it would be the

24 section that dealt with paramount duty of government shall be

25 impartial and complete, the protection of person and property.

PAGE 8

MR. HILL: Yes.

2

MR. VANN: It seems to me like this is an odd

3 place to put a section with reference to equal protection

4 and that our constitution ought to contain an equal protection 5 provision, and it ought to be in Article I, Section I right

6 along with due process so that it permeates the entire

7 constitution and doesn't just seem to affect education.

8

I would like to read a proposal for consideration.

9

Paragraph I. Public Education, Free Prior to

10 College, Support by Taxation.

"z
11 ;::

The provision of an adequate public education for

"o"
"1M-
@.2j ~r14~!

the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia. Public education prior to the college or postsecondary level from the age of 5 through the age of 18 of

I-
~

4(
:r
15 ~ citizens shall be free. The expenses of public education

""";;)
16 ~ shall be provided for by taxation or otherwise.

1M
zQ
17 g

I realize that the 1945 constitution eliminated the

18 provision about free, but it had been contained in prior

19 constitutions, and I have always had a little bit of concern

20 about this.

21

I have never checked the law, but have the courts

22 held that the '45 constitution still means that the education

23 shall be free? Does the statement that education shall be 24 provided for by taxation mean the common schools shall be

25 free?

1
i

PAGE 9

It would seem to me like that you could well have

~ ~,;~

2 an interpretation that you could also charge tuition, any-

3 thing of this nature, and I have had some concern which I

4 haven't expressed before, but I think it is well for this

5 Paragraph I to deal with the obligation of the state to

6 provide an adequate public education for the citizens that

7 would be from --

8

MR.. OWENS: It still holds up under law that the

9 public schools cannot legally charge tuition of a nature, and

10 when it's done it has to be done rather surreptitiously.

I:J Z
11 j:
'0..".... 12 '"
@;I

For example, we charge a -- not charge, ask for a tuition for science supplies, but the letters are sent to the parents asking them for this, we collect it, but you cannot -- if

! 14 ~ ." ~ :I:
15 olI

I:J
'";;) 16 .zlD..

Q

Z

'" 17

~ lD

they don't pay it, you still cannot punish the child for not paying it.
Of course, I don't know if they're fully aware of the law, but we put it down in nice language so that we a1;'e

18 safe in case something comes up. This is required to improve

19 some of the science supplies and equipment, things that we

20 need that the state just doesn't afford.

21

I brought that up to say that so that indicates

22 there, and it has been proven, at least it's accepted in the

23 courts that we are not to charge tuition to students on a

24 mandatory basis.

25

MR.. VANN: Yes, I agree with you. I'm not sure

PAGE 10

whether this is based upon statute or the constitution.

2

MR. OwtNS: Or policy.

3

MR. VANN: Or policy. I mean the court decision.

4

I don't know why they ever eliminated free. There

5 must have been some reason for it, but as far as primary and 6 secondary education is concerned I think throughout most of

7 our constitutional history if not all of it it has been free

8 theoretically.

9

DR. PRESSLY; Tom, would you read your paragraPh

10 again? I got most of it, but not all of it.

"z
11 ~
..'o"....

MR. VANN: All right, sir.

@;i The first sentence is the same except there's an addition of one word, the provision of an adequate public

14 .~.. education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of

':~z":

15 olI the State of Georgia. The only addition there is the word

"'"::J

16 ~... "public" in between adequate and education .

Q

Z

17 g~

DR. PRESSLY: Yes, sir.

18

MR.. VANN: This is a new sentence: Public education

19 prior to the college or post-secondary level from the age of

20 5 through the age of 18 of citizens shall be free.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I just have a problem with the

22 age.

23

MR.. VANN: All right.

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: There are some cases where

25 students, depending on local laws, may attend school before 5,

PAGE 11

or there may become cases where students may be allowed to

2 attend school before 5, and if we pin it down at 5 it might

3 not apply, if you're not 5 you have to pay.

4

MR.. VANN: The purpose of that was not that intent.

5 The purpose would be to assure that it would be free from the

6 age of 5 through the age of 18.

7

For instance, right now we don't have any age limit

8 except by statute, and of course

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It could be mandatory?

~::'

10

MR. VANN: It could be free by act of the legislature

..CzI
11 I- I assume for the ages above or below that, but it would be
..0....
..12 constitutional in that age group which currently -- I selected
@ r l it because in my judgment it covers kindergarten through 12th

14 ~ grade possibly.

I-

':"z:

.15 ~ CI

MR.. HILL:

Is there an advantage in stating it that

;;)
16 .Iz.I.I way as opposed to just stating that the primary and secondary

..Q
Z
17 III education for the citizens shall be free? Instead of

18 specifying all of the prior to and post, if you just said

19 primary and secondary, would that do the same thing?
, .."";

20

MR.. VANN: In other words., I don It know -- as far

21 as I'm concerned there's a question about the language of

22 primary, secondary, college or post-secondary, and I'm

23 assuming that this would enable the legislature to define

24 within certain limits what's meant by it, and therefore I

25 felt it necessary to add an age because maybe that's too

PAGE 12

strict, but we statutorily have provided for an age, and I

2 assume -- maybe it's well that the legislature could provide,
;I"~
3 still go back to providing that the age 7 through 16 would be

4 free, perhaps they should, but I don't feel like they should

5 have that authority.

6

I am trying to cover the gamut of what we currently

7 have free.

8

MR. OWENS: 18 I think is too young to cut off.

9 With the added materials they have for students these days

10 they're barely finishing at 18. If somebody fails a course

r'.~

11

%"
j:

and has to go another year, they run into extreme problems

.'.0"....

12 '" trying to really graduate before -- I mean at that age level.

@rl

Now with the 12th grade and the requirements they

! 14 ... have it doesn't give them any leverage for failing any courses

':"z:
15 olI or even being out or starting to school late or any kind of

"'~"

16

...til
%

thing that might deter them from graduating on time.

Cl

Z
'" 17 III

MR. VANN: I recognize what you're saying. I had

18 some concern about this, and I had thought about the age of

19 19 or some other age, and I wouldn't have any objection I

20 guess to increasing that age as long as we continue to express

21 it as prior to or some level below college or post-secondary.

22

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Can you again give the rationale

23 for the age, the specific mention of the starting and ending

24 age?

25

MR. VANN: Well, the starting and ending age is not

PAGE 13

intended to express a starting and ending age, but an age

2 at which public education would be -- a point at which

3 public education prior to college or post-secondary level

4 would be free, and attaching ages to freedom prior to college

5 or post-secondary level.

6

You know, then it leaves it up to the General

7 Assembly as I see it, they could provide for free public

8 education at all ages, at college, secondary, post-secondary.

9 As a matter of fact, we basically have free public education

10

" 11

z
j:

or:

.f..

@;i

! 14 lo-n ":zil:
15 ol)
"or:
;;)
16 .~.. Q Z "il
17 ::

at the post-secondary vocational school level, but it would not be mandatory, it would be optional.
CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Mrs. Graham? MRS. GRAHAM: I think when you start listing ages you're going to run into a conflict because under Public Law 94.142 it specifically says the child will receive education from zero to 21 I believe under the law, and so as a State School Board member maybe you could address this

18 problem, I mean this area.

19

MR. VANN: I don't believe Public Law 94.142

20 requires you to furnish it at those ages. It does require

21 you to furnish it if you furnish it to any others at those

22 ages.

23

And besides, I would have to say to you that even

24 the constitution adopted by the citizens of Georgia would be
i
25 preempted by federal law which is, you know, the highest of

PAGE 14

priority in the United States, but Public Law 94.142 deals

),.-..;~:

:'::

2 with the education of the handicapped, and --

:~.lj

3

MRS. GRAHAM: Apparently I misread it or whatever,

4 but I have got a book this thick on the Public Law 94.142,

5 and I was just reading through there, and under certain

6 sections dealing with the handicapped child I was under the

7 impression that the parent did have the right to request that

8 the child receive special services from zero to 21, I mean

9 with hearings and so forth. Now, is that correct?

",

10

MR. VANN: I'm not certain that it provides this.

\~t

11

z"
j:

There possibly

is

a

definite position that

could be,. taken

.'.0"....

12 '" and a position that we've taken otherwise that it's provided

e r l for all children at the same age level if that's what the

14 !... state provides

VI
:r
15 011

MRS. GRAHAM; This book is two years old now that

"'";:)
16 ...zIIil I'm reading, so maybe the law has been changed.

0z

'" 17 ~ IIil

MR. VANN: I don't think it's been changed, but if

18 that becomes an obligation of the State of Georgia it would

19 become an obligation imposed by federal law.

20

DR. PRESSLY: What is gained by using the phrase

21 from the age of 5 to 18 at all when you have already said

22 prior to the college level?

23

MR. VANN: I guess I had concern when I said public

24 education prior to college or post-secondary level of citizens

25 shall be free, that's one possible way of putting it, but I

PAGE 15

had some concern of the ability to legislate less than

2 currently kindergarten through 12th grade.

3

DR. PRESSLY: Would you object to putting the word -

4

MR. VANN: I recognize it doesn't limit them. You

5 know, you don't have to call something kindergarten through

6 the 12th grade or --

7

DR. PRESSLY: Would you object to putting "usually"

8 before the "from," so that if a child is 19 or 20 and is still

9 in high school nobody is going to object? If you say usually

10 from the age of 5 to 18, then no one could object if someone

"z
11 j:
..'o.."..
@;I

does bump into difficulty as you're pointing out and he's there until he's 20 or she's 20, and you'll be covered.
MR. VANN: I guess what I was trying to do was to

14 ~ express that which was currently being done in Georgia, not

l;;

::I:

15 olI requiring a free education under age 5 by the constitution

"'";;)

16 .~.. because it wasn't currently being done .

aoz
17

DR. PRESSLY: Yes.

18

MR. VANN: I h~ve problems with the age of 18, you

19 know, likewise, because the object of it is to afford a free

20 -- as Melvin expresses it, a primary and secondary education.

21

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Why don't we say K through l2?

22

MR. VANN: Well, because --

23

MR. HILL: They may change their numbers. You see,

24 that's our problem if we have a specificity of that type. I

25 doubt if that will happen in the near future, but we're trying

PAGE 16

to draft something that will last us for fifty or a hundred

2 years, so the broader the language the better.

3

I think we can say that-with some assurance we will

4 always have primary and secondary education.

5

MR. VANN: If you include by primary kindergarten --

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: That's no more than kindergarten

7 through 12, it's the same difference. In order to change K

8 through 12 you 're probably going to change the definition of

9 primary and secondary.

10

MR. VANN: I guess what he's saying is you could

..15

11

Z
i=

change nomenclature and still have the same type of education,

.oG.o.

@;i or you could change it where you were teaching or where you were providing education from what was traditionally K through

! 14 3 all as one unit, not just K, 1, 2, 3.

l;;

:-zc: 15 ~

You know, the age is something that I' felt expressed

1or5:

:;)

16 .~.. what was currently being done; however, the maximum age is not

zQ
17 g necessarily there change the language prior to the college or

18 post-secondary level, but I think there should be some

19 maximum age at which it becomes not a free public education

20 if it was so provided by the legislature.

21

Now, you know, adult education is being provided

22 free, vocational education in a respect in being provided

23 free, and about the only non-free education in the state of

24 Georgia, and it's being supported to a large quantity by

25 taxation, is higher education, college and university level.

PAGE 17

The thought of it is to have some age limit that

2 doesn't you know, you could put 25, but I don't believe we

3 would want that. I think I'm trying to get more to a point at

4 which we are now performing.

5

I guess I'm saying that's the minimum, if we were no

6 performing at that minimum

7

MR. HILL: Let's look at someone in the adult

8 education program which we talked about last time. Let's say

9 a person is 40 or 50 and would like to have a diploma, they

10 only went through the ninth grade or tenth grade. If we
11 "z~ draft the language more broadly than this and then have an age
9-1.o..... 12 " limitation in there. I think the state under this language
would be obligated to provide that 40-year-old with a free
14 ~ education until they had achieved -- until they graduated from
'"
~
15 .:I a hig1\. school program. Maybe that's a good public policy in
"";;;)
16 ~ itself. but I think that's what you would be doing is Q z
17 ~ authorizing that or allowing the General Assembly to authorize

18 that.

19

Again, we have to remember that this is j~st the

20 basic minimum and the General Assembly could exceed it.

21

MR. VANN: Always?

22

MR. OWENS: There was one point I dido't think

23 about--

24

MR. VANN: The one point is -- Excuse me, Mr.

25 Owens. Go ahead.

PAGE 18

MR.. OWENS: When you brought it up, when you said

2 elementary and secondary, well, the adult education program

3 basically covers elementary and secondary, so the word

4 elementary and secondary would not have been out of place,

5 I thought about that afterwards, because most of the adult

6 programs that you have teaching them elementary studies and

7 high school studies, trying to finish high sthool or GED,

8 et cetera

9

MR.. HILL: Are they free now, those programs?

10

MR.. OWENS: They are. I don't know about all

"z
11 j: aI:

sections.

They are everywhere I am, the vocational programs.

2

III

Q~J;I They have had to pay for the examination, the GED test, but

basically the program itself is free.

14!......

DR. PRESSLY: Let me ask this question. Can a

~

15 olI 40-year-old now take high school work without charge?

"aI:
:;)

16 ~ III

MR.. OWENS: Yes. They can take it in the adult

zQ

17 a education programs, it's a special program set up. They

18 cannot attend high school, you know, the regular daily high

19 school.

20

DR. PRESSLY: They can take the equivalency?

21

MR. OWENS: They do have a provision set up for I

22 imagine

23

MR.. VANN: Theoretically I suppose, and I'm subject

24 to correction on this, but theoretically I don't think there

25 is any policy that would prohibit a local school system from

..... '.~ .. ':.~

PAGE 19

admitting someone irregardless of his age to secondary or

2 elementary education, but they might be able to charge him

3 tuition beyond age 19, and so there is an adult education

4 program provided.

5

DR. PRESSLY: Is it free?

6

MR. VANN: Yes, sir.

7

DR. PRESSLY: Then I don't see any reason for age

8 limits.

9

MR. VANN: Let me say this to you, that not all

10 school systems may have an adult education program.

11 5"z

DR. PRESSLY: I know that.

.o.....

~~;I14! CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. I think there's not uninimity on that, whether or not there should be a specific I.-:.zc-.: age clause in there. I think if we could resolve that we

15 ~ might be, closer to adopting the language.

"Ill:
:;)

16 .~..

MR. VANN: I think the statute right now says 19 .

zQ

17 ~ I believe that's correct.

18

MR. HILL: Harvey, do you have any feelings about

19 this?

20

This is Harvey Findley with the Office of LegislativE

21 Counsel who is involved in a lot of drafting of statutes and

22 whatnot.

23

MR. FINDLEY: I see Mr. Vann' s point. I believe he' E

24 trying to establish a matter of fundamental law, your idea if

25 I could presume to interpret it,- that citizens should have a

PAGE 20

right to a free education between what amounts to elementary

2 and post-secondary, you want to establish that as a fundamental

3 public policy expressed in the constitution, but not limit the

4 General Assembly to go beyond that.

5

The problem I would raise, Mr. Hill, is that as you

6 express that education is free for primary and secondary,

7 then it could possibly be construed as necessitating that

8 there be some charge for education -- in other words, bind

9 the General Assembly to charge for public education beyond

10 primary and secondary which is of course what we do, but do we

I:J
Z
11 j:;
.'o"".-.
@;I

as a matter of fundamental law want to have a connotation, and we may, that the General Assembly wouldn't have the flexibility to provide free education say through junior

! 14 ~

college level as has been done out in California I believe.

':"z:

15 ~

While that may be not realistic right now in 1980,

I:J

'":;)

16 ~... we can't afford to do it and a lot of other reasons, but do we

zQ

17 : as a matter of fundamental policy, public policy want to

18 preclude that.

19

In other words, the point that you -- I see your

20 intention that you want to as a matter of fundamental public

21 policy that education has to be free, which seems to me all

22 things being equal if it could be expressed properly would be

23 desirable.

24

On the other hand --

25

MR. VANN: May I read you a first draft that I had

PAGE 21

and ask you about this?

2

The provision of an adequate public education for

3 the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of

4 Georgia. Public education prior to the college or post-

s secondary level from the age of 5 through the age of 18 of

6 citizens shall be free, the expense of which shall be provided

7 for by taxation. The expenses of other public education shall

8 be provided for from public funds, including those derived

9 from taxation, tuition, contribution and gift, or otherwise.

10

MR. FINDLEY: That more successfully addresses the

concern that I have. If you can figure out some way to

express it as a matter of constitutional principle, funda-

mental public policy that education shall be free for what we all think of as the public school level, whatever that may be, from three years old to 25, but then the state would have

the flexibility to either be free or charge for any other

public education, and as I understood that's what you wanted

18 to say, but I'm wondering if it would say that.

19

MR. VANN: The reason I eliminated that Will the

20 reason I thought that what I finally came up to said this,

21 but the other I guess is specific about it.

22

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Couldn't we add something about

23 free for elementary and secondary or some language like that,

24 period. The cost for public education beyond that shall be

2S provided by law, which could be from zero up to whatever it

PAGE 22

is.

2

MR. VANN: I thought the 1969 or '64 constitution

3 that had two sections, one of them dealing with public

4 education below the college level, and one of them dealing

5 with public education above the college level had some merit,

6 because as we deal with education the way it reads now there

7 are some -- except for the regents section and except for

8 this change you put here, it just dealt apparently with

9 common schools possibly, and I was trying to provide in one

10 a continuation of adequate, but I was making it -- I was using

the word public which is what I think we all intend.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Mrs. Graham, do you have a

cODmlent?

MRS. GRAHAM: I wanted to say that since it's our

duty to come up with a working draft to submit, that if we

were to go back to the constitution and read Section I,

Public Education, Paragraph I, that it says that it all. 18 You may want to add a few words there, but that is basically

19 saying what you're saying, free tuition, the provision of an

20 adequate education for the citizens shall be a primary

21 obligation of the state of Georgia, the expenses of which 22 shall be provided by taxation, and I know your concern is

23 where we're going to stop, but then, let's face it, those

24 who are in the General Assembly will -- I mean they're going

25 to do what they so choose to do based on what the people of

PAGE 23

Georgia more or less want.

2

Are we really just going in circles here is my

3 question?

4

MR. HILL; I don't feel you're going in circles

5 because I think there is some question under this language

6 as to whether a free tuition must be provided. It is

7 provided under the present circumstances, but the language

8 there is not crystal clear that the provision of a primary

9 and secondary education shall be free to the citizens, and so

10 to clarify that and make it so that no one is confused you

I!I

Z

11

~
..'o"....

might want to add just those words.

9;1 I think perhaps we are circling what language to use but there are about two or three things we have to decide.

14 ~ I don't know if we can do a good job of drafting this at this I'" :I:
15 olI table. I would hope that we could with Harvey's assistance I!I '";;)
16 .~.. and more attention to this particular provision now that we
cz
17 : could go back and redo it based on your specific direction,

18 what you want to have included, and then come back for one mor.

19 meeting of the subcommittee rather than try to do this this

20 morning.

21

It's important we get a good draft to present to the

22 full committee, and the question is whether we want to have thE

23 age or not.

,

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH; What I was going to do is ask

25 Mr. Vann to sort of summarize for the record specifically

PAGE 24

what should be contained in this article and have you do just.

2 as you suggested, kind of draft it.

3

DR. PRESSLY: Charles, wouldn't a motion help a

4 little bit before the drafting, because we have had quite a

5 little discussion here of whether or not we wanted to say

6 anything beyObd the college and post-secondary level. It

7 seems to me we might get the feeling of the majority before

8 they actually do it. Do you think that would be a good idea?

9

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Do you want to put one?

10

DR. PRESSLY: I would like to move that we accept

Mr. Vann's recommendation, removing only the words "from the

age of 5 to 18."

In other words, it would read that the provision of

an adequate public education for the citizens shall be a

primary obligation of the State of Georgia. Public education

prior to the college or post-secondary level for the citizens

shall be free. The expense of public education shall be

18 provided by -- for by taxation or otherwise.

19

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. We have a motion from Dr.

20 Pressly that we use the statement just read as the basis for

21 the final draft of Paragraph I.

22

Is there a second to the motion?

23

MR. OWENS: I second it.

24

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It's properly moved and seconded

25 that the language serve as a basis for Paragraph I. Would

PAGE 25

anyone like to speak to the motion?

2

MR. HILL: This doesn't take into account Mr.

3 Findley's observation that to just stop right there might

4 leave the General Assembly in the position of not being allowei

5 to provide free tuition beyond that, so would you object to an

6 additional sentence to specify similar to the way you've done

7 in your second sentence of your first draft that beyond that

8 point they can do it?

9

MR. VANN: Dr. Pressly, I would like to make a

10 substitute motion and ask you your thoughts on it.

11 S"z

I would like to move that the staff draft a provisiol

o

A-

@) - I12 ~ incorporating the theories contained"in the following language:

14 ~

The provision of an adequate public education for

!;;

:z:

15 olJ the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of

"..:
~

16 ~ Georgia. Public education prior to the college or post-

az

17 : secondary level for the citizens shall be free, the expenses

18 of which shall be provided for by taxation. The expense of

19 other public education shallbe provided for from public funds

20 including those derived from taxation, tuition, contributions

21 and gifts, or otherwise.

22

DR, PRESSLY: That suits me fine.

23

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: You're going to withdraw your

24 motion?

25

DR. PRESSLY: I withdraw my motion. I like that.

PAGE 26

MR. VANN: Do you want to --

2

MR. OWENS: I second that. You did the same thtilg

3 and extended it a little bit.

4

DR. PRESSLY: That's right.

5

MR. VANN: That expressed the sense of what we said,

6 the theory.

7

DR. PRESSLY: That's fine.

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Can we pass that by comnon

9 consent, or do we need to take a vote?

10

Mrs. Graham?

MRS. GRAHAM: That 's fine with me.

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay.

It's getting close to ten o'clock. Dr. Pressly

suggested I may need to stay through part of Section II.

MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one further

question on Paragraph I? In terms of this provision that no

citizen shall be denied equal protection of the law, is it

18 the consensus of the subcommittee that this should be a

19 recomnendation to the Select Committee that this language

20 should be in Article I and relate across the board and not

21 be in this?

22

MR. VANN: That's my thought, it should permeate the

23 entire constitution.

24

MR. HILL: This was a compromise the last time, and

25 at your suggestion --

PAGE 27

MR. VANN: It was at my suggestion, but I didn't

2 even like it then,

3

MR. HILL: -- to try to address the equal educa-

4 tional opportunity issue.

5

MR. VANN: In this section.

6

MR. HILL: Is that issue to be left un--

7

MR. VANN: It would be my judgment that if the

8 constitution generally provides this that it would be reached

9 by the same section in the general part of the constitution

10 if it meets this problem of equal educational opportunity and

11

"z
j:
oc..>..=..

would meet it better there from a constitutional viewpoint

@;I than in this section. CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Is that feeling shared by the

! 14 comnittee?

In

<l(

:I:

15 ~

MR. OWENS: I feel that what he said implied that --

"c>=
::>

16 ~... is it implied enough to stand up in court, this provision of

zQ

17 : equal opportunity or protection by law? Isn't that implied

18 in what you stated?

19

MR. VANN; Of course, I'm not certain that the

20 dictionary language of adequate says it means equal, but it
21 says that meaning has become obsolete, and it generally now

22 means something less I guess than that, but what I am saying,

23 Mr. Owens, is that I don't feel like -- I understand the

24 sense of everyone, and I had really forgotten that our

25 constitution didn't contain any provision about equal

PAGE 28

protection of the law, and I really feel like that our

2 constitution ought to contain a provision about equal

3 protection of the law, but I don't think it ought to relate

4 to education alone, and I think it ought to relate to all

5 phases of the Georgia constitution including education, and

6 if it's placed in Section I, Rights of Citizens, that it then

7 becomes a statement -- and by the way, it says no person shall

8 be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process

9 of law in the very first section, and I'm suggesting that the

10 same section or one very akin to it now be provided that says

no person shall be denied the equal protection of the law,

and that this governs our whole constitution.

I am not so certain that placing it in the education

section will do that, will@pvern the whole constitution. I

really don't see why we should say that, I mean in the field

of education a citizen should not be denied the equal protec-

tion of the law and permit in other sections of the constituticn

18 not to say it.

19

. JJR. PRESSLY: In other words, we're not throwing it

20 out in the sense of tossing it aside, but we're putting it

21 where it would have broader reference.

22

MR. VANN: I would like to recommend that we

23 recommend that --

24

MR. OWENS: If we leave' it heTe and somewhere else

25 would it be just added impetus rather than a negative form

PAGE 29

of redundance?

2

MR. VANN: I don't really know. I think if it's in

3 the general portion of the constitution that this will not add

4 any legal meaning.

5

MR. OWENS: You know, some of the court cases that

6 have been dealing with -- we found, I don't know whether it

7 was in the other part of the constitution or in some of the

8 other states, but it was not an educational division of the

9 constitution and they had problems with it, so it needs to be

10
.."z
11 j:
..o....
@);~i ! 14 ... '<"l :I: 15 ~ ~ ::I 16 ~... Q Z <l 17 :

somewhere, and I'm wondering whether if we have the added or the necessary force or impetus if it were not here.
What would be against -- I'm trying to find Why would you -- You said you were not against the idea, but you do have some problems wi~h the, with it being here and somewhere else, or that it just only applies to this by being in this section .
If it were somewhere else what would be the problem,

18 or if it were just here only what would be the problem?

19

MR. VANN: I suppose just that there would be no

20 necessity to express it here if it's expressed elsewhere.

21

If it's not expressed elsewhere, then I might

22 consider it, although you realize I felt that we should not

23 express in the constitution something stating like equal 24 educational opportunity unless we sat down and had some

25 understanding about what we were talking about, because I

PAGE 30

think what we're largely concerned with is the provision of 2 dollars.

3

MR. OWENS: The statement that's in the copy we

4 have, no citizen shall be denied the equal opportuni~y -- the

5 protection rather of the law, which is a simple statement, it

6 covers it. I think it satisfies it.

7

If that could be placed in some kind of --

8

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It's your view it should be

9 here as well as elsewhere?

10

MR. OWENS: I feel it should be here as well as

"z
11 j:
Io..l..l..:
@;i

any other place it might be, and I just feel that it just adds to that section as well as to the constitution.
When you're looking for these things and writing,

! 14 ... working with it, sometimes you're dealing with just that ." ~ :t
15 01) section, and if you don't know the full constitution -- and ~ ::J
16 .~.. that is a difficult thing to know -- you don't pick it up as
az10
17 readily, and sometimes you don't get the full feel of what

18 it's all about.

19

DR. PRESSLY: Odell, wouldn~ you possibly buy this

20 idea that unless it is put in a place that applies to all

21 phases of life in Georgia you want it kept here?

22

MR. OWENS: Yeah, that's the idea.

23

DR. PRESSLY: I would buy that, unless it's put ther4

24 we want it here. If it's put there, we don't need it here, bU1

25 unless it's put there we want it ~e.

PAGE 31

MR. OWENS: And since you had the staff in your 2 motion to do this drafting, and we have already passed that 3 by common consent, it would be that this would be provided 4 so that it could be covered in the constitution or in this

5 area.

6

DR. PRESSLY: One or the other.

7

MR. OWENS: If it's not ~-

8

MR. HILL: There's a couple of things I would like tc~

9 say about it now.

10

The language that we now have that the protection of

11

"z
j:

person and property is paramount duty of government and shall

..'o."...

@;i be impartial and complete, which is the present language we have in Article I, has been construed as our equal protection

14 ~ clause, and it has exactly the same force and effect in

I-

':"c
15 Q

Georgia as an equal protection clause woua:.d have, number one.

"'"::;)
16 .~..

Number two, the committee to revise Article I

Qz
17 a proposed the language that no person shall be denied the

18 equal protection of laws as being included in Article I.

19

However, it also went on to propose that that

20 specify that equal protection shall not be denied on the basis

21 of race, sex, religion, national origin, et cetera, and the

22 issue of sex of course was what caused the Senate to spend an

23 entire day arguing on that one sentence because of the ERA,

24 so that what I'm saying is that while the Article I committee 25 has recommended that an equal protection clause be included,

PAGE 32

but because of the controversial nature of it I'm not real

2 sure what's going to happen to it, so I can't tell you with

3 certainty that that language that's in the present constitutio~

4 or that's in the proposed constitution will be there, sounder

5

those circ~tances --

6

DR. PRESSLY: When this takes final form, will you

7 then know?

8

MR. HILL: Well, that --

9

DR. PRESSLY: You don't know which comes first?

10

" II

% j:

.'o.."...

@;I

! 14 I..-. ~ %
15 olI
"~ '"
16 ~...
zQ
17 ~

MR.. VANN: You're saying, though, our courts have said that we have an equal protection clause.
MR.. HILL: Yes, that's right. MR. VANN: In other words, maybe they haven't categorically said it, but I'm assuming we would say that I think the Supreme Court of the United States said that the right to an education is a property right . MR. HILL: Yes.

18

MR.. VANN: Otherwise it wouldn't be covered under

19 that section.

20

You know, protection of person and property --

21

MR. HILL: I'm sorry, I can't say that the court

22 has in fact determined that the right to an..-education is a

23 property righ t .

24

DR.PRESSLY: The truth of the matter is, if we leave

25 it here we've done nothing except take a chance later on

PAGE 33

of having a redundancy, a sentence that we don't even need.

2 That's the worst we've done, isn't it?

3

MR. OWENS: That!s right.

4

MR. HILL: Yes.

5

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: On the other hand, it would

6 provide for --

7

DR. PRESSLY: I move, then, we leave it as it is.

8

MR. HILL: Leave it in the paragraph as the last

9 sentence?

10
I!l Z
11 i=
"..o....
@;i 14 .~.. ':z": 15 ~ I!l ";:) 16 .~.. oz 17 :

DR. PRESSLY: Yes. The next time this thing is revised twenty years down the road they'll say "Those fools didn't know how to handle the law, they just repeated themselves." Let them say it, We're not surethat it's going to be in the other place, if I understand~at you're saying .
MR. HILL: It's also the recommendation of this committee that if this language is included in Article I that it should be deleted from this one?

18

DR. PRESSLY: Right.

19

MR, OWENS: If it covers the whole constitution.

20

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Your statement saying that

21 Article I may not survive with this language

22

MR. VANN: In its present posture which had in it --

23 In other words, :ff that were Eliminated it probably would, the

24 provision about sex.

25

MR. HILL: Yes, that's right.

PAGE 34

MR.. VANN: Frankly, I never have understood why it

2 was necessary to put that language -- you know, I figure men

3 and women are all citizens and persons entitled to equal

4 protection of the law, and apparently there must be solely

5 on the basis that it would be reasonable to classify people

6 for equal protection as men or women. I expect our courts

7 might be moving away from that.

8

Also what you're saying I have no objection to, but

9 does it have a larger meaning when it's contained here and

10 sald here with reference to the other parts of the constitutior?

III

Z

e;i11 j: ~......

MR.. HILL:

had it both --

MR. VANN:

In other words, if it's repeated, if you No, if it's here and not anywhere in the

! 14 .I.-. constitution.

:"lr:

..15 ~ III

MR. HILL: I doubt if--it would be read that

:::l

16 z~.a.. broadly then. I feel if it's here and it's nowhere else it

17 ~ would be read strictly on education.

18

It will be tDmewhere else in some form.

19

DR. PRESSLY: We'll have to have it . somewhere surely

20

MR.. OWENS: Do you still have your motion?

21

I second it.

22

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: Okay. It's been moved and

23 seconded that we leave it as is. Is that what your motion 24 is?

25

DR. PRESSLY: With the provision if later on it

PAGE 35

becomes -- it has a broader implication and is placed where

2 it covers everything then it may be removed, but we want to he

3 sure that it's there before we take it out of here.

4

MR. VANN: Mr. Findley had a statement.

5

MR. FINDLEY: There's a couple of things. I think

6 on the education as a property right the Supreme Court has so

7 held in the suspension cases where they established the role,

8 .... 9

they're entitled to due process before you could suspend a child from public school, full blown due process when the

10
CzJ 11 ~
2 12 ~
@F~ 14 >" !:;z;: 15 olI .C.J: ::I 16 .~.. cz 17 ::

suspension is over ten days, and minimal due process when the suspension is less than ten days. In so reasoning they established the right to education as a property right in that context.
Here it seems to me I don't know whether your intention, not having been in on the earlier decision, I mean discussions of the subcommittee" but if an equal protection clause is stated here in the education article, then it seems

18 to me that there would be a real possibility that the court

19 would be forced to reach the conclusion like the Serano

20 decision in Californ~a -- now maybe that's your intention,

21 and if that's your intention fine, but I think that implica-

22 tion ought to te, if that is the intention that ought to be

23 analyzed so that you're deciding to do that from a policy

24 standpoint, and if you are deciding to do that from a policy

25 standIiont then it ought to be stated better, and you would

pAGE 36

cross reference over to the local taxation provisions of the.

2 constitution, but the Serano type reasoning indicated as you

3 know in California that the expenditures for public education

4 couldn't vary from one school district to another, ~nd the

5 Supreme Court of the United States would not so hold when the

6 Texas case went up there and establish a reasonable -- as long

7 as there is a reasonable basis for the financial system of the

8 state that it must run to the federal constitution.

9

But an .~ua1 protection clause here seems to me in

10 this context would almost put a compelling interest test to

e;i11

z"
j:
.o~ .....

any differentation between public finance for education from

one school system to another. In other words, it's all sorts

of implications I think in stating an equal protection clause

! 14 ...... here, because in the broader provision of the constitution ~ :I:
15 ol) where we have an equal protection clause as construed, as Mel
"~
;;)
16 .~.. points out, and that's not going to drop out -- it may get
zQ

17 : you may not get the sex thing because of the little ERA and tke

18 argument about it, but the equal protection clause is not

19 going to drop out of the constitution, so this wi1l'be an

20 additional equal protection clause in the education article.

21

To me, the implications of that are substantial.

22

MR. VANN: I agree with you, and I would like to

23 remove this mention in the constitution. Of course, frankly

24 in my judgment it would wind up the lawsuit against the State

75 of Georgia without any type of judidal determination on it at

PAGE 37

all.

2

MR. FINDLEY: Yes, sir, the suit up in north Georgia

3 in Whitfield County?

4

MR.~: Yes, and would place the State of Georgia

5 in a situation as you stated of --

6

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: I'm going to have to leaV'e.

7 Mrs. Graham is going to preside.

8

I'm going to leave my proxy with Dr. Pressly, I

9 think we're going to need to vote some place down the road.

10

MR, HILL: Based on what Harvey just'1la1d, do you

I!I

Z

11

j:
o.~..

feel that

@r l12 :

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: It's my recommendation we ought

to take it out if it's going to have the implication as

14

~
I-

indicated,

because we don't want that.

'<"l

X

15 .:

DR. PRESSLY: We did not intend that.

I!I

~

::>

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: We dd not intend that, and

IzII

17 ~ but I think the recommendation fromthis committee should state

18 that we are concerned that the equal protection clause,

19 wherever it is, will be such to protect the integri~ of

20 Paragraph I.

21

MR. OWENS: Now, you're recommending it be taken out

22 even though it may not be in another section?

23

MR. HILL: Some equal protection clause will be in

24 another section.

25

DR, PRESSLY: It is in another section they're

PAGE 38

saying.

2

MR. OWENS: You're saying it was having some trouble

3 and possibly it will not be --

4

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: What I understood, that sentence

5 said no person shall be denied equal protection on the basis

6 of race, sex, national origin, et cetera.

7

MR. HILL: The delineation of the grounds upon which

8 equal protection must be provided will perhaps not be included

9 ehe specificity, but some equal protection language will be in

10 We will not pass a new constitution without a provision of thai

"z
II j:
.Io.l..l..:
@;~

kind in there, I can assure you. MR. OWENS: With the idea of the fact that we are
stating this as a means of being sure that it's somewhere

14

!
$

else,

and if it

is

somewhere else you're saying

this

can be

:z:

" 15 olI deleted? Ill: ~

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MEREDITH: All we're saying now is whether

zQ

17 a it's some place else or not, that it be deleted.

18

MR.VANN: I think we're also saying it's not our

19 intent to --'at least it's not my intent to express an opinion

20 as to whether that requires the type of fundingthat Mr.

21 Findley is talking about.

22

The question of what it requires is still a

23 judicial question.

24

MS. GREENBERG: If we delete this provision, we are

25 really not addressing the problem we've been discussing and

PAGE 39

trying to alleviate which is to in reality create equal

2 educational opportunities without saying it, because we're

3 afraid to say it, so we use this instead of equal educational

4 opportunity, and now we're afraid to say this.

5

The fact is we do have an equal protection clause,

6 at least it's been interpreted -- it's not doing the job

7 presently, and that's why apparently there are lawsuits in

8 various counties, there's a wide variance of funding for

9 educational purposes throughout the state, but the fact is

10

"z
11 I-
.'o"..

~

II'
12 ~

~r~ ! 14

I-
III
<:zl:

15 ,l)

"'";:)
16 ~ II' 1:1 Z <l
17 :

from the distribution of, I think it was this.coDDllittee, showing that the per student expenditures have a wide variance, and there are facts to show that the students are not getting an adequate education in certain counties, not even close to what the students in the richer counties are getting, so if this is not good language there should be something that will at least come close to our goal of asserting the rights of citizens to an adequate education.

18 If we don't do it here, I don't think that equal protection

19 clause that's presently in the constitution is going to do it.

20

MR. FINDLEY: That's what I was worried about, I

21 mean I commented as to the intention. If the intention is to

22 put in a clause that would mandate substantially equal

23 expenditures, per student expenditures from school systems

24 in other words, mandate funding the DPE provis ions of APEG,

25 it's been sitting there since 1974, but the General Assembly

PAGE 40

has never got up any money for it.

2

If the constitutional provision that would require

3 say funding that or some other provision to provide 4 substantially equal educational opportunities among school

5 districts is the intention, then I think this language has

6 the implications of that.

7

MR. VANN: I do too.

8

MR. FINDLEY: And would probably be so construed.

9

DR. PRESSLY: I don't think we're trying to say that

10 we have got to have the same amount of money spent in every

"z
11 j::
..o0..1..:
@;i

county of the state, that's not what we're talking about in my opinion when we want to keep this, so I still come back I think to the sentence better go out and rely on the fact that

14

~ .I:.z-.:

15 .:J

is the intent. MR. HILL':

And you would prefer as a committee

"01:
::>
16 ~...

to leave it to judicial construction about the extent to

Q

Z 17 :

which the state must refinance or reorganize its financing

18 system to meet this obligation and not try to address it as

19 a committee?

20

DR. PRESSLY: Right.

21

MR. HILL: That's your general agreement.

22

(Chairman Meredith withdrew

23

from the meeting.)

24

MRS. GRAHAM: Since Dr. Meredith has had to leave,

25 I would like to ask the subcomnittee at this point if you

PAGE 41

would like to take about a ten to fifteen-minute break. Is

2 that okay with each one of you?

3

MR. OWENS: I have no problems with it.

4

MRS. GRAHAM: Would you like a ten-minute break,

5 or fifteen?

6

MR. OWENS: Ten minutes will be sufficient to me.

7

DR. PRESSLY: I don't need any, I'm happy, but I'll

8 be happy to wait.

9

MRS. GRAHAM: Let's take a short break, and we will

10 come back in ten mf.nutes .

"z
11 i=
..'o"....

(A brief recess.)

@;I MRS. GRAHAM: Okay. While we're waiting for Odell, and just informally, Dr. Pressly, since I was not here at the

14 ~ last meeting and you are the alternate vice-chairman of this Ii; :r
15 olI special committee, would you like to just to through this
"'";;;)
16 ~... Section II and III and point out any specific thoughts that Q Z
17 : you recall from that discussion, even though Vickie and the

18 staff were nice enough to mail us copies of Dr. McDaniel's

19 comments and so forth.

20

DR. PRESSLY: I think that they did a very good job

21 of putting down the concepts that we had.

22

We had no desire whatsoever to change the method of

23 selecting the State Board of Education, and that stayed just

24 as we have it.

25

I think that -- I was trying to look at (a), (b),

PAGE 42

(c), (d).

2

The (b) one, the State Board of Education shall

3 have such powers and duties as provided by law, we agreed.

4

The State Board of Education shall establish minimum

5 educational standards and may adopt rules and regulations to

6 ensure that an adequate education for the citizens is

7 provided;

8

The State Board of Education,' shall see that

9 adequate vocational-technical education is provided;

10
"z
11 i= Ill: .2..
(~G/ ., ~~ 14i~ Ii; % 15 olI "Ill: ::lI 16 .~.. Qz 17 ~

The State Board may accept bequests, donations, grants and transfers of land, buildings, and other property for use of the State Department of Education;
Except as herein provided, the qualifications, compensation, removal from office, and powers and duties of the members of the Board of Education shall be as provided by law
I see nothing there that varies at all from our

18 discussions. Tom, you're about the only one I can -- Yes?

19

MR. HILL: I did want to make a couple of points

20 about why we omitted some of the language frOJl; the present

21 constitution with respect to the establishment of' the Board

22 of Education and filling of vacancies.

23

There is a provision that is going to be included

24 in Article V relating to the power of the Governor which

25 states that when any public office shall be come vacant by

PAGE 43

death, resignation or otherwise, the Governor shall promptly

2 fill such vacancy unless otherwise provided by this

3 constitution or by law.

4

Now, what the effect of that provision in Article V

5 will be is to give the Governor the right to fill a vacancy

6 unless otherwise provided by law, and in this case with the

7 State Board of Education the Board is presently authorized by

8 law to fill its own vacancies prior to -- if there should be

9 a vacancy between the time of the General Assembly is in

10 session, then the Board may fill that vacancy, and at the next

III
..Z
11 ~
..o....
@;~

session the Governor appoints someone to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term, and because that's a provision that is now in the law, I have a copy of the law here so you can see it,

! 14 I didn't feel the need to include it in the constitution, the

I-

..15

':z":
.:J

provision about the filling of that vacancy,

so that is one

III

~
16 .~.. thing . az
17 :i

Another thing, we had talked about whether or not

18 we should have a specific provision stating that no person

19 who is or has been connected with or employed by a school

20 book publishing concern shall be eligible for membership on

21 the Board, whether you should have such a specific statement

22 as that continue, and the feeling was we should broaden that

23 to state that no person with a conflict of interest shall be

24 appointed and allow the General Assembly to define what a

25 conflict of interest is.

PAGE 44

The present limitation on appointment of a person

2 who is a member of a book publishing concern is in the law,

3 so it would already be covered, and so it would not have to

4 be included here either. That is why we just have a broad

5 statement that no person whose appointment would create a

6 conflict of interest for such person --

7

DR. PRESSLY: I like that myself very much better,

8 it's broader.

9

Yes, Tom.

10

MRS. GRAHAM: Do you have any other comnents?

"z
11 j:
.~.....

DR. PRESSLY: No.

~ 12 ~

MRS. GRAHAM: We are back in session again for the

~ri! record, and I'm sorry that Dr. Meredith had to leave because 14 I really did not realize again that he had a conflict this

l-

UI

%

15 oll morning, but we will proceed.

"llI:
;)

16 ~...

We do need to for the record clear up this matter of

azQ
17 the equal rights in regard to race, sex, and so forth, and

18 Mel had suggested that we may want to delete I mean we

19 want to take a vote on whether or not we want to delete the

20 one last sentence.

21

Mel, would you be more specific and re-read the

22 sentence for the record?

23

MR. HILL: Yes, Mrs. Graham. The committee seemed

24 to be moving toward a consensus that that last sentence be

25 eliminated, and I just wanted a formal motion --

PAGE 45

MR. VANN: Mr. Chairman, I move the last sentence

2 be eliminated.

3

MRS. GRAHAM: Do I have a second?

4

DR. PRESSLY: I second.

5

MRS. GRAHAM: Do we need any further discussion?

6

MR. OWENS: I clearly understand the reason that

7 was expressed by Mr. Findley and by Mr. Vann, and also

8 explained to me by Mr. Hill, Dr. Hill, what points and what

9 danger you have in that statement, but I feel it should be

10 a statement -- I don't have the expertise at this time to

"z
11 i=
..'o"....
@;I

work out a statement to fit in that place that would not have the same kind of danger and still say what I want to say, so as far as deleting that I have no real problem; I probably

! 14 would have to vote against it because I have the feeling and

1;;

<l

:I:
15 ~

I still feel a statement of the nature should be there if

:"'"l
16 .~.. not that particular statement which has real dangers and

Q
z

17 ~ implications to us.

18

That's to go back and explain it and give you some

19 rationale behind it, my wanting to replace it and my

20 inadequacy to replace it.

21

MRS. GRAHAM: Do any staff members have any comment?

22

If not, we will take a vote. Those in favor of

23 deleting the last sentence, would you please raise your hand.

24

(A show of hands.)

25

MRS. GRAHAM: Those oppos ing .

PAGE 46

(A hand.)

I

2

MRS. GRAHAM: So we have a three-to-one vote.

3

DR. PRESSLY: That probably ought to be recorded as

4 four to one because Dr. Meredith asked me to act as his proxy

5 and said how he wanted to vote. I don't know whether he

6 would want me to do that or not.

7

MRS. GRAHAM: We'll let yoU do that if that's

8 agreeable with the rest of the committee. Any objection?

9

MR. OWENS: In such cases of a proxy, would it be

10 necessary unless there's a tie or some close vote?

"z
11 ~
e ; i...loit Q.

MRS. GRAHAM: We'll let it go by on this one. Okay? MR. OWENS: I have no problems with it, really. DR. PRESSLY: It's the next one I want to be sure

! 14 about. We'll forego this one.

f:z;;:

15 .:I

MR. VANN : Mr. Chairman, are you ready for dis cus s iot

"lit
;;)

a 16 ~.az.. on this Section II?

17

MRS. GRAHAM: Yes, we'r~ fixing to move into

18 Section II, State Board of Education, and it's awful that I

19 have to serve as the vice-chairman of this particular section

20 because the chairman and vice-chairman is supposed to keep her

21 mouth shut often, but I do have some very strong points about

22 this; however, we will proceed with writing, and Vickie

23

Well, first of all, though, Mr. Vann, did you have

24 a comment on Section II?

25

MR. VANN: I had concern about the vacancy and schoo

PAGE 47

book publishing concern.

2

First, which you stated, Melvin, the present

3 statutory law it's my understanding both on the question of

4 vacancy and school book publisher, publishing concern, is a

5 mere recital of the constitutional provision, isn't it?

6

MR. HILL: No, sir, it's an additional provision

7 actually in Title 32. The code section 2-whatever it is

8 would be the specific recttal, but there is actually a code

9 provision that specifies what the vacancies, how vacancies

10 shall be filled and the eligibility for membership, which came

CzJ 11 j:
.o~ .....
@;j

from the 1937 act. MR. VANN: What I'm saying is that the statute is
merely enacting current constitutional provisions with

! 14 reference to no person employed in a professional capacity

In

~

:I:

15 q

MR. HILL,:, But it has independent exis tence is what

CJ

~

::;)

16 .~.. I'm saying .

cz

~
17 :

MR. VANN: I recognize that, but except as it's

18 provided in the constitution it might not be there is what

19 I'm saying.

20

Anyway, what I'm concerned about is I would like

21 very much to add -- this is quite broad language, but I would

22 like very much in the last sentence on page 1 where it starts

23 by "No person employed in a professional capacity by a private

24 or public education institution or by the State Department of

25 Education, or by a school book publishing concern, and no

PAGE 48

person hose appointment would create a conflict of interest

. 2 for such ,erson;" and I would like to put a connna after that

3 word "person," as defined by law, comma, shall be eligible

4 for appointment or service on said Board. Now I'm adding

5 "or service on."

6

My reason for this is that, one, I don't think a

7 person employed at the time by a school book publishing con-

8 cern ought to be eligible for appointment to the State Board

9 of Education.

10

@

11

"z
-..jo=..:..

~ 12

~r~

! 14 lo-n :~r:
15 q

"~
;;;)
16 ~... Q Z ~
17 :

Now, the present constitutional language is much broader because it says employed by or in any~y heretofore connected with. I think that's still good language, and there must have been some reason for it when it was adopted.
DR. PRESSLY: Tom, I couldn't agree with you more, but why isn't that covered with the idea here of a conflict of interest? It seems to me that is the case of a conflict of interest, he would be ruled out anyway and we don't need

18 to name him.

19

MR. VANN: The same thing could be said with

20 reference to a person employed in a professional capacity.

21 We're dealing with conflict of interest, --

22

DR. PRESSLY: I see what you mean,

23

MR. VANN:

we're constitutionally expressing some

24 conflicts of interest that would disqualify a person, and then

25 authorize the General Assembly to express other conflicts of

PAGE 49

interest.

2

DR. PRESSLY: It's a good point.

3

MR. VANN: And also I would talk about adding the

4 words nor service onn because if a person becomes into that

5 situation after appointment, then it may be assumed that he

6 goes off, but this will make it clear that he goes off.

7

And on the question of vacancy, I recognize the

8 general law, I really feel like that the constitution ought

9 to express something like this on the vacancy on the State

10 Board of Education, that when a vacancy occurs for any

CzI

e ; ;11

I-
.oA'."..

reason the Governor shall appoint a successor to serve until

the next session of the Senate and until a successor is

appointed and qualified.

! 14

MR. OWENS: You want to add that?

!;;



:I:

15

MR. VANN: I would like to provide -- that is my

CI

'":::>

16 .~.. thinking about a vacancy .

Q

Z

17 :

Mr. Hill says in the summary, he says, you know, no

18 general law ought to provide for vacancies when there's a

19 constitutional provision, but are you saying that the

20 constitutional provision that will be included would authorize

21 the legislature to change the current method of a vacancy,

22 or --

In other words, we're not being frozen in in that

23 provision that you're saying is in the general executive

24 branch under the powers of the Governor? In other words,

25 are you saying that the legislature could provide exactly

PAGE 50

what I'm saying here if it wished to do so?

2

MR. HILL: Yes. Yes, it could be deleting that

3 law, and I understand as a practical matter that is how it

4 works in any event.

5

MR. VANN: It;is. You know, the concern to me is

6 that actually at the present time it says the State Board

7 shall fill the vacancy, and as a practical matter I think the

8 State Board defers because the Governor appoints to permit

9 the Governor to select them, and the State Board accepts the

10
..,
z II i=
'o.."....
@);j

Govemor's recommendation, and therefore what I am saying is there's really not much reason for that successor ought to be appointed in the same way as the original member.
MR. HILL: Well, your language that you would proposE

! 14 ... to add here would in fact have the effect of repealing that

':z":

15 olJ law that is on the books now to allow the Board to provide

~

;:)

16 ~... for its own successor .

zCI

17 :

If you're afraid the General Assembly won't repeal

18 that law, then that would be a good addition, but it appears

19 to me it's on the books over here in Article V that I read to

20 you earlier that when any public office shall become vacant

21 the Govemor shall promptly fill such vacancy except as

22 otherwise provided by the constitution or by law would cover

23 the situation.

24

MR. VANN: I guess what I'm saying is I would like

25 to recommend the method of filling the vacancy, whether it's

PAGE 51

in the constitution or the legislation, that this group should

2 express that the vacancy should be filled in the same manner

3 as the original appointment. I guess that's what I'm saying.

4

MR. OWENS: Isn't there a conflict with one part of

S the law, one part of that being negated if this passes in

6 that the members of the Board will select, appoint an

7 interim person in case there is a vacancy at some time?

8

MR. VANN: Presently the constitution provides and

9 an act of the legislature provides that a vacancy of a member

10 of the State Board of Education would be filled by the

selection of the members of the State Board of Education.

MR. OWENS: That's what I'm saying. Okay.

MR. VANN: Now, theoretically the Governor likewise

when the term expires could appoint the member of the State

Board of Education with the advise and consent of the Senate.

MR. OWENS: That I s what I'm saying. Would that

MR. VANN: I'm assuming that under present law, if

18 I'm correct, that if a member was appointed for seven years

19 and he died in office the day after he was qualified that

20 the State Board would fill that position for the remainder of

21 the term.

22

MR. HILL: No, no, until the next session of the

23 General Assembly, at which time the Governor appoints some-

24 one to fill the term, fill the duration.

2S

MR. VANN: I guess what I'm saying is we ought to

PAGE 52

avoid the possible conflict between the Governor. that he

2 ought to be appointed. that the successor ought to be

3 appointed in the same manner as his predecessor.

4

MR. OWENS: What you're saying, he cannot be

5 confirmed even though he's appointed by the Governor until

6 after the legislature or during the legislature, which means 7 that something has to be happening during hat interim and 8 give the Board an opportunity to do it, they could have 9 somebody to serve during that interim period until the

10 legislature meets again and the Governor has a chance to do

\zII 11 i=
'o0."...
@;i

it. Is that the -MR. HILL: Under Mr. Vann's proposal, the Governor
would fill the vacancy until the next session, at which time

! 14 ... the Senate would confirm, and under the present situation

':"z:
15 olI

the Board fills the vacancy until the next session at which

\II

'";;) 16 .~.. time the Governor appoints someone, hopefully the same one,

Q

Z 17 ::

usually the same one, but that wouldn't have to be, subject

18 to confirmation.

19

DR. PRESSLY: Mel, where I'm having my difficulty,

20 I don't see any difference in what we have here, what you've

21 suggested here and what Tom is suggesting.

22

It seems to me in both cases the Governor is

23 appointing.

24

MR. HILL~ There's this difference, if we do not

25 adopt Tom's suggestion and put it in the constitution that

PAGE 53

vacancies in office shall be filled in the same manner as

2 the original appointment, if we don't put that there

3 this law which says the Board shall fill the vacancy will

4 continue to establish the method of filling that vacancy, so

5 that if you want to change this law by the constitution, then

6 you have to include a statement similar to what he~ proposing

7 here.

8

DR. PRESSLY: I certainly think we ought to change

9 it. I agree with Tom wholeheartedly.

10

MRS. GRAHAM: Do you want to put that in the form

CzI 11 I-
'o.."....
@;i

of a motion? MR. OWENS: What I'm asking, once what you're
saying is put in here it negates the other?

! 14 I'" :I:
15 q
CI
:'"l 16 ~...
Q
Z 17 :

MR. HILL: Yes. MR. OWENS: Good. MR. VANN: I move the draft of Section II be amended to contain language that the filling of a vacancy

18 will be in the same manner as the original appointment, and

19 any vacancy shall be filled until the next session of the

20 Senate and until a successor is appointed and qualified.

21

In other words, the sense of this be included in

22 the section, so that vacancies are filled in the same manner

23 as original appointments.

24

MS. GREENBERG: Could I ask Harvey --

25

DR. PRESSLY; I'm still a little confused. Tom,

PAGE 54

why wouldn't that be accomplished if we simply said in the

2 fifth line there that starts "As each term of office expires,"

3 suppose we said "As each term of office expires or as a

4 vacancy occurs, the Governor shall appoint a successor as

5 herein provided." Wouldn't that do it?

6

MR. VANN: You know, I originally said that, Dr.

7 Pressly, as each term of office expires or a vacancy occurs

8 for any reason, but if you go back to the previous sentence

9 I had some question

10

MR. HILL: These things aren't always as simple and

11

z"
j:

easy as

they look at first blush.

We'll have to take a look

@;;o..0..0..:

at it, we understand the sense of it, and we will -MR. VANN: As a matter of fact, I had written that

! 14 in right there.

~
O:zI:l 15 olI

DR. PRESSLY: I see.

"00:
;;)

16 ~...

MR. VANN: I started reading the whole thing, I

Qz

17 ~ thought I had some trouble, and I struck it out.

18

MRS. GRAHAM: We have a motion on the floor; we do

19 not have a second.

20

DR. PRESSLY: I second.

21

MRS. GRAHAM: .Any further discussion?

22

MR. OWENS: Yes. Let me restate that, start it

23 again.

24

I agree with the statement that's being made; if

25 this maintains itself I just don't agree with the appointment

,

PAGE 55

of the Governor as a whole because the State Superintendent

2 now is being appointed. You missed the other day and I didn't

3 have anybody to help me.

4

MRS. GRAHAM: We haven It gotten to that yet.

5

MR. OWENS: This is still dealing with the Board as

6 being appointed, and we haven I t gotten to the other part.

7

MRS. GRAHAM: I was trying to be nice.

8

MR. OWENS: I lamented very deeply when the lead

9 man had to leave and you wouldn't be able to discuss this .

10 thing as freely as you should.

1:1

Z
11 i=

MRS. GRAHAM: I can step as ide and turn the chair

@;;.'o.".... over to Dr. Pressly. I am familiar with doing that. MR. VANN: We haven't even reached that issue.

! 14

MRS. GRAHAM: Right. At this point now, Odell,

I-

'4"

%

15 o!I would you agree with the motion that's been made and

1:1

:'">

16 .~.. seconded?

a

z

4
17 :

MR.. OWENS: Yes, I agree with the motion. In

18 essence I agree with what's being said here.

19

MRS. GRAHAM: Okay. So can we move on now, I mean

20 everybody favors --

21

MR.. HILL: We will draft language to that effect,

22 assuming you continue to have the members appointed.

23

MRS. GRAHAM: Any opposition? No opposition? Let's

24 go on.

25

,Okay. At this point I would like to --

PAGE 56

MR. VANN: May I continue? I've got a couple

2 other things I would like to raise here about the language

3 unless you want to go --

4

MRS. GRAHAM: 1 would like to turn the chair at

5 this point over to Dr. Pressly because I've got some points

6 1 would like to raise too. So, Dr. Pressly

7

DR. PRESSLY: Are you on Paragraph 1?

8

MRS. GRAHAM: Paragraph l(a).

9

MR. VANN: Have we agreed to include about a book

10
e" Z
11 i=
...oor:
"-
~ 12 ~
9-~
..14 .>.. ~ %
15 ol)
e"
"":;)
16 .~.. Q Z
17 ::

publishing concern, or is that --? DR. PRESSLY: I thought that was in that motion. MR. VANN: I would like to move that be added so it
would include a person employed by a school book publishing concern .
MRS. GRAHAM: Do you classify -- There's been a great deal of debate throughout the state in determining if a reference book salesman, if that would be the same thing as

18 a textbook salesman. Can anyone shed any light on any court

19 decisions that may have come about as a result of this law?

20

MR. VANN: 1 can't. Can you, Mr. Hill? Are you

21 familiar with any litigation. on this current constitutional

22 provis ion?

23

MR. HILL: I'm not aware of any.

24

MRS. GRAHAM: Could 1 ask you to see if you could

25 research this and see -- I was advised that this --

PAGE 57

MR. HILL: In other words, what the meaning of a

2 school book publishing concern is?

3

MRS. GRAHAM: Does that include like a reference

4 book representative or district manager, anyone who works

5 directly through the schools? A district director in one

6 company does work directly through the schools, and I think

7 maybe we need clarification on this.

8

MR. VANN: This is talking about a member of the

9 State Board of Education now.

10

MRS. GRAHAM: It also applies to a local school

I!I

Z

@;;11

j:
oo....r..:.

board too,

so I would think you would probably be familiar

with this.

MR. VANN: Is that in the local school board section

14 ~ !;; -c ::t:
15 .:
Io!r:I
;;;)
16 ~... zQ
17 ~

too?

MRS. GRAHAM: Yes. MR. HILL: I'm not familiar with that offhand . MRS. GRAHAM: It may not be law, but it's in the

18 code of ethics.

19

MS. GREENBERG: Are you interested in prohibiting

20 those people from --

21

MRS. GRAHAM: No, I'm not interested in prohibiting

22 thea, I'm interested in the clarification of the law as to

23 does it include reference -- district directors I guess I

24 would say because the representative would no~work directly

25 with the school. I'm talking about a person who goes into the

PAGE 58

MR. VANN: It currently would cover a person

2 emPbyed by or connected with, or in the past I think employed

3 by or connected with a school book publishing concern.

4

I assume if the reference book was published by the

5 school book publishing concern and that person was an employee

6 of it he probably would be covered but, you know, that's

7 really a difficult -- You know, I don't know.

8

MRS. GRAHAM: That's why I think we need clarifica-

9 tion, because this could be a real sticky --

10

MR. VANN: Ordinarily a constitution has to leave

a.2;11

"z
;:
.'o."....

some clarification to a court or the legislature.

words --

MRS. GRAlfAM: Okay. I see your point.

In other

! 14

Do you want to go back before we turn the chair over

I-

':<"Cr

15 .: to Dr. Pressly, do you want to go back then and restate your

"'";;;)

16 ~... recommendation on school book publisher and so forth? ~o

Qz

17 : person employed in a professional capacity by a private or

18 public educational institution, or by the State Department

19 of Education ... "

20

MR. VANN: All right. And here I would like to move

21 that we add "or by a school book publishing concern ," comma.

22

MRS. GRAHAM: Okay.

23

MR. HILL: Or by a school book publishing concern.

24

MR. VANN: COI1lIla, and then continue with these two

25 other changes, "and no person whose appointment would create

PAGE 59

a conflict of interest for such person," eliminate the comma

2 after "person," and continue with "as defined by law,'~ comma,

3 "shall be eligible for appointment to"."

4

Now I would like to add, Mr. Hill, unless you tell

5 me it's not necessary, "or service on said Board."

6

MR. HILL: I'm not sure what service on the Board

7 would mean other than service as an appointee, so I just felt

8 it was redundant.

9

MRS. GRAHAM: I know what he's talking about, though

10 I do.

MS. GREENBERG: You're saying while he's in office

he could possibly be made a member of, be employed by a school

book publishing company and he would still --~

MR. VANN: It would create a vacancy is what I'm

trying to say.

MS. GREENBERG: Could we just change the language

to "shall be eligible for service on said Board," and that

18 would include both serving on and being appointed to?

19

MR. HILL: How can you serve on the Board without

20 being appointed?

21

MS. GREENBERG: I'm saying don't repeat it,

22

MR. VANN: Does the present constitution specificalb

23 provide for a vacancy?

24

MR. OWENS: Yes, of the Board?

25

MR. VANN: I think it does.

PAGE 60

MR. OWENS: It does. It provides for filling the

2 vacancy by the Board.

3

MR. VANN: I mean for a vacancy occurring in the

4 event it happens.

5

MR. OWENS: I imagine it's just implied in the

6 statement itself that once you become a part of that, then

7 you would have -- part of a book publishing company --

8

MR. VANN: The present constitution does say if any

9 person shall be so connected or employed after becoming a

10 member of the Board, his place shall immediately become vacant

I:l Z
11 ;:
oQ....C..
9;1 ! 14 el:n-r 15 ~
Cl QC :::l
16 .~..
az 17 :

and I just want to be sure we're retaining that a vacancy is created if after appointment
MR. HILL: I see. I see. MRS. GRAHAM: I know what he means, because there are people who are now serving on some school boards who really have a conflict of interest, and they just keep serving until their term expires and nobody wants to rock the

18 boat and

19

MR. OWENS: You're speaking of local or state?

20

MRS. GRAHAM: I'm speaking of local school boards,

21 but I think you maybe might have the same type thing that

22 could happen on the State Board too.

23

DR. PRESSLY: I think it is a good word to put in.

24

MR. VANN: I'm interested in creating a vacancy if

25 that occurred. Now, if that's not strong enough to do it,

PAGE 61

I'm interested!.in retaining what we say, but I felt that the

2 addition of the word, "service" meant that the person becomes

3 ineligible if that happens after his appointment or during

4 his term. I feel like it ought to be clear as it's presently

5 provided in the constitution that these events, whether

6 existing at the time of the appointment or arising during the

7 term makes them ineligible for appointment and creates a

8 vacancy.

9

MR. HILL: Okay. I think your language would be

10 all right. We will think about it, and if we don't feel that

is strong enough we can add that in.

MR. VANN: My motion is to make those additions I

have just discussed in paragraph (a).

MRS. GRAHAM: Any objection?

Hearing no objection, I guess we'll stick with that.

Do not move on to the next section, because at this

point I would like to turn the chair over to Dr. Pressly and

18 protest one more time.

19

MR. HILL: Take the soapbox?

20

MR. VANN: Where are we?

21

DR. PRESSLY: We're on II still, II(a).

22

MR. VANN: 11(\)1

23

DR. PRESSLY: II(b), back where we were.

24

MR. VANN: Okay.

25

DR. PRESSLY: All right.

PAGE 62

MRS. GRAHAM: Since I was not present at the last 2 meeting, Vickie, what was the vote on appointed school board 3 versus elected?

4

MR. OWENS: It was a tie vote, and then it was

5 voted -- the vote was tied, and the chairman voted to break

6 the tie.

7

MS. GREENBERG: No .

8

MR. OWENS: Am I correct?

9

MS. GREENBERG: I'll go over the votes. There was

10 a problem because everyone wanted a State Board of Education

III

11

Z
i=

method of selection to be retained as it was.

There was

Ill:

2

OIl

@);~ unanimous agreement that that be retained as is, but when it got down to the State School Superintendent there was

! 14 ... dissention, and the problem was if you do appoint the State

':"r
15 olI

Roard,

then there was some disagreement -- well, some people

III Ill:
~
16 ~ didn't mind the appointed Board and the appointed School OIl zQ

17 : Superintendent, but some people wanted the accountability so

18 they wanted the elected superintendent and appointed board,

19 so the vote was as far as the State --

20

I'm sorry, this is just the opposite. Excuse me.

21

There was unanimous agreement as far as State

22 School Superintendent, the vote was five to nothing for an

23 appointed State School Superintendent.

24

DR. PRESSLY: Everybody wanted that.

25

MR. VANN: Everybody wanted what?

PAGE 63

MS. GREENBERG: The State School Superintendent to

2 be appointed by the Board.

3

There were five members voting, and five members

4 were in favor of the appointed School Superintendent, except 5 when it came down to deciding the method of selection of the 6 State Board there were problems, and that vote was three to

7 two as to changing the method of selection of the State Board

8 of Education.

9

MR. VANN: Wait a minute now.

10

MRS. GRAHAM: If I had been here, and I did advise

I!J

11

Z j:

Dr.

Meredith prior to the last meeting that

I would not be

o..Il..l..:

~ 12 ~ able to be here because I was on a campaign trail myself, you

@~~~ would have had a tie vote.

14!

MR. OWENS: I needed your proxy.

!;;

x 15 ~

MRS. GRAHAM: So this is one reason I pointed out

I!J

Ill:
::>

16 .~.. today that I am not for or against the State School Board,

I:l

Z 17 :

I mean I've said repeatedly that one or the other can work,

18 it's the people who are on the Board that make the difference.

19 I think we have a fine State School Boardand I have no

20 gripes with the Board, but I think in looking to the future 21 that we could come up with some big problems if we have an

22 appointed State School Superintendent and State School Board,

23 and I know because I'm from an area that has had this, and

24 believe me you, it is very difficult to get accountability 25 when you have no means of getting these people to realize

PAGE 64

their obligation.

2

I just wanted to register my point again that I

3 want to try to keep some accountability either in the State

4 Superintendent's office or the State School Board, and I

5 guess that's enough to be said, but had I been here, and I

6 did tell Dr. Meredith that I wanted him to vote for me on

7 that issue, it would have been a tie vote.

8

Dr. Pressly, I have said my piece.

9

DR. PRESSLY: All right. Shall we start over

10 again this morning? It seems to me we are in the process

1/1

Z

11

j:
ocr:

here of rehashing something we have already reached a

II.

1M

~ 12 ~ decision on. Unfortunately we had an absentee, but we have

~)~ other members of the committee also absent I believe, don't

! 14 t:i we.

~:r

15 q
1c/r1:

MR. HILL: Yes.

::>

16 ~ a1zM

DR. PRESSLY: So we had come I thought to, finally

~

17 : after discussing it over many, many hours and many, many days

18 to a decision, but if you want to reopen it we can certainly

19 reopen it and discuss it again, because we had arrived at

20 the point where we too wanted accountability, Mrs. Graham,

21 but we thought that we could have it with the State Board

22 being appointed by the Governor and with the Superintendent

23 being appointed because this is all at the will of the Senate, 24 and they certainly are elected people who have to respond

25 immediately to the public.

PAGE 65

MRS. GRAHAM: I will point out again to you that

2 the people that I've talked to, many~ross the state of

3 Georgia, say never ever will they go with both being

4 appointed, and if we want to keep on spinning our wheels,

5 I mean you can

6

DR. PRESSLY: Of course they say that, but they

7 might be outvoted if it came to a vote.

8

MRS. GRAHAM: In fact in the newspaper the Governor

9 and the Select Committee said never, House Speaker Murphy

10 said never would he go with both being appointed, so for the

"z
11 j:
'..o"....

record I am just simply saying that I think as a subcommittee

@~r:i that we need to somewhere along the line give this a little

bit more thought. I'll die, I'll go to my grave saying this.

14

1
~

MR. VANN: One of the discussions was appointment

'"

:I:

15 olI and election of both Board and Superintendent, and the

":'>"

16 .~.. judgment came out, and I thought it was unanimous that we

oz

17 ~ would retain the present method of selectionof the State

18 Board, and it was not unanimous that we would go for an

19 appointment of the Superintendent. Some of us felt like

20 under those circumstances they should continue to elect the

21 Superintendent; the majority felt like he should be

22 appointed, and that's the reason for this draft. That was

23 my impression of our last consensus.

24

MRS. GRAHAM: I understand your vote and all of

25 that, it's just that I

PAGE 66

MR. VANN: I personally would prefer to continue
~
2 to address the issue of electing the State School Superin-

3 tendent as now provided.

4

The State Board of Education in their individual

5 view, they have no officail view, were divided five to five

6 on that, and the State Superintendent of Schools says that he

7 will serve in any way that he reaches the position, but he

8 would rather be appoin~ed, he feels the position should be

9 appointed.

10
ell
..Z
II j:
o"..-.
a':i 14 ..~:..r.. ..15 olI ell
;;)
16 .~..
za 17 :

MS. GRAHAM: Okay. I think I have -MR. VANN: That was the kind of compromise we reached. I would assume we would have still considerable discussion on this issue on the whole committee. MR. HILL: Oh, yes MRS. GRAHAM: Okay. That's the on'~y reason I have said what I've said today is I just felt I needed to continue to say it.

18

MR. VANN: I support you wholeheartedly on electing

19 the State School Board.

20

DR. PRESSLY: I think this is a thing that's going

21 to be discussed over and over again. I think all of us

22 recognize the fact that what we as a committee have decided

23 could very well be set aside, but that's not our concern as

24 it seems to me. We have to make the best decision we can,

25 and if it's later set aside that's all right, we have to be

PAGE 67

understanding and go right along with it.

2

Is that about the point you think we have reached,

3 Mel?

4

MR.. HILL: Just so that we understand completely

5 what the options have been that have been rejected along the

6 way, i8 it the sense of the eommdttee that this is all the 7 options that you feel we want to consider?

8

In other words, we have talked about the possibility

9 of having the State Board selected by caucus of the legis la-

10 tors from the area similar to the way the State Board of

III Z
11 ~ Education is selected; we discussed the possibility of having
..o....
@;I the local School Superintendents -- excuse, me local school boards meeting in caucus to elect the representative from

! 14 their area. We have had a number of other possibilities that

I-

'"

:E:

15 ~ have been put forward.

III

'::">

16 ~...

Is it accurate to say that the committee has decided

cz

17 ~ that the system that we now have for the method of selection

18 of the State Board is preferable to either of those two

19 other options, regardless of what we decide to do with the

20 State School Superintendnet?

21

DR. PRESSLY: 1 think that was what our consensus

22 was, that we liked it the way it is and would like for it to

23 stay just as it is. This is for the State Board.

24

MR.. OWENS: There was consensus not so much that we

25 liked it the way it is, but more than we would really prefer

PAGE 68

that the Superintendent be appointed, but we could not find

2 a feasible way to get the board elected, so under that feeling

3 then we say that the best of the options we have would be

4 that it stay like it is.

5

DR. PRESSLY: Yes, that's why the vote was so close.

6

MR. OWENS: Because to determine that one or the

7 other be elected, and we couldn't find a way to elect the

8 Board that was feasible or acceptable, and it reverted back

9 to what it was in the beginning.

10

DR. PRESSLY: She has had her opportunity to express

herself, and I would like to turn the chair back over to her.

MRS. GRAHAM: Thank you, Dr. Pressly.

Under Section II(b), do we have anyone who has a

statement or a question?

MR. HILL: II(a) or II(b)?

MRS. GRAHAM: II(b).

MR. HILL: What was your feeling, we were going to

18 leave this as is until we have more members here to reopen it,

19 did you want to reopen it today, or --7

20

MR. OWENS: You're asking her.

21

MRS. GRAHAM: Okay. Odell, would you go ahead and

22 make your statement?

23

MR. OWENS: I was just saying that under the

24 circumstances today and looking around the room too I don'~

25 really see a reason to reopen it. I think we have really

PAGE 69

gone through all the avenues of discussion we can go through,

2 and until we get to the full committee so that they can voice'

3 their opinion on it one way or the ot:her I just feel we are

4 exercising futility.

5

MRS. GRAHAM: Do you want to put that in the form of

6 a motion?

7

MR. OWENS: What, that we accept --

8

MRS. GRAHAM: That we discontinue discussion on this

9 section.

10

MR. OWENS: You're talking about Section III now?

Czl 11 i=
@;;".oG.o.

MRS. GRAHAM: I thought we were talking about II. MR. VANN: She was talking about the issue of II(a) , and we're going to II(b).

14 ~

MR OWENS: You want to say that II(a) --

!;;

<:cl

15 .:I

MRS. GRAHAM: No, I asked did anyone have any

Cl

":> 16 .~.. comment under Section II(b) , B as in boy

Q

Z

<l
17 :

MR. VANN: I have only one coument.

18

MR. OWENS: I was responding to the wrong thing.

19 I apologize for that.

20

MR. VANN: I would like to continue the word that's

21 in the constitution after the word law, and existing at the

22 time of the adoption of the constitution of 1945, together

23 with such further powers and duties as may be hereafter

24 provided by law I believe is the way it reads.

25

I'm not sure --

PAGE 70

MRS. GRAHAM: That's the correct wording.

2

MR. VANN: I'm not sure, I have never been sure

3 exactly what that language meant, but it either had one of

4 two purposes in my opinion, one of them was to elevate powers

5 and duties in existence at that time to the constitutional

6 level, or merely to continue in force and effect the laws

7 in force and effect at the time of the adoption of it, and

8 probably some other sections of the constitution do that,

9 don't they?

10
.."z
11 ;:
.~..
~ 12 ~
~-i 14 ~ I':"z: ..15 q ":;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

What I mean is the adoption of a new constitution except to the extent that it conflicts with existing laws continues in force and effect existing laws.
MR. HILL: Yes, that's true. You know, we have discussed this before, and the staff is not recommending that this provision be carried forward because of the very reason that powers and duties of the State Board are provided by law, we have a provision here

18 and a summary here of all the laws that now relate to the

19 State Board, they go on and on and on, and I would say that

20 most of these laws, I would say ninety to 95 percent of these

21 laws are all laws that were passed after 1945, and the laws

22 that it's referring to are such a small part of the total

23 package of powers that the Board has it just seems rather

24 unnecessary to give those earlier very minor or small aspects

25 of the Board's powers and duties such an elevated position

PAGE 71

when we have such a comprehensive set of provisions, and I

2 think it appears to me that the reason for it at that time

3 may have been to add a certain protection to the Board in

4 its earliest days so that there wasn't a question of it having

5 its basic functions taken away, but over time the Board has

6 achieved such a stature and such a position that, you know,

7 it's just not realistic to assume that it's going to have its

8 powers and duties cut back, I mean you've seen a constant

9 expans ion of the powers and duties, and to continue forward

10 this kind of language under these circumstances seems

@;;11

z"
j:
..'o."...

unnecessary and it

does

create in the mind of anyone who reads

this a question as to what exactly are these laws, are they

given some special sanction when none of the other.: laws we've

! 14 passed since then are so dealt with,

l;;

:z:

15 ~

MR, VANN: This language is contained in the

"'~"

16 .~.. university system constitution provision likewise, is~'tit?

oz

17 ~

MR. HILL: And it was removed from that section

18 because we identified statutes that it related to, the ones

19 that the Board of Regents felt were necessary have been

20 brought forward under the constitition; that language has been

21 eliminated in the Board of Regents section,

22

MR. VANN: In the proposed section?

23

MR, HILL: In the proposed draft of that section.

24

MR. VANN: I have never seen the powers that you

25 are referring to, and I think it would be appropriate if

PAGE 72

this committee was provided with a copy of those which you say 2 existed at the time of the constitution of 1945.

3

MR. HILL: There is a reference in here to those

4 that are prior to that.

5

Well, that's going to be -- it's hard to say

6 exactly, it might be fifty pages worth of statutory material.

7

MS. GREENBERG: The other point is a lot of those

8 have been repealed due to subsequent legislation, and there

9 is an interesting problem too. If you consider that those

10 were elevated to constitutional status, then the method of

\II Z
11 ~
...o0:
"-
~;~

repealing them is unconstitutional, and you're going to have this if you maintain this in the constitution, you're going to have a lot of problems in the future with it because people

! 14 don't even know what it means, and I doubt if ...... the Attorney

I-

<OIl
z:

15 Q General's office gave me an oral opinion that that was really

\II

0:

::l

16 ~... just a very careful drafting decision

az

=<
17

MR. VANN: A very what?

18

MS. GREENBERG: Careful drafting decision of 1945.

19

MR. VANN: Very careful?

20

MS. GREENBERG: Careful, so that these would not be

21 elevated to constitutional status, but they would simply be

22 continued under the new constitution as legislative law.

23

MR. VANN: In other words, it meant the second thing

24 I said.

25

MR. HILL: Yes.

PAGE 73

MR. VANN: Well, I still feel like that as a 2 member of the committee that I would like to see and be

3 advised, if the others don't, exactly what we're talking 4 about here if it was elevated to constitutional level. As

5 far as I'm concerned, I would like to know what I'm

6 eliminating.

7

MR. HILL: You're not eliminating anything. All of

8 these laws are carried forward identically to the way they

9 now appear on the books, so that that's the thing -- there 10 will be no elimination of any provision with the adoption of
the new constitution; all statutes or law to the extent

they're not in conflict with the new constitution will be continued, statutory law.
We spoke to Eldon Basham, the legal counsel to the Superintendent, and he said this has been basically disregarded from the standpoint of the General Assembly and they

have in fact repealed a number of these laws that were passed 18 in 1937 or that were in effect as of '45, and it really is 19 dead wood in this provision.

20

DR. PRESSLY: You're really assuring us then that if

21 we pass (b), accept (b), that we 're not eliminating anything?

22

MR. HILL: No, you're not.

23

DR. PRESSLY: I move we accept it.

24

MRS. GRAHAM: Do we have a second?

25

DR. PRESSLY: Mr. Findley has something to say.

PAGE 74

MR. FINDLEY: On (b), the language of (b), I would

2 like to raise a couple of points and see what your intention

3 is.

4

If you start off with (b), the first phrase,

5 '~xcept as herein provided, the State Board shall have such

6 powers and duties as provided by law," that language "Except

7 as herein provided" is alerting you to some constitutional

8 language that will be beyond the General Assembly as I read

9 this.

10

MR. VANN: That's the way I read it too.

1:1

Z

11 i=
.o.I.l.l..:

MR. FINDLEY: Then you read the statement (c) then

12 ~ which is "The State Board shall establish minimum educational

@ r l standards for all elementary and secondary school students

! 14 lo:-nr

and may adopt rules and regulations to ensurefuat an adequate

15 olI education for the citizens is provided."

1:1

Ill:

;;)

16 ~...

It seems to me that under the context of this, and

Q

Z

17 ~ maybe this is what you meant, that under the context of this

18 that this appears in where these powers as I read it are

19 moved beyond the reach of the General Assembly, then the

20 State Board would have the authority to do APEG by regulation

21 is the way I read it.

22

MRS. GRAHAM: Mel and Vickie, do you think perhaps

23 you would like to do additional footwork on this and bring-a

24 report back at the next meeting before we take any action?

25

MR. HILL: There's two separate issues here.

PAGE 75

I really didn't catch the drift of what Dr. Pressly

2 was saying before, but we were arguing about an addition that'

3 Mr. Vann wanted to put into (b) as opposed to the entire 4 Section (b). I think Harvey is right that if we would 5 continue to state that the Board could have rules and 6 regulations and adopt rules and regulations to carry out this 7 mandate of the constitution, then it may be writing itself 8 out of the General Assembly, and that wasn't the intention

9 that was meant.

10

I think this is a question of insufficient con-

I-'

11

Z j:

sideration by the staff of all the ramifications of this

..oll..l..i

@~}~i language. I think Harvey felt that if~ just eliminated "and may adopt rules and regulations" that we would allow the 14! General Assembly to come in and establish the means by which

t:;r;

15 olI this minimum educational standards will be enforced, and that

I-'

llli

:>

16 .~.. would not be delegating to the Board total authority, but

17 czg; that's a separate question from what we were talking about

18 earlier whether these laws of '45, in existence in '45 should 19 be elevated or continue to be given special status in the

20 constitution as opposed to being brought foward like all

21 other laws and subject to repeal or modification by the

22 General Assembly in the future if necessary.

23

MR. VANN: I think probably Mr. Findley is correct.

24 As a matter of fact (c) and (d) -- Except as herein

25 provided is elevating us to a legislative body instead of

PAGE 76

a regulating body.

2

MR. FINDLEY: I would make the same -- I think (c)

3 probably carries more implications than perhaps the others,

4 although the same thing about (d) on adequate vocational

5 education. I don't know if that would be within the reach of

6 the General Assembly if the constitution to the exclusion of

7 the General Assembly puts the duty on the State Board to see

8 that an adequate vocational education is provided.

9

The same implication is repeated in (f), "Except

10 as herein provided ... powers and duties of the members of the

11

"z
~

Board shall be provided by law," so you have lifted out this

'.o"..

IU

@;i enumeration in effect to say the General Assembly cannot reach those, or at least that is the implication of the language.

! 14 I don't know what in the world the court would actually do

to

':<z"C:

15 0:1 with it, but I'm just wondering if that was the intention

"'";;)

16 ~ that you make the state Board sovereign over educational

IU

Q

Z

<C
17 ::

matters to the exclusion of the General Assembly.

18

MRS. GRAHAM: We do not have a second to your

19 motion. Do we want to reconsider this or leave it until the 20 next meeting and discuss it further, or what is your feeling

21 on this?

22

MR. VANN: Let me ask this. I think the objections

23 are legitimate, and we don't have a second.

24

Mr. Hill, in (e), this is provided somewhere else,

25 isn't it?

PAGE 77

MR. HILL: That's right. It's beeft moved to here,

2 because there is a separate section, Section VI, that's

3 grants, bequests and donations, and it's two paragraphs, one

4 of which relates to the grants, bequests and donations to the

5 Board of Regents and the Board of Education, and another one

6 that relates to those same grants to area and independent

7 systems, and we're just going to put these provisions in their

8 respective places, in their article rather than in a separate

9 section, so this was transferred over with essentially the

10 same language we have now so Section VI can be eliminated.

.."z
11 j:

MR. VANN: For instance, you've used the language

2...

~~\r~~ State Department of Education; is that current constitutional 12 language?

14 ~

MR. HILL: Presently it says the State Board of

t;;

:z:

..15 olI Education can accept for the use of their respective systems
":)

16 ~... of education, the Board of Regents can accept for the

cz

17 : university system, and the State Board can accept for its

18 system, and I thought the State Department was the system.

19

MR. VANN: I think it may be legislatively a system.

20 I don't know, this is the first time that we have --

21

MR. HILL: Elevated the Department of Education to

22 constitutional status?

23

MR. VANN: Right.

24

MR. HILL: I think this should be rephrased, then,

25 just talk about the system that it has jurisdiction over.

PAGE 78

MR. VANN: Maybe it should be for the use of the

2 state system.

3

Is this the total draft?

4

MS. GREENBERG: There's three sections.

5

MR. VANN: Just these three sections?

6

MRS. GRAHAM: Do we have any additional comments

7 then on (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)?

8

MR. HILL: Yes, I have some. I wo~ld like to know

9 the policy of the committee with respect to enforcement of

10 minimum educational standards. That's where this came from.

1:1 Z
11 j::
@;;..'o."...

I thought we had discussed the fact -MR. VANN: If this was to be retained, I had stricken the word "shall" to "may."

! 14 t; <{ :z:
15 0:1
1:1
'":;) 16 .~..
zQ
17 ~

MR. OWENS: Where is that? MRS. GRAHAM: Under (d)? MR. VANN: Under (c) . MS. GREENBERT~ What was the implication of the

18 change?

19

MR. VANN: What's the implication of "shall"?

20

MR. OWENS: May gives you some flexibility. Shall

21 binds it.

22

MRS. GRAHAM: From a legal standpoint, may I ask our

23 legal advisors what is the difference in the word may and

24 shall in your opinion?

25

MR. HILL: There's a world of difference. If you

PAGE 79

left this language "The State Board shall establish minimum

2 standards," it would be a mandate on the Board that one of

3 their duties, one of their responsibilities as a Board would

4 be to establiSh such standards, and concomitant to that would

5 be I would assume some responsibility to see that the standar~

6 are in fact met by the primary and secondary schools.

7

If you eliminate the last clause about rules and

8 regulations to do that, then I think it would be within the

9 realm of the General Assembly to establish the means by which

10 those standards would be enforced, but when we had Dr.

@;;11

"z
j:
.'2"..

McDaniel here

to

speak

to

the

committee we had the

impression

that he felt that this should be a mandate of the Board

and that even with respect to private schools that the Board

! 14 t;;

should have some ability to make sure that a minimum adequate

<:zl:

15 q education was provided and to also take over -- he also felt

"'";;;)

16 ~... they could take over if it became necessary a local system

zQ

17 : if that system was found to be not providing

18

MR. VANN: I think that was one of the critical

19 things, the ability to enforce both legislative and

20 authorized Board requirements in local systems, which the

21 present power as we understand it would generally rest in

22 witholding of funds, we don't feel like -- it may be -- that's

23 a method that the federal government uses and it may be a

24 method that brings people in line, but it doesn't help the

25 children, but I didn't understand that he was determining

PAGE 80

an elevation of this type of thing to the constitutional level

2

MR. HILL: So it's your feeling it would better be

3 left unsaid?

4

MR. VANN: Well, I don't -- Yes, and particularly

5 it expresses to me a statement we might be required to

6 establish some standard, mandatory standard to move through

7 and get out of public education.

8

MRS. GRAHAM: I heard Dr. McDaniel make his address

9 on this subject at the Jekyll meeting, and Odell I'm sure you

10 did also. I think the buck is going to have to stop some-

11

"z
j: cr:

where, but one of my concerns

about

this

section is

that what

.~..

12 ~ do we do about some of our children based on -- Excuse me,

@ r l let me back up.

! 14

Based on what Dr. McDaniel said at Jekyll Island,

l-

Oll

oC(

:r

15 01) he announced,,'that he felt sure that the State Board of

"cr:
:;)
16 ~... Education would come up with some type of minimum standards
az

17 : in 1986 I believe was the year he announced, and say that the

18 State School Board does come up with these standards, what

19 are we going to do about some children who fall into the

20 exceptional child category or under the special education

21 category who maybe just have -- say they have a weakness in

22 a certain area, and yet they have the certain standards that

23 they have to pass; are they going to receive a diploma for

24 attendance, or will they receive a diploma for

I mean

25 how will the State School Board deal with this type thing

PAGE 81

if it is mandated by the constitution?

2

MR. VANN: It's a problem that's been discussed,

3 debated, considered. The State School Board is definitely

4 moving towards requirements of achievement by students of

5 certain standards; as to what impact it will have upon those

6 who may not in any event a:hieve the standards I don't know,

7 but the movement is towards some type of classification or

8 certificate or diploma, but at the present time we have

9 adopted high school graduation requirements that are being

10
"z
@;;11 i..o.=...:.. 14 ~ I'"<l( :r 15 olI "..: ::> 16 ~... CI Z <l( 17 ~

implemented over this period of time. MRS. GRAHAM: That won't go into law, though, until
'86? MR. VANN: It's going in in phases. MRS. GRAHlt\M: Well, okay. That was my question. MR. VANN: We haven't adopted anything like an exit
exam at present time . MRS. GRAHAM: There are some local systems in the

18 state of Georgia who have, but that's another problem.

19

MR. VANN: Yes, Ma'am, and as a matter of fact

20

MRS. GRAHAM: Glynn County has.

21

MR. VANN: I think McRae. What's the county seat?

22 They adopted it and had an appeal to the State Board of

23 Education, and I think it's gone to the courts, and the courts

24 have upheld the right of a local system to establish a

25 graduation requirement.

PAGE 82

You know, the more I look at this, some of the thin~E

2 you seek to achieve to go in like (e) and (f), but the languag.

3 "Sxcept as herein provided" probably ought to be eliminated

4 ~d ought to be just "The State Board of Education shall have

5 such powers and duties as provided by law," and I would like

6 to add the other because I don't know what you're eliminating,

7 but--

8

MR. OWENS: You eliminate (f) at the same time?

9

MR. VANN: Well, apparently something in the nature

10 of (e> ought to be in there, and apparently something in the

1:1

11 5Z

Well, (f) could be in there or combined in (b), except

@);;2... it would be eliminated ''Except as herein provided." MR. OWENS: That seems to be the key as I see it.

! 14

MR.. VANN: I guess what we would be doing is leaving



M

z<C:

15 ob the determinations of direction of education, the administra-

1a::1

::I

16 .~.. tion of it both to the General Assembly and to the State

zQ

17 g Board of Education.

18

MR.. HILL: I guess my question would be whether

19 there i8 any need for additional authority in the Board to

20 establish minimum standards. Is there any

If we would

21 include a statement such as (c), the State Board may

22 establish minimum standards, would that give the Board any

23 additional clout?

24

MR. VANN: I think what we need to do is have the

25 ability to enforce them.

PAGE 83

MR. HILL: Well, if it said may establish minimum

2 standards and may enforce in such manner as may be provided by

3 law, would that be satisfactory?

4

Would you like the independent authority, the ru1e-

5 making power to enforce them? That's the way it was

6 originally drafted, but as Harvey pointed out, that would

7 basically write the General Assembly out of the enforcement

8 mechanism, and you may not want to do that.

9

MR. VANN: Your statement, what you said might have

10
Czl 11 I-
..'o"....
~ 12 ~
@~)r1~4! I'~" :J: 15 o:l Cl '":::l 16 .~.. Q Z ~ 17 ::i

some real merit to it, "The State Board of Education may establish minimum educational standards for all elementary and secondary school students, and may adopt rules and regulations to ensure that an adequate education ... " "May establish md enforce as provided by law, II which you suggest adding that phrase at the end of it. Is that what you're --7
You see, APEG is as far as I'm concerned a tool for education in Georgia that's established the direction for

18 education in Georgia, and grants regulatory authority to the

19 State Board of Education to carry out many of these things,

20 but we don't -- it's not frequent, but we have had problems

21 where we feel like systems are not carrying out their,

22 responsibilities, and that he had more in mind that there

23 ought to be something which authorized the State Board of

24 Education through some due process procedure to take over a

25 local system and operate it until such time as it was brought

PAGE 84

back into conformity and returned to the local system rather 2 than the withholding of funds and exercise all of the 3 constitutional duties and responsibilities of the local

4 system during that period and, of course, in my judgment this

5 would have to be through some type of due process procedure,

6 but I

7

MRS. GRAHAM: Doesn't the State Board of Education

8 already have this authority?

9

MR. VANN: Well, not in so many words, not by any

10
CzI 11 i=
.o~ ".".
e'~'1 14 !... ':"r 15 .:> CI '";;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

court authority. We have discussed as to whether we might

have the authority to be appointed as receiver of a system or

something of this nature, but there might be serious questions

as to whether

I don't know. Mr. Findley, do you?

MR. FINDLEY: I would doubt it very seriously .

MR. VANN: I would too.

MR. FINDLEY: I think the constitution vests control

and management of local school systems in local boards of

18 education, and your authority towlthhold money is really about

19 the strongest enforcement tool that you have.

20

Now, if a system actually defaulted to the extent

21 that it simply quit providing an education, a public education

22 a public school, then it could be that the State Board by

23 construction as you say, as a receiver or something might

24 have some authority. I think all that would have to be

25 Unscrambled in the courts.

PAGE 85

But I think your authority now is mainly through

2 the purse strings as you point out,

3

MRS. GRAHAM: Do we have any further discussion, or

4 do we have any disagreement with what has been said?

5

MR. HILL: Then finally to go into subsection (d),

6 the reason for that statement -- and again I think it would

7 benefit from additional drafting attention, but the purpose

8 of that statement was to centralize the responsibility for

9 vo-tech programs in the Board so that it was clear who in the

10 state was responsible for those programs, and I think this may

be too broad language; it may be much broader than we intend,

but the question for the staff the next time is should we

include some statement about vo-tech programs and the

responsibility for those programs?

MR, VANN: I don't have any objections to it, I'm

just not -- I can't recall to mind, are there any vocational,

any constitutional vocational sections in the constitution?

18

MR. HILL: There's a provision over in Section IX

19 that allows for a special school to be created by cooperation

20 of the local systems, but that is the extent to which vo-tech-

21

MR. VANN; I think it would be well to place the

22 responsibility, I certainly do, and it's currently being done

23 by the State Board of Education, but I don't know what the

24 impact of this is. There's no way we can do it without

25 ftmding, no way we can do any of this without funding as far

PAGE 86

as that goes. That's up to the General Assembly.

2

MRS. GRAHAM: If you start dealing with vocational-

3 technical education. then what about your other educational

4 programs? Are we going to add those later, or --?

5

MR. VANN: Ma ' am?

6

MRS. GRAHAM: I'm throwing this thought out, and

7 mostly directing this to Mel and Vickie.

8

If we start saying that the State Board of Education

9 shall see that adequate vocational-technical educational

10 opportunities are provided. how is this going to leave us

11

"z
j:

in the future when we start maybe adding some other areas

'A.o"...

@);~ under the Department of Education? MR. VANN: What other areas?

! 14

MRS. GRAHAM: I don't know; whatever the future may

l-
UI ~
:I:
15 o1J

hold.

"'";:)

16 ~...

MR. HILL: That is a good point. Miriam. because the

Q

Z

17

~
:

minute you start delineating

18

MR. VANN: You start excluding.

19

MR. RILL: -- you start excluding, so that's a good

20 point, but there was a feeling expressed earlier that this is

21 one area which is fuzzy and there would be some benefit

22

MR. VANN: My understanding of the vocational

23 education in Georgia is that the federal legislation requires

24 there be a state agency to administer it, and that by statute

25 the State Board of Education is also made the State Board of

PAGE 87

Vocational Education.

2

In a sense I guess what you would be doing here is .

3 constitutionally establishing the State Board of Education as

4 the State Board of Vocational Education.

5

MS. GREENBERG: Didn't this address an issue that

6 came up in another meeting of another committee whether or

7 not to establish a separate Board of Vocatiopal Education?

8 This was the --

9

MR. VANN: The governance of vocational education

10
CzI
11 oaI....-:..
@;~ ! 14 !;; -<l :r 15 ~ Ca:I ;;;) 16 ~... Q Z 17 g-<;l

has been debated and continues to be debated. MRS. GRAHAM: Okay. Do we have any further
discussion on this, or shall we just leave this at this point? MR. HILL: Well, I would like these two quest.i0ns
clarified for us for next time from the committee if ppssible~ Whether we should include some statement in (c)
about the authority but not the mandate of the Board to provide for minimum standards and enforcement mechanisms as

18 provided by law, and then secondly whether we should have any

19 statement at all about those type programs.

20

MRS. GRAHAM: Is that agreeable with all members?

21

DR. PRESSLY: I think he's raised the question as

22 to whether we want him to do it or don't want him to do it

23 rather than taking a position.

24

As you well know, I don't understand all of the

25 ramifications of the law at all. My idea would be yes,

PAGE 88

that's exactly what we want you to do is to state this for us.

2

MR. HILL: Okay. We will present

3

MR. OWENS: You gave two questions there. One was

4 authority; what was the other one?

5

MR. VANN: Vocational education.

6

PRo PRESSLY: (c) and (d).

7

MR. OWENS: Oh, (c) and (d).

8

MRS. GRAHAM: Let's move to (e) and (f). Does

9 anyone have a statement on (e)? Any objection?

10

DR. PRESSLY: That one already exists, you just

t.' Z
11 i=
@;;o.'"".".

moved it from another spot. MR. HILL: We're going to restate that so the State
Board of Education is identified excuse me, State Depart-

! 14 ment is identified. We're just going to say for the use of

l-

V>

:r
15 ~

the state educational system or some such language.

t.'

'::">

16 ~...

It is a transfer of a provision from another section

Q

Z 17 ~

MRS. GRAHAM: Okay. Does anybody else have any

18 comment on (f) ?

19

MR. VANN: We were saying that probably --

20

MR. HILL: We have to say "Except as herein

21 provided "

22

MR. VANN: We have to say "as herein provided"

23 because (a) does deal with some qualifications. (a) only

24 deals with qualifications, it doesn't deal with compensation

25 or removal from office.

PAGE 89

Those things could well be -- For instance, if

2 you're concerned about accountability, one method to provide

3 accountability is to provide some type of removal from office

4 by recall like an elected official.

5

MRS. GRAHAM: That is a good point.

6

Does anyone else have a statement on (f)?

7

MR. OWENS: Is there any section, any case, any

8 possible reasons for recall?

9

MR. VANN: What is the -- (f) repeats powers and

10
CzI 11 t-
o<
o
A-
12 ~
~~F~ i ! 14 l;; :r 15 ~ CI 0< ;:) 16 .~.. Q z 17 ~

duties that's in 0, doesn't it?
MR. HILL: This is a problem that's come up with the other boards, constitutional boards, where there is the power of the board as a whole, then in some cases there were powers of the members in terms, or duties of the members in terms of attending meetings and whatnot, so we did have a distinction between the board itself and the members .
MR. VANN: Between the members and the Board.

18

MR. HILL: That's somewhat confusing. We may

19 decide not to include that in (f) because of that, but there 20 was a thought that there could be some duties on the members

21 that are not of the board itself.

22

MRS. GRAHAM: Any other comments or statements on

23 (f)?

24

If there is none, we will move to Section III, the

25 State School Superintendent, and do we have anyone who" would

PAGE 90

like to add to, to delete and so forth to this Section III

2 starting with Paragraph I and the first couple of sentences

3 there?

4

MR. VANN: I prefer to elect the superintendent,

5 but I guess we voted on that,

6

MR. OWENS: We have talked about that. The way it

7 stands--

8

MR. VANN: We will reserve that for the whole

9 committee, I guess.

10
"z
11 j:::
'o.Q"...
@;I 14 ~ lV) -:<r 15 .:> '"" ::l 16 ~... o Z -< 17 ~

MRS. GRAHAM: Mr. Vann, I prefer an appointed State School Superintendent, so we are in disagreement there, but we'll remain friends.
MR. VANN: Yes, Ma'am. I'm not going to get mad with you about it if you don't get mad with me.
I would like to say that perhaps your section on vacancies involves it, but there's nothing in here about filling a vacancy.

18

DR. PRESSLY: Down about the 8th line --

19

MRS. GR.A.HAM: "In case of a vacancy in such position

20 for any reason, the Board shall appoint a new State School

21 Superintendent. 11

22

MR. VANN: Okay. My problem was I guess I was

23 changing that sentence, I just noted down here it's just a

24 question of language. In the second sentence, in the second

25 line of the second sentence after the word "office" I would

PAGE 91

suggest the filling of vacancies therein, and then in the

2 next sentence I would suggest that in case of an appointment

3 or vacancy in such position for any reason the State School

4 Superintendent appointed by the Board shall serve until the

5 Senate shall act concerning such person's confirmation.

6

I guess the problem I was worried with was in

7 between the time of appointment and ratification by the

8 Senate. It's not intended the term would expire on June 30th, 9 it's just intended the present Superintendent would stay in;

10 is that right?

zC)

11 toe-<

MR. HILL: Yes, that's right. The term until he's

Q.

12 ~ elected in '82 will serve until '84 -- no, '86 -- will serve

@ r l until 1986, at which time the State Board will appoint a

! 14 t-

replacement.

'"

::t:

15 q
C)

It's to grandfather in that elected official sothat

e<

:>

16

~ Q

his

term

is

not

shortened by

this

change,

and

that

person

z

17 :; would just serve until 1986, at which time there will be an

18 appointment of the new

19

In other words, if he dies? Is that what you were

20 thinking of? If the State School Superintendent dies or

21 resigns in the period between 1983 and 1986 what would happen

22 in that event?

23

I think in that case the person would be appointed

24 by the Board, then he would serve until the Senate met.

25

MR. VANN: Do you think we would have power to

PAGE 92

For instance. if we had a vacancy and there was

2 some -- you know. it could never be longer than a year. but

3 if there was approximately a year involved before the Senate

4 was in session. and I guess maybe nine months would be the

5 most -- well. subtract forty days -- during that period of

6 time would we have the authority to appoint sayan acting

7 superintendent. or --?

8

MR. HILL: It says to appoint a new one to serve

9 until the Senate shall have acted concerning his confirmation.

10
Czl 11 I-
9 ; ;'o<.".>.. ! 14 I'" J: 15 .:l Cl :':"> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

so that was the intention of that language to say you would

appoint him immediately in case of vacancy. and he would

serve until his confirmation. If he was confirmed. then he

serves --

MR. OWENS: Whatever time.

MR. HILL: Yes.

MRS. GRAHAM: Do we have any

MR. VANN: What about

Okay.

18

What happens when you appoint a Superintendent and

19 there's some element of time involved before the advise and

20 consent afthe Senate is obtained?

21

MR. HILL: The intention was they would appoint him

22 and he would hold office. he would hold that office until the

23 Senate confirmed him. and if the Senate didn't confirm him

24 then he would -- you know. that would be the end of his term.

25

That was the intention of this language. It may

PAGE 93
,
not be clear enough, but we had meant for that to happen.

2 In the case of a vacancy in this position for any reason the

3 Board appoints a new State School Superintendent to serve

4 until the Senate shall have acted.

.' ~

5

MR.. VANN: Okay.

6

MR.. OWENS: There's another -- in case a superin-

7 tendent dies or resigns in between there, there's not a

8 provision there that indicates how long he will serve. Will

9 he serve the~ if appointed for four years, or will he just

10
.."z
11 j:
.o..
12 ~
@Fi 14 .~.. ':~"z: ".15 01) ::> 16 ~... Q Z ~ 17 ::;

serve the balance of the term that the previous MR.. VANN: Apparently the Board could establish a
one-year term for a superintendent. MR.. VANN: If they did that, he would have to be
confirmed each time where they could establish up to a fouryear term and upon confirmation he could serve for four years, but then he would have to be submitted again or reconfirmed by the Senate at the end of four years.

18

MR.. OWENS: Are we speaking about a new person

19 coming in when a person has used up his term, but now you're

20 saying that this could be in any situation, whether he resigns

21 or dies or what in the middle of a term that he's already

22 serving, would a person serve out the balance of the term in "

23 which he was serving, the four-year period?

24

MR. HILL: It's all up to the State Board to decide

25 how long that person will serve. The only limitation is that

PAGE 94

that person cannot serve for more than four consecutive years,

2 without being reconfirmed by the Senate, so that a new

3 appointment could have up to a four-year term or just fill out

4 the remainder of the last person's term. It's strictly up to

5 the Board.

6

MR. VANN: I guess it's really language, I guess we

7 could eliminate the words "new State School Superintendent"

8 there, "In the case of a vacancy in such position for any

9 reason, the Board shall appoint a State School Superintendent

10 who shall serve until the Senate shall have acted."

l:J

Z

11 j:
."o..."..

MRS. GRAHAM: He would have to be new, though.

~ 12 ~

MR. VANN: He might.

~F~

Why am I having trouble with this language?

! 14 ...

MR. HILL: Ihink because you want him to be elected

'-"<

%

15 .:I

MRS. GRAHAM: It's encouraging to know I'm not alone

l:J

"=">

16 ~... when it comes to these things of appointed and elected .

Q

Z

-<

17 :

DR. PRESSLY: I agree with you, Tom. I don't think

18 we need the word "new."

19

MR. VANN: I would put in here if we had to change

20 that sentence in case of appointment or vacancy --

21

MR. FINDLEY: Excuse me. What it might try to be,

22 Mr. Vann, is that he serves until confirmed by the Senate;

23 read literally that would mean that after he was confirmed

24 he couldn't serve.

25

MR. OWENS: It has that implication.

PAGE 95

MR. FINDLEY: Perhaps the sentence ought to be

2 revamped. I don't think that construction would be possible'.

3 I think the construction that would be put on it is the

4 intended construction, but read literally when the Board

5 appoints to fill a vacancy he serves until he's confirmed.

6

MR. VANN: Perhaps the traditional language isn't

7 suitable in an appointment, I don't know, but ordinarily it's

8 to serve until his successor is appointed and qua]fied,

9

MRS. GRAHAM: Could we just delete the word "new,"

10
"z
11 i=
e ; i.'oQ"... 14 .~'<:"z: 15 ,:, ":'>" 16 ~... Q Z < 17 :

and would that correct it? MR. OWENS; It could be he would serve -MR. VANN: I had something, I can't pick it up now
what I had in mind as I read through it now, so I'm opposed to appointment and the rest of it is immaterial .
MRS. GRAHAM: Well, do you have a motion you want to make to clarify this, or does anyone else? Mel, Vickie, Dr. Pressly, Odell?

18

MS. GREENBERG: I think we can clean up that "Who

19 shall serve until," it will take a little bit of drafting

20 decision to clarify it.

21

MRS. GRAHAM: Mel and Vickie, what are your thoughts

22 or have you already discussed this in regard to another

23 subcommittee meeting? What did you decide at the last

24 meeting?

25

MR. HILL: In light of what has happened today --

PAGE 96

MR. VANN: Before we go, could I ask one other

2 question?

3

Do you also believe that removal is contained in

4 this? In other words, the power to -- is removal provided

5 for?

6

If we appoint him for a four-year term, for instance

7 do we have the power to provide how he can be removed?

8

MR. HILL: It probably should be stated.

9

You see, originally we had thought that we would say

10 that the State School Superintendent shall serve at the

1:1
..Z
11 j::
o......
~;I

pleasure of the Board, but we didn't feel that was what we wanted to do, because then perhaps the Board then couldn't have a contract with the man for a year, two years, and you

14 .~.. might not get the best qualified people, so we didn't want to

':"r

..15 otl preclude the possibility of a contract with the Board, so to 1:1

::>

16 .~.. say at the pleasure of we dismissed .

Q

Z

17 :

MR. VANN: You know, I have been involved in local

18 situations. Would you have to provide all the due process

19 things and all that to remove the State School Superintendent?

20

I kind of feel like that -- Well, you know, I'd

21 even be willing to say appointed with the advise and consent

22 of the Senate and remove the advise and consent of the Senate.

23 but I think there ought to be some type of removal.

24

MR. HILL: I think we should just add that into the

25 list, the Board may prescribe the qualifications, term of

PAGE 97

office, method of removal, duties --

2

MR. VANN: Okay, If removal is not in here, I

3 think it ought to be in here, but if it's in here --

4

MRS. GRAHAM: Okay, Does anyone else have any

5 more recommenations or suggestions?

6

Mel, you were discussing about the subcommittee and

7 whether or not we needed another meeting.

8

MR. HILL: In light of our discussicm about

9 Section I and Section II, and the need for some new draft,

10
"z
11 ~
.'o."....
~ 12 ~
~ri 14 ~ I'::"c 15 ~ "'="> 16 .~.. zo 17 :

a new draft, I would propose you do meet one more time as a subcommittee, and I would recommend perhaps the first week of September, the first or second week of September as a possibility.
MR. OWENS: What's that date? MR. VANN: The first week of September MR. OWENS: Labor Day would be on Monday . MR. HILL: We have a meeting the 2nd -- we don't

18 have a meeting on the 2nd. I don't know if you would want to

19 meet thel day after Labor Day.

20

MRS. GRAHAM: What's the pleasure of the committee?

21 Tuesday, the 2nd?

22

DR. PRESSLY: That woUd suit me fine.

23

MR. VANN: I prefer not to. You know, that's

24 another day out of the office after being out of the office

25 on a holiday.

PAGE 98

MR. HILL: The following week, Monday the 8th?

2

MRS. GRAHAM: I can't come that day.

3

MR. VANN: The State Board of Education meets on the

4 10th and the 11th.

5

MR. HILL: How about next~ek then, what about the

6 week of the 25th? I don't think we have much more to

7 conclude here.

8

We have a meeting on Thursday, but we're free

9 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

10

MR. VANN: Would it be possible to meet on the

..'z"
11 j: afternoon of September the 11th?
.o.....
9 2j MRS. GRAHAM: How late would you think that meeting might last on the 8th?

! 14 t-

MR. HILL: The 8th. I don't think it will last

UI

:r

..15 ~ very long. CI

;;;)

16 .~..

MR. OWENS: What day is the 11th?

Q

Z

17 :

MR. VANN: It's on Thursday.

18

MR. HILL: We have a meeting that day, that's a bad

19 day.

20

MS. GREENBERG: What about next-week, the 25th

21 through the 29th?

22

DR. PRESSLY: Just so it's over in the latter part

23 of it. I can't do it the early part.

24

MR. HILL: Either Wednesday or Friday of nextleek.

25

MR. VANN: I don't know, I'd just really have to

PAGE 99

check on my calendar, I can't recall, It seems to me like

2 there's some type of meeting on the Public Telecommunications

3 Task Force that's meeting in that week some time, and I'm --

4

MS. GREENBERG: It shouldn't be a long meeting if we

5 get the proper language drafted. It's a matter of just

6

MR. HILL: The 8th, is that all right with

7 everyone?

8

MR. VANN: How about the afternoon of the 9th?

9

MR. HILL: That's all right with us. Tuesday

10 afternoon, the 9th.

9 ; ;"z 11 i= <..o..I..t

MR. VANN:

afternoon?

MR. HILL:

What time are you talking about Tuesday 1:30 or 2:00 o'clock. What about 2:00

! 14 o'clock on the 9th?

I-

'"

:z:

15 ~

MR. VANN: What time are you saying?

"<It
::>

16 ~...

MR. HILL: 2:00 o'clock on the 9th~

Q

Z

17 :;

MR. OWENS: I'll try it.

18

MR. HILL: 2:00 o'clock on the 9th.

19

DR. PRESSLY: It suits me all right, two o'clock on

20 the 9th.

21

MRS. GRAHAM: I was just thinking, I have to take

22 our daughter to Mercer on the 6th, and I was thinking if we

23 went ahead and met on the 8th that I might be able to just do

24 all that in one trip instead of going back to St. Simons and

25 coming back again.

PAGE 100

MR. OWENS: On the 6th?

2

MRS. GRAHAM: The 8th. We have a board of education

3 meeting that night, and I do have to get back for that.

4

MR. OWENS: On the 8th?

5

MRS. GRAHAM: Yes.

6

MR. OWENS: What date are you suggesting now?

7

MRS. GRAHAM: The morning of the 8th, or I can meet

8 on the 9th, whichever one ismore convenient.

9

MR. VANN: It's difficult. I have the same type of

10 problem on the 8th.

MRS. GRAHAM: Is it agreeable with everybody on the

9th?

MR. OWENS: I'm going to try. That sounds more

agreeable than the morning of the 8th. I believe I can make

it on the 9th.

MRS. :GRAHAM: Raise your hand if everybody agrees

to the 9th.

18

MR. OWENS: I'm going to agree to it.

19

MRS. GRAHAM: I think you should check this out

20 also, Mel, if you would.

21

MR. HILL: We'll have to check with everybody, but

22 we're agreeable on two o'clock on the 9th, with the backup

23 of the 8th in the morning?

24

How about the 10th, then? We should have a backup

25 date. Either the 9th at two or the 10th at 2:00?

PAGE 101

MRS. GRAHAM: No, I can't come on the 10th, that's

2 my anniversary. The 8th or 9th.

3

MR. VANN: Why don't we say the 9th?

4

MR. HILL: The 9th at two unless the chairman can't

5 make it, then we'll just have to get in touch with you and see

6 what we can do.

7

DR. PRESSLY: All right.

8

MR. HILL: Okay.

9

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the subcommittee meeting

to was adj ourned )
"z
11 IIll:
@;;.~.. ! 14 I'~" % 15 0:1 "Ill: :> 16 .~.. g Z ~ 17 :

+++ ++ +

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VIII Subcommittee Meeting Held on Aug. 18, 1980

1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 8-18-80

Proceedings. pp. 3-4

SECTION I: PUBLIC EDUCATION

Paragraph I:

Public education; free public education prior to college or postsecondary level; support by taxation. pp. 4-41, 44-46

(Equal educational opportunity and equal protection.)

SECTION II: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Paragraph I: State Board of Education. pp. 41-88
Appointment, qualifications, filling of vacancies. pp. 41-44, 46-68
Powers and duties of Board. pp. 68-77, 89
Enforcement of minimum educational standards. pp. 75, 78-85
Vocational technical education. pp. 76, 85-88
Grants, donations, bequests. pp. 76-78

SECTION III: Paragraph I:

STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT
State school superintendent. (Appointment)

pp. 62-68, 89-97