Vantage Point: Local control: Where the money ought to be 

“Because that’s where the money is,” Willie Sutton famously replied when asked why he robbed banks. Though apparently the fabrication of a creative journalist rather than a real response from a notorious Depression-era bank robber, this oft-used quote is the inspiration of “Sutton’s Law” in medicine—the principle that the most likely solution should be the first one investigated. It’s common sense rather than convolution.

As school board members, taking guidance from a bank robber may seem a bit out of the ordinary, but perhaps we should be guided by this principle in assessing state and local fiscal and governance reform proposals and supporting local control of our schools.

On July 18 and 19, the Cities, Counties and Schools Partnership held a historic Local Government Summit on State Governance and Fiscal Reform. More than 500 locally elected officials from city and county governments and school boards across the state gathered in Sacramento to expand on the work the CCS Partnership’s Fiscal Reform Task Force has undertaken this year. “Rebuilding California—From the Ground Up” was the theme of presentations and discussions about the state-local government relationship, state governance issues and an array of specific reform proposals.

Participants heard dynamic presentations from the Bay Area Council’s Jim Wunderman, California Forward’s Jim Mayer and State Board of Equalization member and former legislator Bill Leonard. With the able and patient assistance of staff, the Summit successfully plunged into the 21st century, using Twitter’s online communication network to facilitate questioning of the speakers.

Paths toward state fiscal and budget reform varied widely in the small-group discussions that followed, but these reform principles gathered the most support:

• protect local revenue sources from diversion or borrowing by the state
• reform state term limits
• reduce the two-thirds majority required for local taxes
• require that new funding sources be identified for any new state programs

Support for protecting local revenue sources and local control of programs was especially strong. That trend reflected similar themes that emerged from CSBA’s Delegate Assembly discussion of these same topics last May, which demonstrated solid support for adequate education funding, stable revenue sources and local control of programs and revenues.

Local control makes sense to those whose obligation it is to meet the diverse and occasionally conflicting challenges in our state. But reinvigoration of this concept must start with reform of the state-local government relationship and an understanding of the interests of both sides.

California’s constitutional duty to provide for the education of our children obligates the state to facilitate a system of common schooling and to provide the resources necessary. Both the state government and local school boards have an interest in equity, which demands that students are provided an education that meets their needs. By providing adequate resources, promoting principles that support equity and demanding accountability for student success, the state and local communities are best served by allowing local school boards to make decisions appropriate for their local student population.

Local control—that’s where the money ought to be.