Obviously, Gov. J. Fife Symington III Doesn't Give A Rat's Ass About Public Education. By Jeff Smith WHAT PART OF "no" do Fife Symington and the Arizona Legislature not understand? Well, "no" has always been a challenge to rich white boys who slide through life on inherited perks. The word is something our state executive and legislative branches just don't understand. Which leaves us with the third--and sole remaining--branch of government to sort out this vexing issue of how fairly to finance public education in Arizona. One might expect that a pragmatic and sympathetic judiciary would give generously of its time and provide helpful hints so that the lawmakers and the bill signer could come up with a plan that would as nearly as practically possible guarantee equal educational opportunity by equalizing school financing from rich district to poor...and thus pass constitutional muster. One would be correct in so assuming, because indeed the State Supreme Court has spent more than two years, not only telling Symington and the Legislature that the present system of financing schools through local property taxes is unconstitutionally unequal, but broadly hinting at what is needed by way of a new system of law to pass the constitutional test. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. An even minimally intelligent lawmaker could and should have questioned the propriety of basing school financing purely on district-by-district property taxes--before a court decree ever was sought, before such a system ever was codified. When you have, as we in Arizona do, districts like Springerville, with huge power plants supporting very few students, and consequently a domed high school football stadium, contrasting with, say, Mobile and its penniless big bunches of kids to teach, no way are the opportunities equal. One wonders how Fife Symington could be so stupid or insensitive--or both--to offer a one-time wad of cash as a table scrap to the poor districts, to more or less catch up with the capital budgets of the rich districts, and tell the court this was his solution to the problem. True, that table scrap offered last year was a hundred million bucks, but have you priced school buildings lately? Nowhere near adequate to the task, and nowhere near a permanent, nor even long-term, solution. The Court responded with a polite "no," and once more slowly and with feeling, so even a man so obtuse and otherwise-occupied as Fife could get it, spelled out the prerequisite: The finance plan shall not be based entirely on district-by-district property taxes. Okay, so the first time around it was Gov. Symington taking the lead role, and the Legislature--if not to its credit, at least sparing it eternal damnation--trailing unenthusiastically at his heels. In fact many alternatives to the Symington plan were proposed, but most of them were flawed, and most Republicans ultimately fell in line behind the party figurehead. State School Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan was a notable exception. Her blunt opposition to Symington completed a process of disassociation between the two that began during the last gubernatorial election campaign. One should not get too rhapsodic in praising those who oppose the Symington approach. Meaning no disrespect to Keegan, but Symington's approach is unconscionable bordering on criminal. Then again, his entire elitist approach to life is lifted from the Marie Antoinette primer. So it should come as no surprise that after Symington's $100-million Band-Aid was rejected by the Court--with the unfortunate parenthetical comment that it represented "important steps toward addressing the needs of schools statewide"--this session's proposed solution was another Band-Aid, a $370-million one. Or that the Court's response, delivered last week, was the same old "no" the boys on West Jefferson don't seem able to understand. Hey, Shit-for-brains, if X is wrong, 3.7X ain't likely to be right. But Symington and the Legislature are simply playing games here. The Court's aside about that important step toward addressing statewide needs of schools was a touch of politeness to temper an otherwise stern lecture. But Symington and his allies used it as an excuse to further postpone what is inevitable and right. Symington's official mouthpiece responded to the latest rejection by the Court, saying his boss wasn't surprised, and was just seeking clarification of the 1994 ruling on the $100 million. Bull-pucky. All the clarification a remedial reader could ever ask, was right there in the Court's original finding. Symington is forcing a crisis in public education--about which he really doesn't give a rat's ass--in order to spare the moneyed classes from further tax burden--about which he most assuredly does.

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth