There were a lot of interesting tidbits that came out of this interview last week with the author of Texas home-rule statute, former state senator Bill Ratliff. But I don’t think the headline or tweets or subsequent discussion around the article focused on its most important point.
The headline said that Ratliff “wonders if it can succeed in Dallas.” Well, sure. We all wonder that. It’s a headline that suggests that Ratliff, still a believer in what the law can accomplish, doubts its ability to be effective in our school district. But that’s not what he really meant. He was just making the obvious observation that when you’ve got a school board that is largely against the home-rule initiative — for reasons sometimes sensible, most of the time not — it has additional challenges to overcome. As Ratliff noted quite sensibly:
“Frankly, I don’t know how you go about creating a commission when the people naming the commission are hostile to the idea to start with.”
Well, because it’s the law, but his point is valid. Tough sledding ahead.
But to me, the most important part of the interview was the following exchange:
Why does the law require 25 percent voter turnout?
Actually, I put it in there under coercion. I was having trouble passing the bill. And the people who were concerned about a handful of people making this kind of decision, they wanted to make sure they had a large voter turnout. What it’s done is make it impossible for anybody to use it. I guess at the time I felt that there might be smaller school districts that could garner that kind of support.
…
Frankly, I’ve always been disappointed that somebody hasn’t been able to do it — and frankly, that I acquiesced to the 25 percent. I’ve always felt that if somebody did use it, that they could essentially create a charter school, a school district that is in fact a charter school district. And once and for all prove that local control can do it as well or better than the heavy hand of state government.
Aside from the fact it’s these sort of statements that confuse the Carla Rangers of the world — he’s saying a system that uses the best tools and the philosophy of a charter school, not taking away an ISD’s power and authority to tax, sell bonds, etc. — I thought these were revealing quotes. Here’s the author of the bill admitting that the 25-percent voter turnout stipulation was forced on him and that it basically makes real, substantive reform of an ISD impossible on the local level. And it shows clearly why home rule’s supporters are so adamant to get this on the November ballot, when we have a realistic chance to see that sort of turnout.
I think it’s important to remember going forward, when people talk about how we’re moving too fast, we should take our time, etc. These are the rules we have to live with, and since I’m at the very least in favor of the discussions the home-rulers are forcing upon us, I have no problem with doing everything we can to leap the huge hurdle that Ratliff was forced to erect.
