Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Tuesday, Nov. 3, 1964
School Unification
AFTER TWO SPECIAL ELECTIONS the voters of less than half of Kansas' 105 counties have approved school unification as called for by the 1963 Kansas Legislature.
The unification plan was passed into law and is designed to provide larger and better schools in the state. The law provided that planning boards would be named and that new combined districts within each of the counties would be set up.
FORTY-NINE COUNTIES have adopted unification. Thirty-five accepted plans in the June 2 election and 14 more approved programs in an election Sept.8. Greeley County,in the western part of the state,and the area in Wyandotte County,outside of Kansas City,have unified plans which date back to 1961.
In the June election unification plans in 58 counties went down to defeat. And in September voters rejected 26 more, either new or similar proposals which had been turned down in June.
WHY HAVE THE VOTERS rejected unification proposals once and sometimes twice?
Here are some of the reasons expressed by the electorate after the June 2 election;
1) Fear of loss of local control of the schools.
- 2) Lack of public information or public understanding of the plans.
- 4) Voter apathy and/or opposition to any change in the present setup.
3) Fear of increased property tax.
RURAL OPPOSITION to unification is strong. In the June election, in 29 of the 58 counties unification failed because of rural votes. And only 11 plans were rejected because of both rural and urban opposition. There were 13 defeats where no division of rural-urban was made and only five counties saw their proposals fail because of urban or city opposition alone.
THE REASONS LISTED BY THE OPPOSITION are, for the most part, invalid.
The fear that local control of the schools would
be lost seems redundant. The schools under the unification plans would still be controlled by a 6-man board elected from the county involved, consequently, local representatives would retain control of the newly unified districts.
LACK OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND understanding of unification may be reasons for the defeat in some cases, but it is not a good one. The citizens must make an effort to get all the information available on such plans, and the planning boards should make such information available, either through the press or by promotion methods of their own. If both are done the public would better understand unification.
Fear of increased property taxes—here the voters must make a decision as to what is most important, their pocketbook or the education of their children. The public is naturally opposed to higher taxes, but when the future of their children is at stake, the decision should be positive.
VOTER APATHY STEMS from lack of interest and lack of public unity. Those who oppose any change in the present system are, in effect, fighting a losing cause in a world that is constantly experiencing change. The field of education also must change and progress to keep up with the ever-changing world.
In the counties where no unification plan has been accepted the planning boards and the state superintendent must submit separate reports to the Legislative Council by Nov. 10, stating the cause for failure to obtain voter approval of their particular plans.
WE HOPE THE REPORTS give valid reasons why unification was rejected. The reports also should present new ideas as to how unification can be adopted. Further, we hope that the 1965 Legislature will again tackle school unification and somehow devise a plan that would successfully provide uniform and improved schools in Kansas.
David J. Hanks
Kansas Constitution
KANSANS LIVE in the Space Age under a state constitution devised in the Covered Wagon Era. Only 12 states in the Union have older constitutions.
From time to time attempts are made to bring the Wyandotte Constitution (adopted in 1859) up to date within the limits of two prescribed methods of constitutional revision. One method would have the constitution rewritten at a constitutional convention. The other provides for amendments when passed by two-thirds of each house of the legislature and a majority of the voters.
Piecemeal revision, the latter approach, has been the only method used by Kansans. In a state that has been progressive enough to pioneer with a legislative research council, the naturally conservative rural elements of the state have thwarted efforts for a call of a constitutional convention.
VOTERS WILL have a chance to do their part to update the Kansas Constitution today. They will find two constitutional amendment propositions on the ballot.
- The first amendment would exempt from taxation household goods and personal effects not used for the production of income.
- The second would repeal the two consecutive term limit on the tenure of sheeriffs.
THE EFFECT of the first amendment seems to be unknown. Just last week (Oct. 20) the director of revenue sent a letter to county clerks and assessors saying it would be up to the next legislature to define more precisely the terms of the provision if it is adopted November 3.
--while it would render substantial relief to those with valuable personal property such as expensive recreation equipment, appliances and furniture."
A big question is whether automobiles would be taxed. Atty Gen. William Ferguson has stated that automobiles probably still would be taxed if the amendment were approved "but it will take a decision of our Supreme Court to give a definite answer."
Proponents of the taxation amendment, according to the current Your Government bulletin published by the KU Governmental Research Center, argue:
- That the household goods tax is obsolete.
- THAT THERE IS A trend among states to eliminate household furniture and appliances as tax sources.
- William H. Cape, professor of political science and author of the "Your Government" article, says of the first amendment:
- THAT MANY TAXING jurisdictions do not obtain any significant amount of tax revenue from this source.
- THAT THE EXPENSE of collecting the tax at least approximates the revenue collected in some political units.
- "Neither the wealthy nor the poor would pay personal property taxes on household goods and personal effects not producing income, but both would pay full taxes on taxable items.
- THAT ASSESSORS can only guess at the value of household items for assessment purposes.
- THE NEED FOR new revenue sources if the household goods tax is abolished.
"THUS IT APPEARS that the amendment would be a hardship on those with lower incomes,
Opponents of the amendment point to:
The second amendment, the one which would allow sheriffs to serve as many consecutive terms as they are elected, was defeated in 1954. If accepted next month, it would leave the county treasurer the only elected officer restricted in tenure in Kansas.
***
Supporters of this proposed amendment argue:
- SHERIFFS' DUTIES demand training and experience. Thus, to limit tenure arbitrarily is against the public interest.
- IT IS DIFFICULT to persuade competent candidates to run for the office. Thus, it is felt the amendment would encourage men to enter the profession and retain their jobs.
- THE EXISTING machinery creates a high turnover every election and counties are deprived of veteran officials.
- THE CHANGE MIGHT motivate voters and parties to the removal of an inefficient sheriff any time.
- Arguments against the amendment include:
- THE DESIRABILITY OF passing offices to others.
- THE DANGER of perpetuating inefficient sheriffs.
There seems to be no widespread interest one way or the other on these proposals. Most voters do not know they will be voting on anything besides candidates come election day.
- * *
Yet both questions merit consideration if Kansas government is to continue its move out of the Covered Wagon Era.
Roy Miller
HEXBLOCK
the hex block window
"Mind If I Watch While You Draw?"
Public Morality
PUBLIC MORALITY has been an election-year campaign football, and the issue has been largely based upon street riots, an increasing crime rate, and governmental scandals.
IT IS THE OVERT act which has been kicked around with a great deal of gusto, yet it appears there is an area of public morality which is equally important.
Certainly the cases of overt immorality are to be deplored and remedies sought, but we must not forget an equally important moral void—public apathy to crime. This is the key to the entire question.
WITHIN THE LAST YEAR a number of instances have occurred which emphasize the ugly crime of indifference.
On March 13, in Long Island, N.Y., Catharine Genovese was knifed to death while nearly 40 persons failed to respond to her screams for help. On May 4, 40 people witnessed, but didn't help, an 18-year-old secretary being raped and beaten in broad daylight in the Bronx.
A well-known movie star, Van Heflin, was attacked in New York's Central Park. A number of onlookers stood by silently as Heflin managed to free himself from the impasse and avoid a hoodlum's switch-blade knife.
THE APATHY REVEALS itself more distinctly in relation to scandals involving the federal or state governments. When corruption is uncovered, only a few voice loud protests. The rest of us think briefly how terrible it is for a government official to be dishonest, but then we become morally sterile by forgetting the issue and not demanding higher principles of our officials and ourselves.
CERTAINLY, the cause for this immoral permissiveness is complex, but there are certain factors which seem to be contributory. An ever-growing and ever-more complex society has fostered an impersonal society in which the individual has become increasingly self-centered. The American drive for success has left little time nor room for the consideration of others' individual needs. Personal attainment has become so important that we are quite willing to use others as ladders, but unwilling to help others.
PERHAPS THE CREATION by Americans of a semi-welfare state has been a contributing factor. Too many people are willing to accept help, but too few are willing to give.
When we speak of public morals, let us not only attack the symptoms, but let us begin to eradicate the cause of the disease—our apathy.
It is not our purpose to create a society of martyrs, eager to be impaled, but a society of people who do care for their fellow man.
— Robert M. Henry
Dailijlfänsan
111 Flint Hall
University 4-3646, newsroom
University 4-3198, business office
University of Kansas student newspaper
became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press.
Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York
22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates:
$3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Managing Editor
Roy Miller Managing Editor
Don Black, Leta Catheart, Bob Jones, Greg Swartz, Assistant Managing Editors; Linda Ellis, Feature-Society Editor; Russ Corbitt, Sports Editor.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Jim Langford and Rick Mabbutt Co-Editorial Editors
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Bob Phinney Business Manager
John Pepper, Advertising Manager; Dick Flood, National Advertising Manager; John Suhler, Classified Advertising Manager; Tom Fisher,
Promotion Manager; Nancy Holland, Circulation Manager; Gary Grazda,
Merchandising Manager.
manager.