By LAURIE JOSEPH WASSERMAN
Instructor of political science at Illinois Institute of Technology, she has a law degree from Northwestern University and is a Ph.D. candidate in political science there. The information in this article was collected in connection with Ms. Wasserman's dissertation.

New State Education Board's fight to assert independent role

Gaining freedom from central bureaucratic controls was easy, but relationship with Bureau of Budget provoked debate among board members. Then the governor's reduction of education funding last fall crystallized the conflict. Board members, in interviews, reveal different expectations in outlook over budgeting

A STRUGGLE to establish its independent status as a nonpartisan constitutional agency, free from outside bureaucratic controls, characterized the first year of the newly created State Board of Education. Its members formally assumed responsibility for their duties on January 13, 1975. The 1970 Constitution had mandated creation of the board (Art. X, sec. 2) to develop educational policy and administer the largest item in the state budget, aid to public schools, but left the legislature to fill in the details.

The goal of independence has been only partly realized. A bill giving the board control over its personnel policies by exempting it from the Personnel Code has become law, but a second bill exempting it from the fiscal controls of the Department of Finance has become involved in a struggle between the governor and legislature over another new constitutional agency — the State Board of Elections. This bill is in limbo because of an unresolved question involving the amendatory veto.

On the fiscal front, the board suffered two setbacks, first when it unsuccessfully opposed Gov. Dan Walker's cuts of school aid items in the budget last fall, and second when a court overruled a board proposal to speed up distribution of aid payments.

History of the agency
Creation of the board was the culmination of a movement to take the state's chief educational officer out of elective politics. Prior to the board's existence, the superintendent of public instruction, an elected constitutional officer, and the School Problems Commission, a legislative commission with public and executive branch members, shared responsibility for developing educational policy. The commission, formed in 1947 to advise the legislature, continues to exist. The state superintendent of education is now chosen by the new board.

Until 1854, the secretary of state had served ex officio as state superintendent of public instruction. The General Assembly made the post appointive that year. It remained appointive until the 1870 Constitution provided for the election of the superintendent of public instruction every four years by popular vote. By the late 1960's the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) had developed into a bureaucracy of approximately 1,000 non-civil service employees. Allegations concerning questionable activities in this office undoubtedly contributed to the 1970 Constitutional Convention decision to replace the elective office of superintendent with a board of education. The board chooses a state superintendent who administers the Illinois Office of Education (IOE). The new Constitution states the board members are to be "selected" on a statewide basis. The General Assembly made the decision for their appointment rather than election.

On August 23, 1973, the governor signed enabling legislation to provide for a 17-member board chosen on a regional basis. The law, proposed by the School Problems Commission, provided that no more than nine members could be from one political party. Under the law, nominations are made by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. The board had an advisory role until January 1975 when the elective office of superintendent was abolished and the board assumed responsibility for governance of primary and secondary education.

May 1976 / Illinois Issues / 9

Board's fight for freedom

A list of 50 names was submitted to the governor by an advisory committee, and on April 9,1974, Gov. Walker made his nominations. Candidates who reflected the broadest possible cross section of age, educational background, sex, race, religion and general experience were sought. In June 1974 the Senate confirmed 14 of the 17 nominees. Shortly thereafter, one board member resigned for personal reasons. Two additional members were confirmed in June 1975, leaving two vacancies still not filled. Marcelino Miyares of Evanston was nominated by the governor on March 9, but the appointment needs Senate approval.

Freedom from regulation
The board has met on a regular basis since May 1974. Its task to establish its credibility as an independent government agency can be viewed in two parts. First, the board sought freedom from regulation by other state agencies. Second, it attempted to establish itself as a policymaking unit whose opinions would be respected and adopted by both the governor and General Assembly. It has since experienced both victory and defeat.

State Board of Education Chair person: Jack Witkowsky, chicago, real estate consultant Vice chairperson: Charles M. Long,Waggoner, president, First National Bank of Litchfield, and grain farmer Secretary: Gertrude R. Monroe, Collinsville, a director of the Collinsville Herald Members Adrienne Y. Bailey, Ph.D., Chicago, a program associate at the Chicago Community Trust Carolyn W. Bergan, Chicago, a senior vice president of the Chicago Commons Association Carl Busby, Ridge Farm, auctioner, real estate broker and farmer Edward J. Copeland, Highland Park, attorney Mercedier C. de Freitas Goodwin, Ed. D., Chicago, deputy director of the Chicago Mayor's Office of Manpower Samuel A. Guzzardo,Macomb, news agency owner Robert A. Jamieson, Peoria, chairperson of the board of Security Saving and Loan Association of Peoria Carol N. Johnston, Des Plaines, homemaker, former correspondence secretary for the Iowa House of Representatives and past secretary for Iowa State Council of the Congress of Industrial Organization Donald F. Muirheid, Decatur, farmer Frederick Palmer, Markham, public relation officer for Illinois Bell Telephone Company Donald E. Truitt,Palatine, director of suburban leasing for L. J. Sheridan of Chicago Justine Simon Walhout, Ph.D., homemaker and former chemistry professor and department chairperson at Rockford College

Unlike the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, as an appointed board, fell under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance and Department of Personnel. In addition, it had a formal working relationship with the Bureau of the Budget (BOB). Recognizing the potential constraints, the board discussed the possible ramifications of these regulations while it was still an advisory body. The first pieces of legislation proposed by the board under its mandate to make recommendations to the General Assembly were two bills designed to remove itself from the auspices of the departments of Personnel and Finance. Senate Bill 70 (P.A. 79-230) exempts the approximately 1,000 positions under the board from the provisions of the Personnel Code and the jurisdiction of the Department of Personnel. It was recommended by the board on October 10, 1974, and the legislature and governor acted favorably on the bill early in the session. This gives the Illinois Office

10/ May 1976/ Illinis Issues

of Education complete independence in its hiring and firing practices.

The board also acted quickly with reference to the Department of Finance. On January 13, 1975, the board voted to recommend legislation permitting itself to approve vouchers, regulate travel, and transfer funds within line items of the administrative budget. This amounted to asking for an exemption from the regulation of the Department of Finance. Again the General Assembly acted favorably and sent the legislation to the governor on April 12. Here, however, the bill entered the world of Alice's Looking Glass.

S.B. 71 included the same exemption for both the new State Board of Elections and Board of Education. The governor used his amendatory veto, retaining the exemption for the Board of Education while disapproving it for the Board of Elections. He filed his veto with the secretary of state on June 11 but it did not reach the Senate until June 12. Instead of acting on the governor's amendatory veto, the General Assembly declared S.B. 71 was law because the governor had exceeded the 60 calendar day time limit for vetoes provided in the Constitution. Thus, the bill was filed as a law with the secretary of state but has never been enrolled with a public act number because of doubts as to its status. The governor, however, maintains that his veto was timely and that S.B. 71 is not law. The attorney general has been asked to give his legal opinion in this matter, but has not done so. What is clear is that both the General Assembly and the governor support the exemption for the Board of Education, and the board has operated as if this were the law.

Role of the budget bureau
The third administrative agency with which the board had a direct working relationship is the Bureau of the Budget. As an arm of the governor, BOB evaluates budget requests from state agencies, revises them, and then makes its recommendation. Thus, BOB is in a position to modify the board's monetary requests.

The debate by the Board of Education on the wisdom of requesting legislation to sever the tie between itself and the BOB began in the fall of 1974 and continued through April 1975.

May 1976 / Illinois Issues / 11

'Virtually every policy the board wants to implement must be approved by the General Assembly and the governor'

Board members were closely divided on this issue. Several members felt that it was essential for the board to have a close working relationship with the governor. Furthermore, they argued, a request for an exemption from BOB'S authority might jeopardize the Personnel and Finance exemption bills which had already been introduced in the General Assembly. Finally, opponents of the measure pointed out that the Board of Education had enjoyed a close working relationship with BOB, and did not see the agency as a potential threat to its operations.

Advocates of the BOB exemption argued that the Board of Education, as a constitutionally established entity, should be responsible for recommending a state education budget to the legislature without prior approval from any other governmental body. Furthermore, they stated that the budget serves as a statement of the board's priorities and, as such, should not be dependent upon the approval of another state agency.

Finally, after much debate, board members voted 6-5 not to ask the General Assembly for the BOB exemption. Thus, the board decided to live under restrictions which might constrain its budget recommendations.

Although the decision was made to live with dependence on the BOB, the vote itself was noteworthy. The vote was not along party lines; rather, it represented a political decision by the board in which partisan affiliation of individual members was not controlling.

Although the board devoted much time and attention to considerations of its relationships with the departments of Finance and Personnel and the BOB, members spent relatively less time discussing the potential ramifications of relationships with the General Assembly and the governor. These relationships came to a head in May 1975 when the governor announced a six per cent, across-the-board cut in the budget for general revenue funds. Recognizing that such cuts in education would create severe hardships in local school districts, as well as in the Illinois Office of Education, the board struggled to recommend a position to the General Assembly that would take into account both the educational and the fiscal needs of the state. After much discussion, however, the board concluded that its original budget proposal did not have any frills which could be cut.

The educational budget
The General Assembly, caught off guard by the governor's announcement, was unable and unwilling to recommend budget reductions before the close of its legislative session. Rather, it accepted the budget proposed by the board almost in its entirety. Programs which were previously mandated received virtually no reductions. Those which were not mandatory received only partial cuts. The general school aid formula was increased to an amount which exceeded the board's request. Thus, the General Assembly, in showing substantial support for the board's budgetary proposal, left the task of balancing the budget to the governor.

The governor, acting pursuant to his May announcement, pared $ 116 million from the education budget by using amendatory vetoes. The board went on record strongly opposing these cuts. Educational interest groups also opposed the cuts, and for several months the board meetings served as a forum for a coalition of these groups which was attempting to win sufficient support in the legislature to override the vetoes.

Amid media publicity and a direct confrontation between Gov. Walker and Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, the General Assembly met in the fall of 1975 to attempt an override. Although the vetoes were overridden in the House, they failed in the Senate by slim margins.

The battle over school funding did not end here, however. The board placed itself in direct confrontation with the governor with a November 25 announcement that it would authorize monthly state aid payments to local school districts at a rate of one-twelfth of the distributive aid formula entitlement, regardless of the appropriation. The deficiency caused by the governor's veto would be made up by pro-rating the twelfth payment. A supplemental appropriation was clearly hoped for.

The governor countered the board's move by filing a suit against its chairman, Jack Witkowsky, claiming that he as the official with signatory authority for school aid vouchers, would be violating the law by authorizing these payments. Faced with a possibly unfavorable court decision against him and acting on the advice of his attorney, Witkowsky did not authorize the payments. Later, the entire board and the state superintendent of education, Dr. Joseph M. Cronin, were joined as defendants in the suit.

On February 10, 1976, Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge J. Waldo Ackerman ruled in favor of Walker and ordered that this year's payments be made according to the amount of funds appropriated rather than by the entitlement under the full funding formula (Walker v. Witkowsky, No. 714-75). Two days later, the board voted to appeal Judge Ackerman's decision. In the meantime, the board is continuing payments on the basis of one-twelfth of the appropriation. Support for the board's position may be coming from another source, however. As of this writing, H.B. 3197, which would codify the board's position into law, has been passed by the House and is on third reading in the Senate.

Strides toward independence
The board has taken great strides towards independence from other governmental agencies and from partisan politics since its inception. Equally important, the board has proven that it can function to recommend educational policies without regard to the partisan affiliations of its members.

However, it was inevitable that the board could not achieve total independence. Virtually every policy the board might want to implement must be approved by the General Assembly and the governor. While the board's legislative program, other than monetary issues, was highly successful, the board must live with the reality that no major policy changes can be achieved without the concurrence of the legislative and executive branches of government. As a new constitutional entity, the board may also expect court challenges.

12 / May 1976 / Illinois Issues