Ducey’s teacher pay raise proposal a bust

From the political notebook: » Gov. Doug Ducey’s teacher salary proposal has turned out to be a colossal political mistake. Ducey proposed earmarked state funding for a 2 percent across-the-board raise phased in over five years. The intent was for this to be perceived as a sweetener on top of raises that would be given in the normal course of business.

There will be more money in the K-12 system. Proposition 123 is supposed to generate an additional $314 million next year. Basic state aid growth, partially funded by Prop. 123, is penciled in at nearly $80 million. Based upon current revenue projections, there should be at least an additional $14 million available in the Classroom Site Fund, 60 percent of which is supposed to go exclusively for teacher salary increases.

If the teacher shortage in Arizona is as acute as commonly depicted, there should be market pressure to channel a healthy share of these increased funds into teacher salaries, even those not earmarked for that purpose.

However, instead of being a sweetener to these market-driven increases, whatever they turn out to be, Ducey’s proposal has been broadly depicted as all

he thinks teachers should get. And, of course, a 2 percent increase phased in over five years is peanuts in the first year.

Ducey and his aides have fought against this spin. But they have lost.

The failure, however, is more than just in the political packaging or marketing. There was a design error from which a broader lesson should be learned.

The Ducey administration has never explained how this proposed increase would actually get to teachers. Money is fungible. Often times, giving a spending jurisdiction money earmarked for A just frees up funding for B. That’s what has happened with the Classroom Site Fund, fueled by the six-tenths of1 percent sales tax approved by voters for education. Teacher salaries haven’t increased by nearly as much as the money earmarked from the Classroom Site Fund for that purpose would indicate.

From time to time, there has been discussion of establishing a state salary schedule for teachers, taking compensation out of the hands of local school boards and administrators. The conclusion has always been reached that this would be a bad idea.

Efforts to direct the flow of education dollars from the state directly into teachers’ pockets are futile and misguided.

Teachers are the key component to the education enterprise. Their best hope for increased compensation is competition in the education and labor markets, not state diktats.

At the state level, the focus should be on getting more bucks into the system, not dictating where they are spent.

» Republican lawmakers often get a bum rap. But sometimes they deserve all the raspberries directed their way. The bill subjecting protests to the state’s antiremotely racketeering laws is an instance of the latter.

This is an abuse of the anti-racketeering laws, which were justified as a way to give law enforcement broader tools to bring down the mob. But, in the midst of the earned catcalls and jeers, a larger point shouldn’t be lost: The anti-racketeering laws themselves have become an abuse.

The racketeering laws identify a broad range of other criminal offenses that are encompassed by its ambit. Those who conspire to break those laws can be charged with racketeering. A conspiracy can exist of just two people.

Moreover, racketeering can be charged civilly as well as criminally. If pursued civilly, the criminal predicates don’t have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Assets can be seized before any court of any type makes a final determination of guilt or fault. Treble damages are recoverable.

These days, the racketeering laws are rarely used against criminal enterprises resembling the mafia. They have morphed into a general prosecutorial tool.

The legislation generating the derision (Senate Bill 1142) would add rioting as a predicate crime under the state’s anti-racketeering laws, opening up a wide range of criminal and civil consequences for a protest gone awry. Rioting is already a felony.

The bill passed the Senate. Gov. Ducey or House Speaker J.D. Mesnard should step forward and provide some adult supervision, announcing that the bill will be vetoed or not heard in the House. Put an end to this quickly.

But this also is true. The structure of criminal and civil liability in the antiracketeering laws isn’t just unfair when applied to pr

otests. It is inherently unfair, period.