78th Legislative Session REVIEW
by Gloria Meraz
I won’t sugarcoat the results. This session was bad for libraries and just about everyone else too. Overall, the state cut about $10 billion from its current budget level. That’s almost a full 10%.Keep in mind also that this number does not reflect the additional costs the state would need to take on in the 2004 and 2005 biennium as a result of increased population. In Texas, quite simply, this budget situation is the worst one since World War II.
The driving philosophy of this session was to reduce government and balance the budget without raising taxes—a platform on which most elected officials campaigned. The state’s leadership also listed several priority issues, such as medical and homeowners insurance and tort reform. All of these issues were dealt with legislatively, and state leaders abided by their commitment not to raise taxes.
While early drafts of the state’s budget listed 10 to 15% cuts for all agencies, some funding was restored to education, higher education, and health and human services. In the final draft of the Appropriations Bill, these politically sensitive areas were cut only between 5 and 10%. While the legislature worked to keep programs alive, they focused on administrative cuts and reductions in “non-essential” services. Some of the more controversial reductions included: fewer children insured under the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid; reductions in services related to mental health and mental retardation; $500 reduction in health insurance pass through for some state employees; and cuts in home care services for the elderly.
For libraries, the worst news is that the Legislature appropriated no direct funds to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for the Texas Library Connection (TLC). That program, which was created in the mid 1990’s, was funded at $4 million per year. The funding for the program came from a direct appropriation from the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) to TEA. The question as to whether TLC will remain now is in the hands of TEA, which must determine what (if any) other agency funds can be directed to the program. TEA will likely also look at strategies that might include vendor involvement or spreading the cost of the program to districts in a membership driven framework. TEA, like all other state agencies, will review its budget and determine what programs can be supported over the next biennium.
The Texas State Library and Archives Commission took an across the board cut of about 12.5% of state funding for all programs. The TexShare databases, which are currently paid for through TIF funding of some variety, were reduced even more substantially. Funding for the program dropped from the approximate current level of $10.5 million per year to $4.5 million in each fiscal year of ’04 and ’05. (That amount includes TIF dedicated general revenue, $1 million in federal funds, and an estimated $500,000 or possibly more in fees.) It should be noted that the $4.5 million level is $1.5 million over the amount appropriated for TexShare databases prior to TIF support in 2001.The additional $1.5 million comes from the State Library’s commitment to keep the program as strong as possible. Other programs were funded as follows: Library Systems ($7.5 million in 2004; $7.55 million in 2005) and Loan Star Libraries ($2.71 million per year). The percent reductions (based on total program cost and all available state and federal funding sources) from 2003 levels are as follows: Systems 2004—6.25%; Systems 2005—5.6%; and Loan Star Libraries 2004-2005—6.9%.
The TIF
Board was appropriated no money for any new grants in 2004 or 2005. The agency
was appropriated no administrative funds for 2005, so it must close its doors by
August 30, 2004. Interestingly though, the Legislature did vote to raise the cap
of allowable funds the state could collect from the TIF assessment. Many of you
will recall that, when TIF was created back in 1995 to deploy a
telecommunications infrastructure in the state, the total cap on funds that
could be raised through the TIF assessment on phone bills and charges to local
phone companies was $1.5 billion.
Legislators added an amendment to a bill that was progressing late in the legislative session. The amendment basically raised the cap by $250 million, thus allowing the state to take in a total of $1.75 billion through 2005.The amendment did not extend the life of TIF nor did it give direct “pass through” authority to telecommunications companies currently paying the TIF assessment out of their own receipts. The additional funds will presumably stay in the state coffers to help certify the state budget, since none of the expected additional funds were appropriated for use in a grant program for schools, libraries, higher education, or healthcare (the current eligible recipients of TIF funds).
There has been much talk about a special session. The governor has stated that he will call a special session to address school finance. As of the time of publication, no date has been set, although discussion has focused on the fall of 2003 or January 2004. While the governor may call another special session for other issues, none has yet been called.
Assessing
the results
By
anyone’s analysis, the news is grim. I recently had an email from a librarian
who said that he didn’t believe that legislators heard us about TIF. Actually,
I think librarians and others did a good job of communicating the value of TIF.
Without the "noise" we raised, the issue of TIF would have been
decided with little fanfare and without much consideration of the impact on
those institutions relying on TIF funding. I n addition, without our efforts, it
is entirely conceivable that funding for the TexShare databases could have been
reduced to the original Legislative Budget Board recommendation of only $1.45
million a year from dedicated TIF funds. The bottom line is that the state's
leadership did not want to extend TIF (and certainly the telecommunications
industry had objections to extending TIF), although there was considerable
interest from many legislators to try to save the fund for current entities.
Ultimately,
the decision about TIF's fate was one determined by a multitude of factors. The
economy; the fact that were trying to get an "early" extension
(although that was done so there wouldn't be any lapse in a grant program); the
fact that the Public Utilities Commission will be going through sunset in 2005;
and "a deal is a deal" mentality were all critical in the outcome.
Though the result is certainly not what we had wanted, public policy is by
definition a product of multiple interests. And, one of the good things about
public policy is that an issue is never entirely dead.
TIF—and
more broadly, the issue of state telecommunications investment—will be
reviewed in 2005 as part of the sunset process for the Public Utilities
Commission. If we achieved one thing this session it is that many legislators
now know that state funding for telecommunications services yielded important
outcomes, and the need for such support continues.
The library community generated a lot of
awareness about our issues. In fact, at almost every single hearing I attended
about our budgets and TIF, legislators commented that they had heard from their
librarians and lay representatives.
The
efforts of all TIF constituent groups, including higher education, public
education, healthcare, and telemedicine, were ultimately not enough to save
TIF—although I can certainly speak for the library community when I say that
library supporters did a tremendous job. In the end, the tide was too strongly
against us this session. And, at the risk of sounding trite, I will say that
collectively we have learned a great deal, have developed some political muscle,
and will generally be tougher next time around. We made progress—just not the
kind that can be measured.
In
times like these, it is tempting to focus on the history of inadequate support
for libraries. We all share the frustration of poorly funded libraries of all
types. But let me say that every agency, institution, and constituent group
feels underfunded—that’s not to say that we are not underfunded. It does
suggest, however, that we are not alone in our need. For
libraries, the greatest problem is that we are not seen as a core service, and
the state sees little mandate in supporting us. Above all else, these
perceptions are the ones we must tackle and are the ones that will play an
increasingly important role as the state’s leadership assumes an even more
fiscally conservative doctrinaire.
TLA’s
work over the next two years will be to partner with you, to strengthen our
public voice, and to help mobilize our communities. We will look to you to help
identify new strategies for making our case and engaging many more advocates for
libraries. And, we will develop new tools to help us all is this effort. While
our work was strong this session, more is needed from all of us.
We
must continue working together to make elected officials understand that
libraries are central to state interests, depict our value in concrete form, and
empower the people who use libraries to speak up for libraries.
We
must keep working with legislators. We have to keep trying to make connections
with them; getting them into the library; getting our boards to develop
relationships with elected officials; and demonstrating the value of what we do.
In
short, we keep doing more to promote our work and our libraries. We all
understand there is no magic bullet. Advocacy is all about hard work. It’s
about will and persistence and steady progress.
I
invite anyone interested to attend a special Q&A session at Annual Assembly.
I, along with state library leaders, will be there to answer any questions about
the legislative session. We want to give you a chance to ask questions, get
answers, and give us your views. It is the first forum in a series that TLA
would like to create to get your input on legislative advocacy. If you cannot
attend but have questions, please feel free to call me directly at 512/328-1518
x23 or email me.
This
session was downright grueling, and there were no real winners. Despite the bad
news, the library community fought hard and can hold its head high. I want to
express my deep appreciation to all of you who sent letters (some multiple
times!), made phone calls, participated in Legislative Day, got others in your
community to speak for libraries, visited with state legislators, rallied your
community and parent groups, and came to Austin to testify. Though librarians
may generally feel like the underdog, when it comes to presenting their case,
librarians are smart, passionate, and representative of the best of democratic
values. Few can compare to you, and it is a privilege to work with you.
The
79th Legislature will convene in January 11, 2005.Our efforts to
influence the outcome of the 79th legislature have already begun.
We’ll be there—first in line to have our programs restored.
Review of Bills
Other Bills: