end of update.
The Governor sounded more annoyed than upset at last night's press conference. Basically, he asked why the legislature couldn't get its most basic duty done which was to produce the session's Supplemental Budget.
Sure, they had hours of time to discuss charter schools and transgendered restrooms but fully-funding schools via the McCleary decision? Nah. The budget? Ditto.
So the Governor held true to his word when he said no budget and he would be vetoing bills and he vetoed 27 bills and signed 10 (most of them about public safety.) None of them were the charter school bill which got to his desk late.
From Washington's Paramount Duty's Summer Stinson:
The legislation can override each veto with 2/3 vote. Or legislature can reintroduce each bill. Bills sent to governor's desk within past five days are not up for action yet. He can sit on those for a bit or veto.I note that the Governor has a third choice on bills which is to do nothing and they then pass into law.
Also, for bills not delivered to him five days before the session ends, he has 20 days in which he can act. That includes the charter school bill.
That's a bit unfortunate because that allows big-money charter supporters to put a full-court guilt trip on the Governor (this issue of "closing schools.")
My belief is that he will sit down and carefully consider what it all might look like to voters and especially members of the Democratic party that he belongs to and who got him elected. As well, there is the Democratic platform that he got elected from as well the the state constitution that he swore to uphold. That would be a lot to turn his back on.
- The Governor has said that his "stance has not changed." If he means his charter school stance that he ran on and stated throughout his term, that would be that he is against charter schools. To change that stance and NOT tell voters until he signs a charter school law would be pretty appalling.
-Students at former charter schools DO have someplace to go next fall. There is a place for each and every one of them at traditional public schools. I appreciate that they and their parents don't want that but I believe in the constitution more than I believe in choice. It's the backbone of our society and our state/nation and probably one of the most important things that students can learn in school.
As well, most of those schools likely would not have opened full had the Charter Commission and the charter schools fully informed prospective parents of the litigation (and the charter bill now has this included - it's that important.)
Most of those schools would not have opened had charter supporters filed a "expedited ruling" with the Supreme Court. They did not.
All this anguish for these students and families could have been avoided or blunted had the moneyed charter supporters cared enough to protect them. The families of the students are blameless but I believe they were props and a means to an end for the heavy-hitters for charter support in this state.
- The Governor stated that he likes "innovation" but I don't see a lot of true innovation at most of the charters. I think they focus in a different manner than many traditional schools (and I believe that is more because they can control their size than what they do.) But is that innovation? I don't believe it is.
- The bill is not an "elegant" one - it's a mash-up so flawed its own sponsor had to put up two amendments because he couldn't even it read it properly. (And one amendment was about appropriations for charter schools!) The Governor should not sign a bill that was rushed and is terribly flawed.
- There is the very distinct possibility of going back into court over this mess of a bill - with possibly even MORE schools and MORE families affected - makes signing this bill into law the wrong choice.
Governor, vote your conscience AND the constitution. If you do so, then your choice is clear.
Veto the charter school bill.