1996 Voter information pamphlet

36 Pages·1996·1.3 MB·English

by  Montana. Secretary of State

MONTANA
STATE
This "cover" page added by the Internet Archive for formatting purposes

324.786
S2vp VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLET
6
1996
UaSt your vote on November 5th!
ure
IS lA lour
"lands
Z DOCUMENTS COLLECTION
JUL 1 8 2002
ONTANA STATE LIBRARY
1515 E. 6th AVE.
ELENA, MONTANA 59620
The cover's drawing was done by Katie Barrett, ofBonner Elementary School,
winner ofthe Voter Information Pamphlet cover contest.
What's Inside Arg
.
MONTANASTATELIBRARY^
3 0864 1001 5389 2
Montana State Capitol
Mike Cooney
PO Box 202801
Secretary of State Helena, MT 59620-2801
Dear Fellow Montanans:
This Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP) has been put together to provide you with information on
each statewide ballot measure on which you will be voting. Please feel free to mark up your copy
of the VIP and also remember that you may take it with you into the polls when you go to vote.
If you are not registered to vote or know someone who is not, remember that October 7th is the
deadline for registering. Below you will find a voter registration card that you may complete and
send into your county election administrator. October 7th is the last date to register for the
November 5th election.
you have questions on voter registration or elections in general, please contact my office directly
Iofn the toll free hot-line I have set up for this specific purpose. That number is 1-888-884-VOTE
(8683). Large print versions of this pamphlet, as well as an audio version on cassette are available
through your local library or by calling our toll free number.
See you at the polls on Tuesday, November 5th!
Sincerely,
/iA<j^L^ \Cyc^cj)/u2j^
Mike Cooney
Secretary of State
FOR OFFICE PollingPlace Date Pet. Ward I Sch Hse. Sen. FD HO SC Reg. »
USEONLY
You havethe
7. NAME (PLEASE PRINT Last, First, Middle) 7. IF YOU'VE CHANGED YOUR NAME, righttovote ifyou
PRINT FORMER NAME ayreearastolleda,sta1U8.S.
citizen, and have
COUNTY resided in Montana
2. foratleast30days.
Yourrightto
8. PLACE LAST REGISTERED TO VOTE voteIssecured by
CITY COUNTY STATE being properly
3. ADDRESS WHERE YOU LIVE rpreegciisntcetrewdhienrteheyou
(Street, City, Zip OR Sec, Twp. & Range) 5. VOTER DECLARATION (Read and sign below) reside.
swear/affirm that: a) I'm a U.S. citizen; b) I'll be You havethe
Iat least 18 years old on or before the next vriogthet,teoitrheegrisitnerto
election; c) I'll have lived in this county for at personorbymail,
4.ADDRESS WHERE YOU GET YOUR MAIL least 30 days before the next election; d) I'm simplyby
(if different from #3) neither in a penal institution for a felony completinga
conviction nor found of unsound mind by a court; raengdisdterlaitvieonricnagridtto
e) If I don't now meet these qualifications, I will yourcounty
by the next election; and f) I've provided true Election
5. YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER information, to the best of my knowledge under Abdemfionriestthreatdoeradline
penalty of perjury. If I've given false information, (30dayspriorto
(406) may be subject to a fine or imprisonment or anyelection).
I
both under Federal or State laws. You havethe
6. DATE OF BIRTH (month/day/year) righttoregisterto
voteeven ifyoudo
SIGNATURE DATE notyetsatisfythe
ayegYaeorusorrrFrioegrshtifdteeodnevcroyatlereemlqeuucsittrieobmneesnmtyasoiunatsmailanoyendgn.oatsFobyreosuptuawritlegleebdlyefctotrhieonnoestle,vcyototiiuonng.m.uYstoupamrutisctipnaotteifiynlaotcalleaesltecotnieongeofnfeircaiall,selo,efc^at.inoync-h.ta^hnegpersesyiodjeuntmi.aalkie-e.i.vn,e<yr>o»y,u<fr»o,u,r,
,
nIYnaotmuheratroeirgvhpetlntato,cevyoootfuerneineseisddteanttcoeere.el-ercetgiiosntserisbeafborriedgyeodurbyrimghitsstionvgotaenyinpsrteastiedeenlteicatlioenlsecitsiornesbeeccuareuds.eYyoouurmraegyissttirlaltbioenawbill,le, bteovcoatneceiln,efde.dweirt,a.hli.nel£6e.0c«tdji_ao,yn,ss...
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 30 (C-30)
How the issue willappearon the ballot
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 30
An amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Legislature
AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE X,
SECTION 9 OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO REPLACE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, THE
BOARD OF REGENTS, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION AND A STATE EDUCATION COMMISSION; PROVIDING TRANSITIONAL
INSTRUCTIONS; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution to eliminate
the Board of Regents of Higher Education, the State Board of Education, and the Commissioner of Higher
Education, and replace them with a Department of Education, with a director appointed by the Governor. It
would also create an eight-member appointed State Education Commission whose duties would be
determined by the Legislature. The Board of Public Education, which has general supervision over the
public school system, would not be eliminated. Ifapproved, the measure would not take full effect until
January 1,2001.
FISCAL STATEMENT: Although the current budget for staff in the Office ofCommissioner of Higher
Education is approximately $2.4 million per year, the actual fiscal impact ofthe constitutional amendment
cannot be determined at this time, as it would depend upon a budget proposed by the governor and
approved by the legislature.
D FOR replacing the board ofeducation, board of regents, and commissioner of higher education with a
department of education and a state education commission.
n AGAINST replacing the board ofeducation, board of regents, and commissioner of higher education
with a department ofeducation and a state education commission.
PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR C-30 appointed Commissioner, an elected
Governor Racicot not only supports C-30, but has Superintendent who serves the dual role of
participated in preparing the following reasons as advocate and manager, and a Governor who is
to why the public should support modifying the responsible for a $1.8 billion general fund budget,
current governance form of higher education. ofwhich 60% is dedicated to education. The
arrangement begs the question as to how, when,
The educational system has been studied twice in and who is held accountable for the state-wide
the last seven years. The "Education Commission effectiveness and efficiency of public education."
for the Nineties & Beyond" had nearly 100 public
meetings and submitted recommendations in In essence, the three boards, the Board of Public
990. The "Governor's Task Force to Renew Education, the Board of Regents, and the
1
Montana Government" submitted combination of both boards, which is the State
recommendations in 1994. Board of Education, have operated independently
ofeach other for more than 20 years, contrary to
The general finding, ofboth studies, has been that the intention ofthe 1972 Constitution. But, more
a lack ofcontinuity and accountability exists in the to the point, they have operated independently of
K-12 and higher education system. This is best any executive branch agencies, and in the case of
stated by the following excerpt from Governor the Board of Regents, at least somewhat
Racicot's response to the Task Force: "A matter of independently ofthe Legislature.
concern to many and confusion to most is the
cumbersome combination of two appointed Boards A specific matter ofconcern is the absence ofa
with varyingdegrees ofauthority, a Board- statutory responsibility ofthe Governor to assess
Constitutional Amendment 30 (continued)
fully the appropriate line between education policy bureaucracy- - and, because CA-30 is vague and
and expenditures required to carry out the duties of ill-defined, no one knows for sure what duties and
the Office of Public Instruction or the Board of powers the new bureaucracy would have.
Regents. Also, how does the Governor coordinate
an educational policy with the budget, as well as CA-30 would also shift power from a citizen board
defend the budget requests ofothers, when there is and put politicians in charge. This would make our
not a direct line ofaccountability? University system more costly, more bureaucratic
and more subject to the whims of politicians. A
Montanans want cooperation that results from "No" vote on CA-30 will maintain the
shared vision, joint long-range planning and independence and integrity ofour University
combined resources as well as an education system.
governance structure that requires accountability
and efficiency. This means one point of CA-30 Takes Away Existing Constitutional
responsibility for budget determinations and Protections
distribution of funds, as well as for policy
development and technical program assistance. The current system was established by the 1972
That structure needs to be responsible and Constitutional Convention. The duties and
responsive to the people through their elected responsibilities ofthe Board of Regents were
officials, including school district trustees, included in the Constitution because ofthe
legislators, and governors. importance of higher education. Under CA-30, we
would lose that Constitutional protection: higher
The barriers to long-range planning and a unified education would be subject to the whims ofthe
budget are not only constitutional and statutory, legislature.
but they are the result of past practice, tradition
and philosophy which has long been embedded in CA-30 Creates Bureaucracy and Puts Politicians in
the education structure. Charge
The basic question is: "Who should make CA-30 would create a new "department" of
decisions about the administration of higher education- - an open invitation to bureaucratic
education"? This Constitutional Amendment, C-30 expansion. CA-30 would also transfer more
will allow the public to reclaim ownership, decision-making power to the legislature. The
responsibility, and authority for the university legislature is a place ofcompromise and deal-
system in Montana by holding the Governor and making-- hardly the environment for high quality
Legislature accountable for their actions. education.
The Students Will Benefit. How you vote on CA-30 is an important decision
that deserves careful thought. Before you vote,
This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and consider the following:
rebuttal were prepared by Senator John Hertel
and Representative H.S. "Sonny" Hanson. CA-30 Will Cause Confusion and Deal-Making
Currently the Governor appoints the Board of
OPPONENTS^ ARGUMENT AGAINST C-30 Regents and the Regents appoint the Commissioner
CA-30 Would Shift Control to Politicians, Adding of Higher Education. CA-30 would create a new
Costs and Bureaucracy Education Department with its own commission.
But the current Board of Regents and
Montana's higher education system is a valuable Commissioner of Higher Education would
asset. Constitutional Amendment 30 would continue to serve until 2001. The overlapping
endanger that asset by changing the way the higher systems would bring confusion, deal-making and
education system is governed. higher costs.
CA-30 would bring four years ofconfusion and CA-30 is Unnecessary.
political deal-making to higher education. CA-30
would weaken fundamental constitutional The Constitution already provides for a Board of
protections. CA-30 would establish a brand new Education made up ofthe Board of Regents and
Constitutional Amendment 30 (continued)
the Board of Public Education and headed up by The decision-making powers the opponents claim
the governor. The constitutional purpose ofthis are being lost is a deliberate misrepresentation of
combined board is to coordinate the Kindergarten C-30. The legislature will have a broadened
through 12 grades (K-12) and University systems. authority to pass laws governingthe system --
There is no need to meddle with the Constitution. authority that applies to every other state agency.
One has to wonder why they believe that an
CA-30 Vague agency ofgovernment should not be responsible to
is
the elected representatives ofthe people. Its called
In the current system, the Board of Regent's role is "accountability by checks and balance."
clearly defined by the Constitution. CA-30 would
let the legislature decided what powers to give the "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts
new commission. could change from legislature absolutely." This has been clearly demonstrated by
It
to legislature. acts ofthe Regents. Their uncontrolled financial
management and disposing ofpublic lands, are
Will the K-12 system be next? two clear examples.
CA-30 would create a new "department" to run the K-12 Education does not have the constitutional
University system. How long before this new authority that the Regents do. K-12 local school
department begins lobbyingthe legislature for boards work with the legislature and governorfor
control of Kindergarten through 12th grade schools the benefit ofthe student.
too? That could lead to a serious loss of local
control ofMontana's grade schools and high
OPPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT
schools.
SUPPORTING C-30
A "No" vote will maintain the independence and The statement ofthe supporters ofCA-30 does
integrity ofour University system and stop not speak to this initiative. It makes a case for
unnecessary changes to the Montana Constitution. legislation that was defeated by the 1995
Legislature.
This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Vivian Brooke, Proponents say CA-30 will allow the public to
Representative George Heavy Runner, and reclaim control ofthe university system. Actually,
Shelley Hopkins. CA-30 will allow politicians to take control ofthe
university system by eliminatinga citizen board
and creating a new department ofstate
government. This would transferdecision-making
PROPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT power from the citizens to the legislature. As a
OPPOSING C-30 place ofdeal-making and compromise, the
The amendment will add no cost to the operation legislature is hardly the thoughtful and deliberate
ofthe University System, as claimed by the atmosphere desired to plan for quality education.
opponents. Many legislators believe that the 77
employees in the Office ofthe Commissioner of When CA-30 goes fully into effect in 2001, Marc
Higher Education can be reduced. Racicot will no longer be our governor. Since we
cannot predict future governors' attitudes toward
The University System wants to maintain complete education, we should not deprive the higher
control without any accountability to the public. education system of its constitutional safeguards
They argue that they do not have constitutional and independence from political maneuvering.
protection now because the legislature has "the
power ofthe purse" but then turn around and state Supporters say that CA-30 will address
they must retain their present constitutional continuity and accountability issues in the K-12
protection. They can't have it both ways. system. K-12 is not even mentioned in CA-30.
The truth ofthe matter is that the legislature has Eliminating local control ofelementary education,
limited "power ofthe purse" overthe University however, may be the next target.
System. The Regents can raise student tuition
anytime and then amend their legislatively The Constitution provides for a Board of
approved budget to spend that increase. Education chaired by the Governor and made up
Constitutional Amendment 30 (continued)
ofthe Board of Regents and the Board of Public thereby eliminating all coordination.
Education, both ofwhich are appointed by the
governor. The constitutional purpose ofthis Please don't meddle with the Constitution. It
combined board is to coordinate the K-12 and the works.
university system. CA-30 eliminates this board,
AMENDMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL 31 (C-31)
How the issue willappear on the ballot
' CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 31
An amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Legislature
AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE
VIM SECTION 13, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW STATE COMPENSATION
INSURANCE FUND MONEY TO BE INVESTED IN PRIVATE CORPORATE CAPITAL STOCK.
The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution to allow
monies in the state workers' compensation insurance fund to be invested in private corporate capital stock.
Currently, the Constitution prohibits such investment of public funds except for monies contributed to
retirement funds. Like pension funds, workers' compensation investments would be managed by the State
Board of Investments in accordance with recognized standards offinancial management.
FISCAL STATEMENT: Ifthe Montana Board of Investments had invested the maximum of 15% ofthe State
Fund's assets in common stock in FY95, additional income would have been generated. The Montana
Common Stock Pool twenty-year return average was 14.78% compared to the State Fund's FY95 return of
10.13%.
D FOR allowing state compensation insurance fund money to be invested in private corporate capital
stock.
D AGAINST allowing state compensation insurance fund money to be invested in private corporate
capital stock.
PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR C-31 invested in bonds. A related statute, effective on
Over time, higher investment earnings on the passage ofthis referendum, would limit the
assets ofthe State Compensation Insurance Fund investment in corporate stock to 15% ofthe State
State Fund) can help ensure money is available to Fund's assets. The 15% would be invested in the
p( ay benefits to workers and help hold down same stocks in which a portion ofthe pension
premiums paid by employers. While past funds for state employees and teachers is currently
performance is no guarantee of future results on invested. Over half of all state funds throughout the
any type of investment, the average annual total country have a portion oftheir assets invested in
return on corporate stock has been substantially corporate stocks. Passing this measure should help
higher than on bonds for nearly 100 years. hold down state workers compensation premiums.
Currently, the Board of Investments invests the This measure's PROPONENTS' argument and
State Fund's money solely in bonds. Ifapproved, rebuttal were prepared by Senator Tom Keating,
this referendum would allow the Board to invest a Representative David Ewer, and Teresa Olcott
portion ofthe State Fund's assets in corporate Cohea.
stock, with the remainder continuing to be
Constitutional Amendment 31 (continued)
OPPONENTS' ARGUMENT AGAINST C-31 in surplus and reserves. Under C31, only 15%
The State Compensation insurance Fund was set ($78,000,000) would be invested in stocks, with
up to help those who were injured or suffered loss the remainder still invested in bonds. Since claims
from injury on the job. Since injuries don't happen are paid out over many years, it makes sense to
on an even schedule, there are highs and lows as have long-term investments that match long-term
far as the need for cash is concerned, and liquidity costs.
is required to pay claims on a day-to-day basis. To
meet these varying needs money has been held in Diversified portfolios decrease risk and increase
a type of reserve to make payments through the potential returns.
high demand times. The drafters of the Constitution Historical data for the last 70 years shows that a
were wise in not allowing these funds to be put portfolio comprised of 15% stock and 85% bond
into speculative investments where the principle had kss risk than a 100% bond portfolio aod
could be lost as happened in Los Angeles, counties higher average annual returns. Orange County
in Maryland and Ohio. suffered losses because it invested in bonds and
The need to keep insurance rates down speculative interest-rate derivatives, nfil in stocks.
increases the use ofany reserves; in fact, the fund 1994 was a difficult year for both stocks and
was not set up to "make money" any amount bonds, with bonds losing 2.9% in value. Stocks,
above a reasonable reserve should be used to however, were positive for the year (+ 1.3%), so a
reduce rates to businesses. Nineteen ninety-four diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds did better
was not a profitable year for the stock market. than a 100% bond portfolio. Over the last 20
Common stock should be viewed as a long-term years, the Board of Investments has had an average
investment, not intended for funds that may be annual return of 14.78% on the stock portion of
needed at any time. In addition, the state fund is the state's pension funds.
under consideration for privatization, and a solid,
conservative investment portfolio (presently Increased returns help hold down emplovers'
returning 10.13% in 1995) should be left in tack. costs.
Who picks up the shortfall when losses occur By law, higher returns on the State Fund must be
or stock needs to be sold in a low market? First the used in setting workers compensation rates for
employer pays until he or she starts taking his/her employers. Allowing the State Fund to invest a
business out of State; only a few years ago Workers small portion of its assets in stocks will provide
Compensation Rates was one ofthe main reasons greater potential returns and diversification.
for businesses leaving the state. Then the State goes
tpoertfheecttaexxpaamypelre,.thWeeOlcdanFulenadrnLifarboilmitoyuTraoxwins a OPPONENTS' REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT
history and that ofother governments. The funds SUPPORTING C-31
held in reserve need to be held as a trust and not Stocks have out performed bonds, but will
available for creative speculation like personal enough be gained through the riskier investment?
funds. In the past 70 years (1925-95) 20 years were down
periods. The historical average return has been
This measure's OPPONENTS' argument and 10.14%. The State Bonds experience for equities
rebuttal were prepared by Senator Daryl Toews, over 69 years has been 10.2% annual return for
Representative Betty Lou Kasten, and large company stocks. Worker's Comp Fund 1995
Representative Ray Peck. return was 10.13%.
The fund is managed as a short to intermediate
term (10 Yr.), tax exempt account. It is only since
1993 that there has been substantial reserves over
PROPONENTS' REBUTTAL OE THE ARGUMENT the short term liquidity requirement to even
OPPOSING C-31 consider different investments, since then we have
The State Fund has sufficient liquidity to pay shown restraint in our investment philosophy.
current claims and reserves for manv years. Many agree that the future will probably tend more
toward the average rather than the highs.
Currently, the State Fund has $51 7,000,000-- Is this really the time for more risk?
$36,000,000 cash and $481,000,000 invested in
bonds. Approximately $90,000,000 per year is
used to pay claims and expenses, with the rest held
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 32 (C-32)
How the issue will appear on the ballot
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 32
An amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Legislature
AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V,
SECTION 6 OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHALL MEET
IN REGULAR SESSION BIENNIALLY IN EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS OR IN ODD-NUMBERED YEARS; AND
PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. The Montana Constitution currently requires the State
Legislature to meet in odd-numbered years for no longer than 90 days. This proposal would amend the
Constitution to require that the Legislature meet only once every two years. This would allow the Legislature
to hold its regular sessions in either even-numbered or odd-numbered years, but not both. It would retain
the 90-day limit for regular legislative sessions. Ifpassed, the measure would take effect January 1, 1998.
FISCAL STATEMENT: There would be no additional fiscal impact, although if the legislature chooses to meet
in even-numbered years, the expense for the biennial session would be moved forward one year.
D FOR restricting the legislature to meeting in regular session for 90 days in either even-numbered or odd-
numbered years, but not both.
D AGAINST restricting the legislature to meeting in regular session for 90 days in either even-numbered or
odd-numbered years, but not both.
PROPONENTS' ARGUMENT FOR C-32 businesses and makes it very difficult for the
Introduction average Montanan to have meaningful input to
you want more responsible government and important public policy decisions.
If
greater citizen involvement in public decision-
making, you should vote FOR C-32. Under existing Benefits provided by C-32
requirements, the legislature meets for 90 days in C-32 would amend the constitution to allow the
"odd-numbered years" -- only two months after the legislature to meet for 90 days in even-numbered
November elections. The even-year option years, but does not allow for annual sessions. This
presented by C-32 will give citizens, small would give the legislature as much as a year to:
businesses and legislators more time to understand • organize the legislative session and prepare
the impacts proposed laws and policies will have legislation
on our work, our taxes, and our Montana way of • submit proposed legislation to the public for
review and comment
life.
• schedule legislative hearings well in advance to
Drawbacks to Current System promote citizen participation
Too little time to: Result
• Organize legislature, appoint committees, have Gives all Montanans a much greater opportunity
proposed legislation drafted to thoughtfully consider the benefits and
• Review proposed laws, taxes and policies and drawbacks of any proposed new law, budgetary,
notify public of hearings and committee or taxation proposal and let their elected officials
action know how they feel about important issues. The
• Review Governor's proposed budget, current system severely hinders the opportunity
government spending levels, taxation to change government in response to the will of
Result the people.
Current system produces a hectic process that
effectively excludes most citizens and small This proposal is widely supported by members of