editorials

Minnesotans aren't asked to vote every few years on how many police, lifeguards or snowplow drivers their city and county governments employ.

Why, then, are voters increasingly being asked to decide whether their school districts can keep a current complement of teachers, or add more?

That's typical of the types of questions being asked of voters in 99 school districts on Nov. 6, in referendums that seek permission to either continue existing property tax levies or add to the tax burden.

They beg another question, about governance: Why does Minnesota regularly put a share of what is arguably the most important function of local government up for popular vote?

In general, this is a state that has opted for republican -- with a small "r" -- government. It has eschewed direct democracy in favor of choosing representatives in open, vigorously contested elections, and entrusting them to study, deliberate, and decide matters affecting the shared life of the community.

Elected school boards once had full authority to set school tax levies -- even though the state Constitution vested responsibility for education with the Legislature. That began to change after World War II; a big loss in school board autonomy over property tax levies was the price of the state money surge brought by the 1971 Minnesota Miracle.

But school boards retained the power to go to the voters to ask for academic "extras." It is that authority that has been widely employed for operating money in the past decade, as state school funding has lagged well behind inflation.

On average, the state still provides about 70 percent of all school dollars, meeting the goal set in 1971. But a growing share of the remainder is subject to voter approval at regular intervals, typicaly every five years. That wasn't part of the "miracle" plan. It shouldn't be acceptable now.

The Legislature needs to arrest this trend. At a minimum, it should allow the conversion of some portion of short-term levies into permanent ones, putting them under school board rather than direct voter control. But that should be only a start on a bigger project: living up to the promise of stable, adequate school funding, via a tax that does not fall unfairly on those least able to pay.