On Nov. 4, the people of Maine will face a decision on referendum Question 1 that addresses how our state will fund the education costs of our children. Option 1A results in the state assuming 55 percent of the cost of education beginning next year. Option 1B phases in lesser funding increases over a number of years. Option 1-C maintains the status quo. It has been most interesting to witness the strategies being employed by the 1B and 1C proponents to undermine 1A, the citizen’s initiative.

As a member of the Maine Legislature from 1982 to 1992, I had the privilege of serving as House chair of the Education Committee and as Senate chair of the Taxation Committee. I served in the Legislature during the passage of the ’84 Education Reform Act, and sponsored numerous bills attempting to increase the state share of education costs pursuant to that law.

For the past several years, I have served as city manager of Brewer. I have come to understand – from the inside – why property taxes in our state are so high, what needs to be done about it, and why there is a sense of urgency to address the issue now, not later.

Unfortunately, I don’t hold out a great deal of hope that the Legislature is serious about committing itself to funding local education at 55 percent, be it in year one or phased in over six years. Every effort has been expended by proponents of the legislative alternative (1B) to characterize municipal governments as bloated, duplicative, unable to manage resources wisely, and generally past their usefulness or relevance as governmental entities.

Maine cities and towns are but a quaint throwback to a bygone era, so we are told. With this well-calculated assault as a backdrop, what possible incentive is there for current or future legislatures to provide the municipalities with more money to “misuse”?

Despite the probability that there are individual legislators who have a commitment to a phased in funding scheme, and seeing it through over a six-year period, there are five key factors that virtually assure failure:

1. History. Eighteen years of failure to meet the legislative obligation to properly fund education and thereby reduce the reliance on local property taxes speaks for itself.

2. Trust. During this debate, some in state government have barely been able to conceal their contempt for local government. In their view, towns and cities are not to be trusted with additional funding., They bristle at any local controls that might not mirror the policy priorities of the legislature and the governor. That unfortunate sentiment won’t be changing anytime soon.

3. The economy. State revenues will ebb and flow in the future as they have in the past. It is inevitable that the economy will soften, or undergo periods of uncertainty, which will derail the funding commitment to local education. Lawmakers will convince themselves that they can postpone the funding effort until times get better (see no. 1 above).

4. Interest groups. As evidenced by the coordinated effort to generate panic with every conceivable interest group that their funding will be slashed if 1A passes, the politics of fear can be very persuasive. It is difficult for many lawmakers to “stay the course” on education funding and property tax relief when told that in so doing they must then close courthouses, expel the elderly from nursing homes, and curtail any meaningful business tax incentives. If tax relief is truly a priority item, the Legislature will find the means to fund it, and can do so without gutting essential services or raising taxes.

5. Turnover of elected officials: In Maine, we elect members of the legislature every two years, and our governor every four years. Veteran legislators are “termed out.” One Legislature is not bound by the actions of another legislature. It stands to reason that, based upon our experience over the past eighteen years, priorities will change with a new legislature. Previous funding commitments will be modified, eliminated, or simply ignored.

A final point should be made here, and placed in the Legislature’s “Be Careful What You Wish For” file. There appears to be a wink and nod relationship between the 1B proponents and those pushing 1C (none of the above, i.e., no action). After all, if they can deny the votes to 1A, the pressure is off and it will be business as usual.

Not so fast! The property tax issue in our state is no longer simmering … it is ready to boil over. The image of the governor and legislative leaders celebrating a defeat of 1A, or the passage of 1B only to see it languish the first time the legislature meets in full session, will jump-start the efforts of those who advocate a statewide property tax cap. The tax- cap campaign will finally be given legitimacy, momentum, and a new expanded constituency. Once a citizen-initiated tax cap is in place, legislators and the governor will look back fondly at the MMA proposal, and new meaning will be given to the term “draconian.”

Steve Bost is the city manager of Brewer.