Question 1: Carry-over Measure Do you want the State to pay 55% of the cost of public education, which includes all special education costs, for the purpose of shifting costs from the property tax to state resources?

The question’s first assumption is this: This initiative was needed because the Legislature could not be trusted to properly fund schools. Its second assumption is this: If the initiative is successful, the Legislature would responsibly fund a greater share of K-12 education costs.

The sole argument in favor of this legislative paradox is that the weight of the public’s vote would force lawmakers to do what they otherwise would not. That argument evaporated when the sponsor of the initiative, the Maine Municipal Association, negotiated away its two primary arguments at the end of the last session.

Don’t like the demand to immediately push state education funding to 55 percent? Fine, says MMA, phase it in over four years. Don’t like the special-education requirement? That’s fine too, it says – just stick special ed into the overall formula. What’s left?

A couple of good ideas, actually. The initiative creates two funds, one to reward school districts that demonstrate “significant and sustainable savings in the cost of delivering edu-cational services,” mostly through increased collaboration with other school districts. And a second one that acts similarly for municipal governments. These are good ideas, so good, in fact, that they have existed in one form or another over the years, although not at the same level of funding that the initiative requires.

Some other problems: The school funding formula in existence when Question 1 was developed will not be around after this year. MMA’s acceptance of needed changes to Question 1 cannot be checked out with the nearly 100,000 voters whose signatures got it on the ballot – how do they feel about it? There’s no guarantee legislators, once they start tinkering with the initiative, will make only the changes MMA had accepted or, for instance, alter the very expensive special-education component.

One argument in favor of Question 1 is the possibility that a 1 percent property tax cap, on the ballot in November, will pass. In that case, towns and cities will want to make sure the state is contributing as much as it can to schools when the cap cuts many local revenues in half. This possibility is why it was so important for the Legislature and the governor to come to an agreement with MMA last winter and work together to defeat the tax cap. Still, passing a weak measure like Question 1 to defend against a worse measure like the tax cap is not a good way to make policy.

These and other issues create uncertainty among school districts and opportunities for mischief in the Legislature. Question 1 wasn’t especially strong when it was more relevant, but now that lawmakers have agreed to a five-year funding plan that would meet the same target and formally adopted Essential Programs and Services, which will produce new outcomes for district funding, there is little reason to support what has become outdated legislation.