Riley (R-Ashland) vs Hubbert (D-AEA)

During the campaign for Governor Riley's (R-Alabama) tax reform package in 2003, some Republican wondered about his loyalty to the GOP roots. Paul Hubbert (D-AEA), executive director of the Alabama Education Association (AEA), supported Riley's proposals, a move that some people thought indicated Riley had made a pact with the devil. Many Alabamians, especially these Republicans, believe that the AEA is Alabama's own dastardly version of radical liberalism incarnate.

It seems that Riley wants to rehabilitate himself with the GOP base by poking the AEA in the eye. First, he attempted to limit the cost of living raise teachers proposed for teachers in the regular legislative session. The Birmingham News then reported that the governor would let a bill from the special session die that would have offered tax incentives to developers of theme parks in the state. (The bill died at midnight 4 August.)

His beef? It's not that he disagrees with purposes of the legislation. He characterized the proposal this way:

"It's an important bill. It's a bill we need to enact."

However, he disliked one aspect of the bill. It would have created an authority that would decide whether or not to offer tax incentives to particular projects. That authority would have seven members. Four individuals would be members of the authority by virtue of their official positions with the state: the directors of the Alabama Development Office, the Bureau of Tourism and Travel, and the Alabama Industrial Development Training Program; rounded it out with the Director of Finance. The other three members would be appointed by the governor. But here's the rub, the governor would have to choose from a list of nominees submitted by the executive director of the AEA (Hubbert).

Combine that requirement with the bill's stipulation that a majority of five votes is required for the authority to approve incentives and you have the basis of Riley's objection, as explained by Riley:

"... I don't believe any non-elected association or group should have absolute veto over decisions that are going to affect tourism and economic development in the state of Alabama."

Riley, has a point. The AEA is a private association. And if none of the AEA-nominated appointees to the authority support a project, then the tax incentives would not be offered. (Of course, to make Riley's point, one would have to believe that the AEA-nominated appointees would be toadies with sworn allegiance to the AEA, voting in lockstep, which may be true. And certainly there are people who believe that.)

However, according to The Birmingham News report, Hubbert makes a good point as well:

"Hubbert said Riley or another governor, if allowed to appoint whomever he or she wanted to the authority, likely would pick tourism officials who would be freer at handing out tax refunds and wouldn't care as much whether refunds cost schools money rather than increased net tax collections by bringing new attractions and jobs to Alabama."

Of course, that doesn't explain why the AEA and Hubbert believe that Hubbert (at least for now) is the only person who can adequately protect education dollars from funding corporate welfare. I don't disagree that the education community should have advocates who participate in deciding what projects will be offered tax incentives that cost schools money. (I'm making the assumption here that the tax incentives are good public policy in the first place, which they may not be. But that's a topic for another day.)

I certainly don't mind education advocates having the ability to veto a proposal if it doesn't look like a good investment in the long run. But there are plenty of other ways to find responsible and fair-minded advocates of education and responsible funding for schools without ceding a monopoly to the AEA.