Gubernatorial Candidate Sarah Palin — September 9, 2006
Responses on ADEQUATE SCHOOL FUNDING

 

NEA-Alaska President BILL BJORK:

Adequate school funding is a priority for education in Alaska . In your response to our candidate questionnaire, you indicated support for adequate school funding. The president -- the present education funding formula provides approximately $5,380 for a “Base Student Allocation.” What would you propose in your first budget as the “Base Student Allocation?”

 

MS. PALIN:

Right. At -- well, there we are going to have to work with the Legislature because I -- it makes no sense for me to go in there with battle lines already drawn with the Legislature in saying I want X number of dollars for those -- that base level and have them already come out saying well, no, you know, we are not going to work with that.

 

So early on, working with the Legislature on setting a funding level and the process is going to have to have elements of prioritizing, and there too, is where we have to work with legislative leadership in conjunction with a real close relationship with NEA to figure out what the priorities should be.

 

I know that ideally what you would like to hear is me come in and say well, it needs to be a $6,000 base level of funding or any amount above that $5,380. I know that. I can't make that promise and candidates who do come in and make you that promise, they are not being truthful because they are going to get it through the Legislature.

 

You need to know my commitment will be to adequately fund education based on the experience and the expertise that is here in this room and that is represented in the NEA working together on that to figure out with the Legislature also what that base level of funding will be that is fair, that is adequate, that is going to be acceptable.

 

NEA-Alaska President BILL BJORK:

How should the cost of inflation be addressed in education funding?

 

MS. PALIN:

We do have to inflation-proof our funding mechanisms for education. We are not doing our duty there in ignoring the cost of inflation and, you know, I talk about the dollars that go into the classroom considered there, but also cost for retirement, cost for pupil transportation, all of these different aspects of funding, we have to always consider inflation-proofing, and it is kind of nonsensical to me that some in Juneau ignore that aspect of our funding obligations, is that we can get away without inflation-proofing.

 

Obviously, that comes to bite us later on down the road. So that has to be priority. Not to condemn previous administrations, but doing a little bit of research on this one, I was looking at the flat funding that had happened under a previous Governor's Administration and noticed that there wasn't the inflation-proving -- proofing that was needed that has come to kind of bite us today. We learned from that failure and we don't repeat that.

 

Governor Knowles, he will talk to you all about how he fully funded education every year, but the inflation-proofing that was lacking at that time has been made manifest today in the squabbles about the adequate funding that is needed today. So we have to get back to the previous question about what is adequate funding and setting our priorities there, but I am committed to inflation-proofing our funding.

 

 

Gubernatorial Candidate Sarah Palin — September 9, 2006
Responses on VOUCHERS

 

NEA-Alaska President BILL BJORK:

Do you support the use of vouchers, tax credits or other programs to provide public money to those who wish to attend private or religious schools?

 

MS. PALIN:

No, it is unconstitutional and it is as simple as that. I am a proponent of giving parents as much choice, as many options as they feel is necessary to make sure that their own child -- we know best for our children, what their own child needs in terms of education options, but not public funding via vouchers for the school choice that they would deem appropriate, and when I talk about choice too, I know that some parents, they just recognize their child is wired for a vo-tech type of education.

 

Whatever that parent needs in order to provide for that child to make sure that child is being able to be provided the tools so that they can progress in a vo-tech world here in Alaska especially, as we are resource based, resource rich and so many of our students are going to go onto vo-tech careers. We want to make sure that they have that option, but vouchers are unconstitutional.

 

NEA-Alaska President BILL BJORK:

Would you work against any effort to allow the use of public funds for private schools through vouchers or tax credits or other programs?

 

MS. PALIN:

I wouldn't support amending the Constitution.

 

NEA-Alaska President BILL BJORK:

Thank you, Andrea .

 

MS. ANDREA (AEA Member Andrea Lang):

On the question concerning vouchers you stated that you would not be for vouchers and you would not be for providing assistance for (indiscernible - too far from microphone) public schools. Yet in a questionnaire from the Alaska Family Council, which asked the question would you support legislation to create a system of educational vouchers that would provide Alaskan students with some financial assistance to attend a public, private, or a religious school of their choice, you answered yes on.

 

MS. PALIN:

I don't support that. It is unconstitutional and we wouldn't be able to go in there and violate the Constitution to any degree. So I don't support that. If there are aspects of that question that talk about providing choices or creating an environment where parents feel that have choices, that is great and I support that, but even if that is something that I have to correct with that Family Council, I will correct that because I don't support the voucher system. Thank you.

 

 

Gubernatorial Candidate Sarah Palin — September 9, 2006
Responses on UNFUNDED LIABILITIES

 

NEA-Alaska President BILL BJORK:

Truly. In your response to our candidate questionnaire you indicated your administration would address the unfunded liability of PERS and TRS retirement systems. How would your administration proceed in this area?

 

MS. PALIN:

I would give the problem of unfunded liabilities a very high priority. It is all a matter about priorities in the -- with the Governor's agenda. It, again, involves a promise, an obligation by the State to fully fund PERS and TRS. What we should have done was taken a big chunk of that surplus that we just blew threw, the 1.6 billion dollars, and we should have started plugging away at the problem right there, and I think it is unfortunate and I have been asking around legislators and legislative staff and Governor's staff how did we ever get to the problem that we are facing now without more public input, without more public discussion about where we were headed?

 

I think that is unfortunate. Water under the bridge though, that things were done in the past that has created the situation we are facing today. Now we just have to fix it and we will fix it by me making it a priority. We will fully fund PERS and TRS.

 

 

Gubernatorial Candidate Sarah Palin — September 9, 2006
Responses on DEFINED BENEFITS

 

NEA-Alaska President BILL BJORK:

 In your response to our candidate questionnaire you indicated support for returning to a defined benefit retirement system for teachers and public employees as a method of attracting and retaining the best possible workforce in Alaska . How would your administration proceed to accomplish this goal?

 

MS. PALIN:

Oh, yes. Now, I talked a little bit about the differences in this candidate and her party, here is the example. I think SB 141 didn't solve any problems. I think it created more problems and certainly I think there needs to be aspects of that revisited. When -- let me personalize this one also.

 

My dad had come to me some months ago saying hey, the State can't ever mess with my retirement, can they? They can't pull a General Motors or a United Airlines on us with our pensions? And I'm saying no, a pension is a promise. You know, you have a constitutional agreement, a contract with the State, State employees do. The State can't be messing with your retirement, and I walked away from the conversation thinking well, I guess he does have something to worry about if the liability is to the tune of about nine billion dollars, which it is projected to be in 20 years.

 

If the money isn't there, yeah (affirmative), there is something to worry about there, and two, why should a forty-some-year teacher in the Alaska system who has paid his dues, why should he even have to be asking the question? I thought it was a shame that our retirees are in the position that they are in to even have to be worrying about their pension. A pension is a promise.

 

I think, again, SB 141 didn't solve problems. I think it created more and I think especially with teachers and law enforcement officials when we are talking about PERS/TRS here, I think we are going to have a tough time recruiting and retaining under SB 141 and the new Tier IV employee also. There are a lot of problems there. I have publically, vocally addressed this issue saying my support will be for revisiting and, you know, that hasn't been a real popular stand to take within the party, but it is what we have to do in order for fairness, in order to meet our obligations and fulfill our promises.