It’s been a while since we’ve taken a look at the unicameral (the folks over at Paging Power do a great job of that), but a few things have happened recently which are rather important, so I figured it merited our attention here.

First there’s LB 367, the “tax cut” package. While it’s not quite as regressive as Heineman’s initial proposal (of course, that’s not saying much), it’s still not good enough. Kyle has a good analysis of the whole situation at the New Nebraska Network.

Next, LB 405, which I was a huge proponent of, was tabled by the legislature. There wasn’t going to be any convincing Ernie Chambers that adding extra districts would be good for minority representation. It’s doubtful that they’ll revisit the extra council district idea anytime soon, but they really should. At this point, a state legislator represents about 20,000 fewer people than an Omaha City Councilman.

Finally, LB 641, which got first-round approval today by a vote of 42-0. The learning community idea bothers me a lot, still, and adding a new level to the administration of this plan seems to accomplish the exact opposite of its goal - namely, more local control of schools. I made no secret about the fact that I supported “One City, One School District,” (just read through the comments of this thread). But there’s no doubt that OPS overplayed its hand quite a bit, and got burned for it. Chambers was waiting for his moment with the OPS breakup, and the legislature, out of spite against OPS, went right along and passed a hasty bill - which our pandering lightweight of a governor then signed into law.

The behavior of the school superintendents throughout this debate has been childish. None of them want to give up any power, none of them want to give up any money. Their main focus is on their own interests, and not the overall good of their students or the city of Omaha.

Any compromise is going to look good in comparison to the disaster that was LB 1024 last year. And the good news is that debate will not be hasty, there will be time to hash out what’s wrong, what’s right about the bill, and have things a little bit more open and a little less rushed than last year.

I’m going to be interested to see the debate play out, as I’m still not quite sure what to make of this bill. We’ll see just how realistic this compromise is, and whether it can actually solve the problems facing Omaha’s public schools.

I received an email from the Center for People in Need today. The email referenced the anti-bullying bill in the Nebraska Legislature. Many of you are familiar with the bill, and familiar with State Senator Philip Erdman’s attempt to derail it. I’ve included the email below, and some other stuff.

PLEASE STOP ATTEMPT TO GUT ANTI-BULLYING BILL (LB205) ACTION ALERT

ISSUE: LB205 requires each school district to develop and adopt a policy concerning bullying prevention and education for all students. The bill is on General File (First Reading) and rapidly moving up on the agenda.

PROBLEM: Sen. Philip Erdman of Bayard (Dist. #47) is attempting to render LB205 useless. He initially filed a kill motion on the bill which he has withdrawn. He now is proposing an amendment which would eliminate the definition of bullying and the requirement for schools to have bullying policies. His proposal simply would add bullying to the existing code of conduct while removing disciplinary action.

ACTION: Please send a message to State Senators as soon as possible. Ask them (1) to reject Sen. Erdman’s amendment (AM337) or any other attempt to kill or water down the bill, and (2) to vote in support of LB205.

GENERAL MESSAGE: I urge you to reject attempts to kill or weaken the provisions of LB205, the anti-school bullying bill. Please support the bill in its current form. Thank you.