DATE: Tuesday, April 1, 1997                TAG: 9704010005

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial

                                            LENGTH:   86 lines

ALLEN VETOES A MIXED BAG THE LIST CONTAINS ITS SHARE OF THE GOOD AND THE BAD.

The stage is set for the return of the General Assembly to Richmond Wednesday. Gov. George Allen has vetoed 11 bills, proposed amendments to 155 others and altered 11 items in the state budget.

As usual, the list contains its share of the good, the bad and political folderal.

Prime among the latter are Allen's vetoes of two budget amendments dealing with welfare. Labeling them ``backsliding . . . back-door attempts to weaken'' current reforms, Allen vetoed a study of how well the new law is working and an amendment cementing the right of recipients to choose study over work in limited cases.

Both vetoes should be overridden, although the composition of the legislature makes it virtually certain that they will not be.

Welfare reform is the major change in social policy in this country in the past 60 years. It affects hundreds of thousands of women and children nationally, many in Virginia.

Study is needed to learn if reforms that sound fine in theory actually work in practice. Allen is correct in saying that the study ordered by the General Assembly was broad and would have consumed much staff time. But that sort of detailed look is necessary. The secretary of Health and Human Resources is setting up a review panel that will seek some of the same information. That is an important start.

Next year, if not this one, the legislature and the new administration should establish a monitoring system as free as possible of political bias. Welfare-reform assessment is too important to leave to those who have a political stake in the outcome.

As for the education issue, it remains mystifying that the promoters of welfare reform appear committed to ``work'' over ``education'' at all times. The item vetoed by Allen said simply that full-time students could fill their eight-hour-per-week work requirement with a community-service job, if such hours were ``not available in the private sector.''

The administration argues persuasively that many full-time education programs don't lead to employment. But it's equally true that many full-time jobs - and certainly many eight-hour ones - lead nowhere in terms of a future.

It is reasonable to allow public service to fill this minimal work requirement if a private-sector job truly is not available. Such a change is hardly ``backsliding on welfare reform.''

In other matters:

The governor vetoed a measure that would have delayed until July 1998 the Board of Education's new standards of accreditation. The veto is proper.

The standards may need fine-tuning, but they are a generally acceptable step toward more-accountable public schools. Those who backed the bill last winter feared that proposed standards would be more radical than they are. Now that the fear is relieved, Virginia should move forward on this important Allen initiative.

The legislature should drop another bill spawned by Democratic distrust of Allen appointees. The bill, which was vetoed, would have codified educational requirements for supervisors in licensed day-care centers.

The bill was introduced because the Child Day Care Council, controlled by Allen appointees, wanted to lower the requirements. In a letter to the legislature, Allen said the council has reconsidered. Critics aren't convinced the proposed changes are sufficient.

In general, the legislature ought not to be writing regulations, even though reducing educational requirements was a bad idea. That is the task of citizen boards. The bill has served its purpose. Now it's up to the public to lobby the council if the newly proposed regulations remain inadequate. The veto is proper.

Yet another bill vetoed by Allen would have allowed Fairfax County to ban guns at community recreation centers. The bill was targeted by the National Rifle Association, which complained that it was merely ``feel-good legislation.''

Allen is correct that a fine of a few hundred dollars is not going to stop an individual bent on violence. But most rec-center shootings stem from momentary passion on a basketball court or other playing field. Posted signs about guns and fines might actually keep some weapons out of public settings where children abound. It's a chance worth taking. The veto should be overridden.

Finally, the governor vetoed several appropriations that were contingent on revenue growth. Allen is correct that this is bad public policy. The projects - from enterprise zones in impoverished neighborhoods to the Northern Virginia Mental Health Center to economic development efforts in Roanoke - are worthwhile.

But if the state has insufficient funds to meet its needs, the legislature should have the guts to deal with that gap straightforwardly. Budgetary shenanigans can only undercut Virginia's standing with the financial community.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu