Bower, John C.

English

Research Papers in Economics

MONTANA'S  EXPERIENCES  IN  TAXATION
AND  FINANCE  EDUCATION
John C. Bower, Extension Economist
Montana State College
Montana  has at least  a thirty-year  record of research  and extension
activity  in  the  area  of  taxation  and  finance.  One  early  bit  of research
on Montana  farm  taxes  resulted in a bulletin authored by R. R. Renne
and Bushrod W.  Allin in  1934. This was followed by writings by Lord,
Voelker,  Brownlee,  Halcrow,  Kelso, Stucky,  and  Thompson. The titles
of publications  include  cost  of county  government,  county  reorganiza-
tion, school costs, tax delinquency and foreclosure  of agricultural lands,
inequalities  in  tax  assessment  of  agricultural  lands,  tax  systems,  and
procedures  for  reclassifying  agricultural  lands  for  tax  purposes.
Limited  and  piecemeal  extension  programs  accompanied  the research
findings.
A  LAND  RECLASSIFICATION  PROJECT
Accompanying  the  activities  in  the agricultural  economics  depart-
ment was a  program  of land classification  related to soil characteristics
and  production  in  the  department  of  agronomy  and  soils.  The  land
classifier  obtained  wheat yields  and grazing  capacities  for the  lands  as
he assembled  the data on soil characteristics.  His final maps and reports
included  a  classification  reflecting  the  productivity  of  the  land  for
farming or  grazing.
Montana  conducted  an extension  educational  program on the need
for  reclassification  of  all  land,  beginning  about  1940.  In  1955  the
legislature  passed  a  bill  calling  for  state-wide  reclassification  of  all
agricultural lands and reappraisal of improvements.  The reclassification
program  was  administered  by  the  State  Tax  Board,  but  the  board  re-
quested  that  the  Extension  Service  conduct  an  educational  program
in  each county  to let property owners know why their lands were being
reclassified  and the procedures  to be followed.
An educational  program  emphasizing  the need  for reclassification
and  the  procedures  to  be  followed  was  an  important  activity  of  the
public  affairs  specialist  during  the  past  fifteen  years.  All  agricultural
lands  in Montana  are  now reclassified,  and the  taxes paid this  fall will
be based on  the new classification.
This  and  other  successful  experiences  possibly  gave  Montanans
confidence  in  conducting  educational  programs  with  adults  in  public
130affairs.  And  in  the  spring  of  1960  we  organized  a  program  called
"Vital  Issues."
THE  VITAL  ISSUES  SELF-ADMINISTERED  PROGRAM
What  We  Attempted  to  Do
We  attempted  a  state-wide  self-administered  program  with  six
topics or issues as follows:
1.  Education - What  Goals for Montana?
2.  How Can Montana  Grow?
3.  Welfare in Montana  - What Needs?  Whose Responsibility?
4.  What Do We  Expect From Government?
5.  How Do We Pay for What We Want?
6.  What Can Montana  Afford?
The stated objectives of the program were:
1.  To  increase  awareness  and  understanding  of  significant  prob-
lems  of  education,  welfare,  economic  growth,  taxation,  and
finance  facing Montana  people-community  or group problems
that cannot be solved by citizens  individually.
2.  To  determine  what  lay people  believe  are  the key  problems  in
the above listed subject areas.
3.  To  test  the  reaction  of  the  public  to  an  intensive  educational
effort  in public  affairs.
4.  To  test  the  public  reaction  to  a  self-administered  program  of
education.
The  program  was  under  the  guidance  of  a campus  committee  of
teaching,  research,  and extension  personnel.
The  six  leaflets  were  prepared  by the staff  of  Montana  State  Col-
lege  with  assistance  from  Research  Associates,  Inc.  The  distribution
and utilization of the leaflets was the responsibility of a committee from
the Extension  Service assisted by Research  Associates,  Inc.
A  comprehensive  set  of materials  was  developed  to  publicize  the
program  and  get  discussion  groups  organized  beginning  in  late  Sep-
tember  or  early  in  October  to  permit  study  of  the  six  leaflets  before
state  and  national  elections.  County  agents  were  given  the  responsi-
bility  for  getting  discussion  leaders  to  organize  discussion  groups.
Agents were  informed  of the program  and provided  with promotional
131leaflets  in the  summer.  Details of the  program were  provided and  dis-
cussed  with them  in  a  series  of district  meetings  in September.
What  We  Accomplished
Twenty-five  thousand  sets  of the leaflets  were printed  with an  ade-
quate supply of promotional  and organizational materials. One measure
of  our  accomplishment  is  the  number  of discussion  groups  using  the
discussion leaflets  as  indicated below:
Number  of  Groups  Number  of  Total Groups
per  County  Counties  Formed
0  13  0
1-5  23  52
6-10  9  76
11-15  4  47
Over  15  2  34
No report  5
Total  56  209
We suggested that five or six couples be considered  for a discussion
group.  If  we  assume  ten  people  to  a  group,  the  209  groups  would
include  2,090  people  or  about  one-half  of  one  percent  of  the  adult
population  of the state.  The above tabulation  was made November  30,
1960, and reflects the initial effort.
The material  was used by other groups later in the winter,  and they
were  used extensively  in schools,  particularly by classes in government,
economics,  and  civics  in  1960,  1961,  and  1962.  A  recent  tabulation
shows that 7,600 copies  of the leaflets have been used.
The  general  reaction  of the discussion group participants  was very
favorable.  The  program  was  most  successful  in  counties  where  the
county  agent  had  in  recent  years  provided  an  opportunity  for  leaders
to discuss  public  affairs  issues.
Limitations  of  the  Program
Ten  of  our  county  agents  and  one  of  our  state  staff  had  limited
experience  in  working  with  the  "Great  Decisions"  program  of  the
Foreign  Policy  Association,  which  gave them  an  appreciation  of some
of the  opportunities  and  limitations  of a  self-administered  program.
However,  experience  indicated  that  our county  workers  were  not
adequately  prepared  to  obtain a high level of group participation.  This
is  evident  by  the  failure  of thirteen  counties  to  organize even  one  dis-
cussion  group.  An  additional  twenty-three  counties  organized  an
average  of only two groups  each.  In other words, thirty-six of the fifty-
132six counties,  or 65  percent,  may be considered  to have been  ineffective
in  organizing  groups.  If  we  assume  the  five  counties  not  reporting
also did not organize  any groups,  then 73  percent of the counties were
ineffective.
Many  of  the  county  agents  seemed  to  be  insecure:  (1)  in selling
this  kind  of a program  and  (2)  in  facing criticisms  of the  program as
advanced  by a few leaders in their counties.
The  State  Taxpayers'  Association,  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and
other  groups  were  organized  to  oppose  the  activity  through  selected
newspaper  editorials.  This  was  particularly  effective  in  discouraging
agents  and  leaders  in  their  promotional  activities  related  to  the  pro-
gram.  They  were  totally  unprepared  to  meet opposition  or  criticism
of the  simplest  nature.
The  timing  of the  program  was  considered  inappropriate  by some
of the  critics  because:
1. The  leaflets  were  to  be  discussed  the  six  weeks  prior  to  the
general  election.
2.  The legislature was to meet the following January and February.
3.  Farm  work  was  not  sufficiently  completed  by early October  to
encourage  farm  operator  participation  in  the program.
Part  of the ineffectiveness  of the activity  may be  due to  the lack of
previous  experience  with  a  self-administered  program  by  the  leaders
and  lay  people  in  most  counties.  We  probably  should  have  discussed
the project with more key  individuals  and groups  in the  counties as we
were developing  the  program  outline.  If we  had obtained  their  under-
standing  and  approval  of  the  project  we  probably  would  have  had
more legitimizers  and supporters and fewer critics.
We  may have  utilized more than 7,600 sets of leaflets  if we had:
1. Done  a  better  job  of  preparing  our  extension  staff-state  and
county.
2.  Prepared  lay  discussion  leaders  in the  organization  and  leader-
ship of discussion groups.
3.  Selected  topics  less  controversial  for  the  original  attempt  at  a
self-administered  program.
We  may  have  met  less  opposition  if  we  had  concentrated  our
resources  and done  a better job in a few  counties the first year.
133

MONTANA'S EXPERIENCES IN TAXATION AND FINANCE EDUCATION

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics