School districts in Butler County currently are seeking people to serve on a local tax study commission mandated by Act 1, the state's new property tax relief law.

That's the right thing for them to do.

However, residents of the districts shouldn't expect any earth-shattering developments — translated, savings — stemming from the upcoming studies. In reality, the studies are part of a process that a spineless state legislature has implemented to lift the burden of meaningful, uniform local tax reform from its shoulders.

Just like the nearly forgotten Act 72 reform and several before it, Act 1 eventually could see the same fate.

William Pettigrew, superintendent of the Mars School District, in reference to the appointment of Mars' tax study commission, summed up the situation appropriately by saying, "It's another thing we're going to do to make the government happy."

From the outset, it must be acknowledged that the impending individual studies could end up being an exercise in nothingness. The study commission's recommendation won't be binding; it will be the individual school boards that will decide whether they want to have the commissions' recommendations on the ballots next May, or the recommendations of the boards.

Any radical changes proposed by the tax commissions likely would be destined for a quick trip to the nearest "circular file."

Meanwhile, if the commissions recommend a greater shift to earned-income or personal-income forms of taxation, and if those recommendations were approved by the voters in next May's election, it wouldn't mean a permanent property-tax reduction.

Act 1 doesn't prohibit real estate taxes from eventually rising again — even to above their current levels.

In fact, state lawmakers have built into the law a number of "exemptions" that would pave the way for higher real estate taxes, including to fund the excessive pension-benefits increase for teachers approved by the General Assembly several years ago.

The law also doesn't permit small annual real estate tax increases to protect the districts from potential financial difficulties in future years, even if the districts currently have adequate funds on hand.

Act 1 is not tax reform. It's another gimmick that will provide minimal benefits, but not the kind of relief most state residents desire and feel they are entitled to be provided by their elected officials.

It's unlikely that any school district will appoint a tax commission with members known to be bothered by the current level of taxation.

Then, there's the fact that most residents of school districts don't have a detailed understanding of all of the issues surrounding taxation, and it's likely that most tax plans presented in May will be rejected simply because of that lack of knowledge and understanding.

In addition, the tax commissions will be open to influence from school officials.

On one hand that is acceptable, to help the people new to the issue to gain an understanding of what currently is in place.

On the other hand, those new people will be vulnerable to influence by the school board member who will be allowed to be a commission member, along with the superintendents, business managers and solicitors who will no doubt defend the status quo.

How much the commissions will be influenced by school officials will be determined by the slant or spin of the information those officials choose to inject into the upcoming discussions.

Nevertheless, the tax study commission process isn't all bad. It will be a way for more people in the various school districts to gain a better understanding of the tax issues currently in play, as well as the funding pressures all school districts face.

It will be an avenue for the districts to discuss the plusses and minuses of any significant tax change.

Act 1, which is tied to slot machine gambling and the purported tax-relief money to be generated from that gaming, apparently will provide minimal tax benefits to average property owners. Most people have resigned themselves to the fact that it won't provide as much as the state's politicians projected when the possibility of slots gambling was first introduced.

But the fact remains that Act 1 does not represent uniform, statewide local tax reform — which is what most residents of the commonwealth really want.

Even if positive changes are forthcoming as a result of it, they won't be worthy of being classified as a remarkable achievement.

Regardless of Act 1, the tax complexities that exist in Pennsylvania make meaningful change difficult. That's one of the reasons lawmakers have opted for the cowardly approach — now and in the past — of requiring tax decisions on the local level, rather than by the elected officials who conduct the state's business under the dome of the state capitol building.

Those who are willing to acknowledge what Act 1 doesn't do won't be surprised when they don't see any major tax changes, or actually see higher real estate taxes than they're currently paying, plus an additional burden from some other levies.

Act 1 and the local tax panels are a godsend for lawmakers, not state taxpayers.