Pennsylvania lawmakers deserve more criticism than what has already been leveled regarding Act 72, the property-tax-reform law passed last year. Justification for that stepped-up criticism entered the spotlight during the past week as state officials disagreed about the law's intentions regarding distribution of money to school districts.

Under the Rendell administration's reading of the law, school districts that opt in to the new tax program will share all of the money that taxes on slot-machine gambling generate each year for the tax cuts - whether it is all 501 school districts sharing money or only 100. However, J. Andrew Crompton, counsel to Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Jubelirer, said participating districts would receive the same amount that they would receive if all districts were involved.

According to Crompton, the money in question will be distributed based on a formula that gives proportionately more to districts with less wealth and heavier property-tax burdens. He said the formula is based on the assumption that all districts would participate, and that the money earmarked for non-participating districts would simply be rolled over into the amount available for the next year's payments.

While Crompton's opinion seems like the more logical of the two put forth, the disagreement nevertheless raises the question of why Act 72 does not actually stipulate how the law would respond to various scenarios. That is especially true since school district participation in the law is optional.

Considering all the time state lawmakers spent on the slot-machine gambling measure and what supposedly is school property-tax reform, such questions should not have to be emerging now.

But, unfortunately, that is the shoddy way things are done under the state Capitol dome, so more disagreement and puzzlement apparently lie ahead.