Black's gift

Embattled state House Speaker Jim Black had a required eye exam for kids put in the state budget. It's unnecessary

Jim Black is an optometrist. He's also speaker of the state House of Representatives. Critics of a special budget item that Black orchestrated, to require kids to have eye exams before they enter kindergarten, understandably wonder: might the speaker's expressed concern for children also have been influenced by a desire to do good for his fellow optometrists?

There's no question that it's important to identify children with vision problems that might hinder their ability to succeed in the classroom. Yet the way this requirement was imposed, by insertion in the budget, indeed raises suspicions. That maneuver meant there weren't really any debates to speak of over the issue.

And even if Black technically doesn't have a conflict of interest, that doesn't cancel out the fact that he pushed something that stands to benefit him and others in his profession. (Opthalmologists, who are medical doctors specializing in eyes, also could perform the required exams under the law.)

It's telling that the most notable objections to this measure have come from pediatricians and advocates for poor children and education groups. They dispute whether the exams, which might cost $100 or more, are even necessary. Pediatricians note that children have their eyes checked at doctors' visits, anyway, and that there is a health-screening requirement for all public school students before they enter kindergarten. Some North Carolina counties don't even have any optometrists. While $2 million has been appropriated to help lower-income people pay for the exams, many others would have to go to their insurance companies or pay out of pocket.

In addition, the law says that kids who don't have the exams can't start school. Even those who don't have the required immunizations when school starts have a grace period.

Credible medical professionals, as well as school officials, have raised enough valid objections here to justify scuttling this law. Lawmakers should take care of that when the reconvene in May. Black, embattled in controversy over the activities of his former political director, who became a lobbyist, is now talking compromise. But that's not good enough.

Lawmakers never should have gone along with this in the absence of serious debate, and without hearing from some doctors and school officials who articulated their concerns. The objections now raised could have been aired if the idea had been subjected to ordinary review, but this was slipped into the budget so there was no chance of a full airing. Legislators went along because the fact that this was in the budget made it problematic for them to raise objections. And after all, Black has held the reins of power in his part of Jones Street.

Once a mistake is made, however, the best thing to do is correct it -- not just shrug shoulders and reckon that nothing can be done. Perhaps, recognizing the flaws in the law, the representatives and senators responsible for passing on this item will undo what they did. They should.