California Proposition 92 (2008)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Proposition 92--otherwise known as the Community College Governance, Funding Stabilization, and Student Fee Reduction Act--is an initiated constitutional amendment and will appear on the February 5, 2008 ballot in California.

If it passes, it will establish independent public community college districts and Boards of Governors. It would allocate 10.46 percent of the Prop 98 school funding maintenance fund towards community colleges. It would also drop the cost students pay per credit from $20 to $15.

Proposition 92 loses, with 42.7% of the vote.

California's Legislative Analyst's office is required to prepare a neutral fiscal impact statement about ballot initiatives. In their statement about Proposition 92, they say:[1]

  • The community colleges would collect about $70 million less in annual student fee revenue as a result of this measure.
  • From 2007-08 through 2009-10, it is estimated the initiative would require the state to spend more for K-14 education than under current law—an average of around $300 million per year. This is because K-12 attendance is expected to experience declines for the next few years while the Community college population is forecast to grow between 2 percent to 3 percent.

Teacher's unions in California have come out on opposite sides of Proposition 92. The California Teachers Association by January 8, 2008 had donated $791,100 to defeat Prop. 92.[2] However, the Community College Association, which is affiliated with the CTA, is supporting the measure. So is CTA's largest local affiliate, United Teachers Los Angeles.[3]

Proposition 92 is one of seven ballot measures that California voters will have a chance to accept or reject on February 5 when they also go to the polls to vote in their party's presidential nominating election. (See California 2008 Ballot Measures.)

Contents

Support

  • By lowering credit fees to $15, it ensures that community colleges are affordable.
  • It limits the rise in future fees to the cost of living and would require a warning if fees were going to rise. In 2004, when fees were hiked, 305,000 fewer students enrolled at California’s community colleges.
  • Stable funding for California community colleges.
  • Guarantees that the community college system is independent from state politics.

Legislative Support

  • Senator Alan Lowenthal (D–Long Beach)
  • Senator Carol Migden (D–San Francisco)
  • Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (D–San Bernardino)
  • Senator Alex Padilla (D-Los Angeles)
  • Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (D–Los Angeles)
  • Senator Jack Scott (D–Pasadena)
  • Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D-37th)[6]

Organizations

Association of California Community College Administrators
California Community College Independents
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California School Employees Association
California State Council of Laborers
Communications Workers of America, District 9, AFL-CIO
Community College Association
Community College League of California
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Jewish Labor Committee
Los Angeles College Faculty Guild
National Latina Business Women Association
National Latino Congreso
Sacramento Metro Chamber
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California[7]

Opposition

Critics argue that because there is an automatic increase in the spending every year that it will result in the state having to use K-12 funds in order to compensate for the spending. Also, part of the measure requires four-fifths majority in both houses in addition to the governor's signature, in order to alter the funding for the initiative, which is argued to be too strict.[8]

Merrill Eastcott, Dean at LA City College said:

The growth funding...for the community college system is based on K-12 enrollment, not community college enrollment. Recently we have seen the K-12 enrollment decrease at the same time that community college enrollment was increasing, causing cc funding to decrease when it should have increased. The second fact missing is that the cc system has never gotten the “guaranteed” 10.79 percent (since my entrance into the system in 1999). The closest it ever got was about 10.41 percent. The difference between the guarantee and the actual has always gone to the K-12 system, hence it is understandable that the unions representing the K-12 system would fight it. What is a real kick to me is watching unions fight unions.[9]

The University of California's governing board voted to oppose a ballot measure to boost funding for the community colleges. Fourteen regents joined Kozberg in opposing Proposition 92, while two abstained. Trustees for the California State University system voted unanimously to oppose the measure, as did the California Faculty Association, which represents CSU faculty members.[10]

Public policy think-tank San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) supports community colleges but opposes the measure. They write:

The measure is fiscally irresponsible because it not only reduces revenue to the community-college system, through a fee reduction, but also sets aside a higher portion of overall education funds to community colleges without identifying any new funding sources. This will inevitably result in cuts to other areas of education, particularly public higher education. In recent years, students at both CSU and UC systems have shouldered massive increases in fees. While community colleges are often the first step for many to enter a CSU or UC school, the pathway to higher education for one system should not place greater fiscal strain on another...Tying the hands of legislative bodies is the popular way to win victories for one’s priorities... The difference with this measure is that it does not identify a funding source for this new set-aside. We would hope that the California Community College system would rethink this measure and return with one that builds more grassroots support across the many advocates of education and economic opportunity."[11]

Governor Schwarzenegger is opposing Proposition 92 because he believe the budget should be left to the legislator.[12]

Opponents

Newspaper editorial positions on Proposition 92

The San Francisco Chronicle urges a "no" vote on Prop. 92, saying that it would "layer dysfunction on top of dysfunction".[15]

The Monterey County Hearld urges a "no" vote on Prop. 92, saying "Everybody loves California's community colleges, but locking their budget into a state funding formula is unfair to other critical programs. Prop. 92's attempt to cut student fees is a worthy goal that still should be pursued, especially fees for core academic and vocational classes."[16]

See also:

External Links

References

  1. ↑ LAO Prop 92 Budget Statement
  2. ↑ Donations over $5,000 to No on Prop 92 recorded by the California Secretary of State
  3. ↑ United Teachers Los Angeles Endorse Proposition 92
  4. ↑ More Money-at what cost?, Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 16, 2007
  5. ↑ Yes on Prop 92 press release
  6. ↑ **Prop 92** Endorsements
  7. ↑ Prop 92 Endorsements
  8. ↑ More Money-at what cost?, Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 16, 2007
  9. ↑ More Money-at what cost?, Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 16, 2007
  10. ↑ UC regents oppose community college-funding measure, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 16, 2007
  11. ↑ SPUR's Ballot Analysis of Prop. 92
  12. ↑ Arnold opposes ballot budgeting unless it's his idea, San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 29, 2008
  13. ↑ UC regents oppose community college-funding measure, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 16, 2007
  14. ↑ CalChamber Joins Coalition Campaign to Oppose Proposition 92
  15. ↑ The Chronicle recommends... San Francisco Chronicle, January 25, 2008
  16. ↑ Editorial: Ballot measure recommendations, The Monterey County Herald, Feb. 5, 2008
Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_92_%282008%29"
Personal tools