California Proposition 92, Funding for Community Colleges (February 2008)
Contents |
Proposition 92 would have established independent public community college districts and Boards of Governors. It would have allocated 10.46% of the Proposition 98 school funding maintenance fund towards community colleges. It would also have dropped the cost students pay per credit from $20 to $15.
The Proposition 92 campaign featured a rare face-off between the California Federation of Teachers, which supported the measure, and the California Teachers Association, which opposed it. Several of the CTA's largest affiliates broke rank with the CTA to support Proposition 92, including the Community College Association and United Teachers Los Angeles.[1]
Election results
| California Proposition 92 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 No
|
4,831,445 | 57.3% | ||
| Yes | 3,613,332 | 42.7% | ||
| Total votes | 0% | |||
| Voter turnout | {{{turnoutpct}}}% | |||
Constitutional changes
If Proposition 92 had been approved, it would have:
- Amended Section 4 of Article VII.
- Added a new Section 17 to Article IX.
- Added a new Section 18 to Article IX.
- Added a new Section 19 to Article IX.
- Amended Section 8 of Article XVI.
Ballot language
Title
The ballot title was:
Summary
The official summary provided to describe Proposition 92 said:
- Establishes in state constitution a system of independent public community college districts and Board of Governors.
- Generally, requires minimum levels of state funding for school districts and community college districts to be calculated separately, using different criteria and separately appropriated.
- Allocates 10.46 percent of current Proposition 98 school funding maintenance factor to community colleges.
- Sets community college fees at $15/unit per semester; limits future fee increases.
- Provides formula for allocation by Legislature to community college districts that would not otherwise receive general fund revenues through community college apportionment.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- Increase in state spending on K–14 education from 2007–08 through 2009–10—averaging about $300 million per year, with unknown impacts annually thereafter.
- Loss of student fee revenues to community colleges; potentially about $70 million annually.
Support
Supporters
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 92 were signed by:
- William Hewitt, president, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
- Rebecca J. Garcia, president, California Community College Trustees
- Dennis Smith, secretary/treasurer, California Federation of Teachers
- Stefan Lee, student, Sacramento City College
- Valerie Novak, student, San Joaquin Delta College
- Samuel Aguilar III, student, College of the Desert[2]
Some of the organizations and individuals who supported Proposition 92 were:
- California Federation of Teachers
- Californians for Community Colleges
- Community College League of California
- Californians for Improving Community Colleges
- Faculty Association of California Community Colleges[3]
- Senator Alan Lowenthal (D–Long Beach)
- Senator Carole 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)[4]
- Association of California Community College Administrators[5]
Arguments in favor
The Yes on Prop 92 campaign made the following arguments[6]
- 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.
Donors
$3,543,032 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition 92.[7]
Donors of $100,000 or more were:
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| California Federation of Teachers | $846,912 |
| American Federation of Teachers | $335,849 |
| Los Angeles College Faculty Guild Local 1521 | $230,000 |
| Faculty Association of California Community Colleges | $200,000 |
| Los Angeles College Guild | $130,000 |
Opposition
Opponents
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 92 were signed by:
- David A. Sanchez, president, California Teachers Association
- Bill Hauck, president, California Business Roundtable
- Teresa Casazza, acting president, California Taxpayers Association
- Allan Zaremberg, president, California Chamber of Commerce
- Joel Fox, president, Small Business Action Committee[2]
Other opponents included:
- The University of California's governing board, fourteen regents voted to oppose Prop 92.[8]
- Trustees for the California State University system unanimously opposed Proposition 92
- California Faculty Association, which represents CSU faculty members.[9]
- California Chamber of Commerce[10]
- San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
Arguments against
Critics argued that because there is an automatic increase in the spending every year 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.[11]
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.[12]
Public policy think-tank San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) opposed the measure. They wrote:
"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."[13]
Governor Schwarzenegger opposed Proposition 92 because he believed the budget should be left to the California State Legislature.[14]
Donors
$2,954,524 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "no" vote on Proposition 92.[15]
Donors of $100,000 or more were:
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| California Teachers Association | $2,291,101 |
| California State Council of Service Employees | $400,000 |
| Service Employees Local 1000 | $100,000 |
| California Faculty Association | $100,000 |
Editorial opinion
"Yes on 92"
- San Francisco Bay Guardian[16]
"No on 92"
- Contra Costa Times.[16]
- The Monterey County Herald urged a "no" vote on Proposition 92, saying "Everybody loves California's community colleges, but locking their budget into a state funding formula is unfair to other critical programs. Proposition 92's attempt to cut student fees is a worthy goal that still should be pursued, especially fees for core academic and vocational classes."[17]
- Oakland Tribune.[16]
- Orange County Register[16]
- San Diego Union-Tribune[16]
- The San Francisco Chronicle urged a "no" vote on Proposition 92, saying that it would "layer dysfunction on top of dysfunction".[18]
- San Jose Mercury News[16]
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
As an initiated constitutional amendment, 694,354 signatures were required to qualify Proposition 92 for the ballot.
The Cal-Access database lists two campaign committees as having registered in support of Proposition 92. One of these organizations ("Yes on 92! Students and Educators in Support") shows no expenditures of any kind. The other organization, "Yes on Proposition 92, Californians for Improving Community Colleges, a Coalition of Educators and Community College Organizations", shows one $38,000 expenditure to Arno Political Consultants for petition signature gathering.[19]
External links
- Official Voter Information Guide : Proposition 92
- PDF of the mailed February 5, 2008 voter guide for Propositions 91-93
- February 5, 2008 ballot proposition election returns
- Proposition 92 in the Smart Voter Guide
- Analysis of Proposition 92 from the Institute of Governmental Studies
- Guide to Proposition 92 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 92 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 92 from Follow The Money
- "Yes on 92" campaign website (archival)
- "No on 92" campaign website (archival)
Additional reading:
- California Ballot Measure Pits Four Years Against Two Year Schools Capital Update Blog, Nov. 28, 2007]
- Community-college ballot measure not an easy sell to educators, ScrippsNews, Dec. 13, 2007
- San Francisco Planning and Urban Research's (SPUR) ballot analysis
References
- ↑ United Teachers Los Angeles Endorse Proposition 92
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 California Voter Guide, "Arguments for and against Proposition 92"
- ↑ More Money-at what cost?, Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 16, 2007
- ↑ **Prop 92** Endorsements
- ↑ Prop 92 Endorsements
- ↑ Yes on Prop 92 press release
- ↑ Follow the Money, "Donors to Yes on 92"
- ↑ UC regents oppose community college-funding measure, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 16, 2007
- ↑ UC regents oppose community college-funding measure, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 16, 2007
- ↑ CalChamber Joins Coalition Campaign to Oppose Proposition 92
- ↑ More Money-at what cost?, Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 16, 2007
- ↑ More Money-at what cost?, Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 16, 2007
- ↑ SPUR's Ballot Analysis of Proposition 92
- ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "Arnold opposes ballot budgeting unless it's his idea", January 29, 2008
- ↑ Follow the Money, "Donors to No on 92"
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 Institute for Governmental Studies, "Endorsements/February 5, 2008 ballot propositions"
- ↑ Monterey County Herald, "Editorial: Ballot measure recommendations", Febrary 5, 2008
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "The Chronicle recommends...", January 25, 2008
- ↑ Expenditure details of "Yes on Proposition 92, Californians for Improving Community Colleges, a Coalition of Educators and Community College Organizations"
| |||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
