California Proposition 92, Funding and Governance Changes for Community Colleges Initiative (February 2008)

California Proposition 92
Election date February 5, 2008
Topic Education
Status d Defeated
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 92 was on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute in California on February 5, 2008. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported changing the existing formula for community college funding; reducing the credit fee from $20 per unit to $15 per unit; and establishing independent community college districts and board of governors.

A "no" vote opposed changing the existing formula for community college funding; reducing the credit fee from $20 per unit to $15 per unit; and establishing independent community college districts and board of governors.

Election results

California Proposition 92
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,613,332	42.79%
No		4,831,445	57.21%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

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 decreased the cost students pay per credit from $20 per unit to $15 per unit.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 92 was as follows:

“

Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

- 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.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

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.

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

"Yes on 92" website banner

Yes on 92 led the campaign in support of Proposition 92.

Supporters

• California Federation of Teachers
• Californians for Community Colleges
• Community College League of California
• Californians for Improving Community Colleges
• Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
• Community College Association
• United Teachers Los Angeles
• 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)
• Association of California Community College Administrators

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 92 were submitted by William Hewitt, president of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges; Rebecca J. Garcia, president of the California Community College Trustees; and Dennis Smith, secretary/treasurer of the California Federation of Teachers:

“ Proposition 92 does not raise taxes. It lowers community college fees to $15 per unit and limits future fee increases. In 2004, the Legislature hiked fees to $26 per unit. This resulted in 305,000 fewer Californians enrolling in community college. That hurt California. Proposition 92 won’t allow that to happen again. 'Whenever there is a tight budget, it seems that community colleges suffer the most even though the system is by far the most efficiently run in California . . .' Contra Costa Times, April 30, 2007 CALIFORNIA’S COMMUNITY COLLEGES GENERATE MORE THAN THEY COST. For every $1 the state spends on community colleges, the colleges generate $3 back to the state budget as millions of graduates earn better wages. A full-time community college student costs less than half what the state spends on a CSU student and only one-third of what the state spends on a UC student. '. . . [C]ommunity colleges remain the best educational bargain around. Community colleges need our help . . .' Ventura County Star, March 8, 2007 CALIFORNIA’S COMMUNITY COLLEGES ARE THE GATEWAY TO THE MIDDLE CLASS. Community college students who earned a vocational degree or certifi cate see their wages jump from $25,600 to $47,571 three years after earning their degree. 70% of all Californians attending college are enrolled in a community college. The average student is a 28-year-old working Californian. 60% of the students are women. 30% of all Latinos in America attending college are enrolled in a California Community College. There are 241,000 Californians from Asian and Pacifi c Islander backgrounds. And 90,000 more African American students in community colleges than in the CSU and UC systems combined. 'Our community college system faces many challenges . . . but it’s getting the job done. It’s high-time California stopped snubbing its community-college system.' San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2007 CALIFORNIA’S COMMUNITY COLLEGES ARE IMPORTANT TO OUR ECONOMY. By the year 2025 California will need 39% of the workforce to have a college education. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said, 'Community colleges are America’s economic engine.' 'Passing the Community College Initiative will offer more affordable and accessible academic and vocational education . . . without raising taxes.' Chamber of Commerce, Sacramento Proposition 92 guarantees the community college system independence from state politics. The Community College League of California supports Proposition 92. Proposition 92 guarantees minimum funding will grow as the college-age population grows so students are not turned away. The Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges supports Proposition 92. Proposition 92 guarantees that the lower $15 per unit fees can only be raised as Californians’ personal income grows . . . but never by more than 10%. The Los Angeles College Faculty Guild supports Proposition 92. Proposition 92 guarantees that Proposition 98 funding for K–12 schools is protected. The California Federation of Teachers supports Proposition 92. Proposition 92 lowers community college fees . . . AND GIVES EVERY CALIFORNIAN THE CHANCE TO GO TO COLLEGE. Vote YES on 92. It doesn’t raise taxes. ”

Opposition

"No on 92" website banner

No on 92 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 92.

Opponents

• Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
• The University of California's governing board, fourteen regents voted to oppose Proposition 92
• Trustees for the California State University system unanimously opposed Proposition 92
• California Faculty Association, which represents CSU faculty members
• California Chamber of Commerce

Arguments against

2008 propositions
February 5
Proposition 91 • Proposition 92
Proposition 93 • Proposition 94
Proposition 95 • Proposition 96
Proposition 97
June 3
Proposition 98 • Proposition 99
November 4
Proposition 1A • Proposition 2
Proposition 5 • Proposition 6
Proposition 7 • Proposition 8
Proposition 9 • Proposition 10
Proposition 11 • Proposition 12
Local measures

• 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."

• San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) said, "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."

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 92 were submitted by David A. Sanchez, president, California Teachers Association; Bill Hauck, president, California Business Roundtable; and Teresa Casazza, acting president, California Taxpayers Association:

“

PROPOSITION 92 IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS. IT WOULD CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT COULD EVER SOLVE AND DESERVES YOUR 'NO' VOTE. The question before voters is NOT whether community colleges are important. We are all strong supporters of our community college system. Instead, the real question is whether California can afford to lock a huge new spending mandate into our Constitution that: Contains no accountability provisions to make sure the money ends up in the college classroom instead of being wasted on bureaucracy or administration; and that could jeopardize funding for K–12 schools, healthcare, and law enforcement. A broad coalition of classroom teachers, other educators, and taxpayer and business groups have studied this proposal and concluded that Proposition 92 is fl awed and a bad deal for our children and for California. Here’s why: PROPOSITION 92 HAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE SURE THE MONEY GETS INTO CLASSROOMS. It mandates hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer spending with no assurances the new money wouldn’t be wasted on more bureaucracy and administrative 'overhead.' Under Proposition 92, taxpayers will never know how the funds are really spent. It doesn’t dedicate the money to specific purposes like computers, books, and labs. It requires NO public audits and contains NO penalties for misusing the funds. It amounts to a blank taxpayer check that could be spent to hire even more bureaucrats and administrators, give them huge raises, or build them extravagant offices. PROPOSITION 92 MANDATES TAXPAYER SPENDING WITHOUT A WAY TO PAY FOR IT. Nowhere in the measure does it identify a way to pay for all the new spending. The politicians would be left to decide. They could raise the sales tax or put new taxes on other items or even increase our income taxes to raise the money this measure would require. Or, they could cut education funding, including K–12 schools. We all want to make sure our public schools and colleges have the funds they need to teach our children, but this initiative gives community colleges preferential treatment. It doesn’t make sense to spend $70 million to roll back fees that are already the lowest in the nation (just $20 a unit— and a third of the national average) and then ask taxpayers to pay more or cut funding for other critical needs. THE STATE HAS MANY OTHER PRESSING NEEDS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, LIKE FUNDING K–12 SCHOOLS, HEALTHCARE, AND PUBLIC SAFETY. California still faces chronic budget deficits—projected to be more than 5 billion dollars in 2008. Proposition 92 would make it even worse. We should not lock new spending requirements into our Constitution at the expense of our children’s education, our healthcare, and law enforcement. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY COLLEGES WITHOUT ALL THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY PROPOSITION 92. Proposition 92 is the wrong way to go. Please join us in voting 'NO' on Proposition 92.

”

Media editorials

Opposition

• 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."
• The San Francisco Chronicle urged a "no" vote on Proposition 92, saying that it would "layer dysfunction on top of dysfunction."

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") reported 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," reported $38,000 in expenditures to Arno Political Consultants for petition signature gathering.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Education on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

• Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 92
• Full text of Proposition 92
• February 5, 2008 ballot proposition election returns
• Proposition 92 in the Smart Voter Guide
• 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)