February 5, 2008 Election Pros and Cons League of Women Voters of Stanislaus County.

143
February 5, 2008 Election Pros and Cons League of Women Voters of Stanislaus County

Transcript of February 5, 2008 Election Pros and Cons League of Women Voters of Stanislaus County.

February 5, 2008 ElectionPros and Cons

League of Women Voters of Stanislaus County

League of Women Voters – Two Roles – Two Presentations

• Voter Service• Pros and Cons• Marie Bairey, Amy

Wolfe & Patty Beyer• Please ask questions• For more

information, Pros and Cons are available

• www.smartvoter.org

• Advocacy• League Positions

• Lobby• Advocate• Litigate

February 5th Election – Local Measures:

E Thirty (30) Year Land Use Restriction Initiative - Patty

L Responsible Planning and Growth Control Initiative - Patty

M The Increase Accountability in City Hall Measure of 2008 - Marie

N Elect City Council by Districts Measure of 2008 “By District” System, Modesto - Marie

February 5th Election – State Measures:

91 Transportation Funds – Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Patty

92 Community Colleges, Funding, Governance, Fees – Initiative Constitutional Amendment & Statute - Patty

93 Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office – Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Patty

94-97

Amendments to Indian Gaming Compacts – Referenda - Amy

What does my vote mean?

• A YES vote means you want to change something, or that you favor what is being proposed.

• A NO vote means you want to keep things the way they are, or at least don't favor this particular change.

February 5th Election:

Constitutional Amendments – California Constitution is very lengthy due to many amendments and can be changed in three ways: amendment (most common), constitutional convention or revision proposed by the Legislature. Legislature may place an amendment on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of members by each house. Then, a simple majority vote by the public is required.

February 5th Election:

Initiative Process – ‘Direct Democracy’ – Power of the people to place measures on the ballot to either create or change statutes or amend the Constitution. An initiative requires a simple majority of the public’s vote to be enacted. (327 since 1912)

Referendum Process (rare) – Power of the people to approve or reject statutes adopted by the state Legislature (43 since 1812)

How to Evaluate Initiatives

• Who are the real sponsors and opponents of the measure? Investigate the names of groups with which you are not familiar.

• Does the measure deal with one issue which can easily be decided by a "yes" or "no"? Or is it a complex issue which should be thoroughly examined in the legislative arena?

How to Evaluate Initiatives – pg 2

• Is it written well? Are there conflicts in the measure that may require court resolution or interpretation? Is it "good government" or will it cause more problems than it will resolve?

How to Evaluate Initiatives – pg 3

• If the measure amends the Constitution, consider whether it really belongs in the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is cumbersome and costly and requires a vote of the people. Would a statute accomplish the same purpose?

How to Evaluate Initiatives – pg 4

• Does the measure create its own revenue source? Does it earmark, restrict, or obligate a specific percentage of General Fund revenues? Consider the effect on the overall flexibility of the budget.

How to Evaluate Initiatives – pg 5

• Examine the measure by its merits. During the campaign, be wary of distortion tactics and commercials that rely on image, but tell nothing of substance about the measure.

Measures E & L:

According to Measure L:• There is a clear conflict between this initiative and

Measure E. If both measures are approved, the measure receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall supersede the other measure. No provision of the superseded measure shall be implemented or enforced.

• In the event that the voters approve ANY initiative or referendum other than Measure E related to the County’s general plan contemporaneously with the approval of this ordinance, the measure receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall supersede the other measure(s).

Measures E & L

In regards to the previous slide, • If you vote yes on Measure E, you

would vote no on Measure L.• If you vote yes on Measure L, you

would vote no on Measure E.

Measure EThirty Year Land Use Restriction County of Stanislaus Initiative

Measure E: Thirty-Year Land Use Restriction Initiative: Stanislaus County

• Should the citizens of Stanislaus County have direct citizen participation in land-use decisions involving the expansion of residential uses into agricultural and open-space areas in order to encourage urban form and to perserve agricultural land?

County Counsel Says:

• This Initiative is intended to amend the Land Use Element of Stanislaus County's General Plan by adding Goal 6 and Policy 25 to restrict for a period of thirty (30) years the Board of Supervisors of Stanislaus County from approving the redesignation or rezoning of land in the unincorporated area of the County from an agricultural or open space use to a residential use without the approval of a majority of voters of the County.

County Counsel Says:

• This Initiative provides that a majority vote requirement of County voters at a General or Special Election shall be in effect until December 31, 2036, for decisions by the Board of Supervisors affecting land that is designated for agricultural or open space use and is proposed to be changed to residential use on the Land use map of the County General Plan as of April 17, 2006.

• A legal question exists as to whether the April 17, 2006, date is valid and enforceable.

County Counsel Says:

• This Initiative has no effect on growth and General Plans of the nine cities in Stanislaus County and will not affect requests by cities to expand their sphere of influence or annexations for residential development. The intended measure will not limit residential development by cities within existing or amended spheres of influence of cities, or preclude cities from annexing additional areas for residential development.

County Counsel Says:

• These General Plan changes affect agricultural or open space land that lies outside the present and future city limits.

• This Initiative provides that once a majority of County voters have approved a land use map designation or land use entitlement for a property then additional voter approval is not required for subsequent entitlement requests that are consistent with the overall approved development project or land use designation and zoning or any requested modification to a land use or zoning designation that does not decrease the number of permitted dwellings as specified in the exhibits and plans approved by the voters.

County Counsel Says:

This Initiative is exempt from the voter approval requirements:

1. Not more than ten acres per year for residential housing to meet the County's Fair Housing requirement imposed by State law.

2. Additional acreage to meet the County Legal Fair Share Obligations based on maximum multi-family densities to accommodate moderate, low and very low income housing.

3. Any development project that has obtained a vested right pursuant to State law prior to April 17, 2006.

4. Any development project consisting entirely of farm worker housing

Planning Department Says:

• There are no applications pending that immediately would fall under the Measure E requirements.

• Salida's expansion has been approved. Diablo Grande has the necessary zoning to grow.

• Other unincorporated communities -- Keyes, Denair and Del Rio, for example -- have some vacant residential land.

• If the West Park proposal for the Crows Landing air facility does not include housing, as Sacramento developer Gerry Kamilos insists, then it wouldn't fall under Measure E.

Criticisms of Measure E:

Measure E – A ‘Yes’ Vote means

• A YES vote means you want to change something, or that you favor what is being proposed.

• A YES VOTE will restrict until December 31, 2036, the redesignation or rezoning by the County of agricultural or open space to residential use in the unincorporated areas of the County without approval of a majority of the voters of the county unless certain exemptions set forth in the Initiative apply.

Measure E – A ‘No’ Vote means

• A NO vote means you want to keep things the way they are, or at least don't favor this particular change.

• A NO VOTE will retain the County's current General Plan policies and permit the Board of Supervisors to amend the General Plan in response to the changing needs of Stanislaus County residents pursuant to State planning and zoning laws.

Supporters of Measure E Say:

• Does not change property rights• County Supervisors will direct housing

growth into cities• Stops piece-meal haphazard housing

projects outside our cities that cost taxpayers $ millions annually for services

• E affects zoning changes from agricultural to residential and no effect on commercial or industrial zoning

• For years, Stanislaus County has been “of the develops, by the developers, for the developers”

Opponents of Measure E Say:

No arguments against Measure E were submitted but the Modesto Bee contends:

• It is a form of ballot-box planning. It means that developers will be "selling" their projects to voters as well as to county officials.

• Voters in the large cities will be determining growth in smaller areas, such as Denair or Grayson. However, taxpayers countywide are already subsidizing services, such as sheriff's patrols, provided to unincorporated communities.

• With or without E, developers would try to circumvent even the Measure E process and circulate petitions and seek voter approval without getting the appropriate environmental review.

• Measure E will not stamp out sprawl.

Endorsements of Measure E:

For: • Jeani Ferrari, farming family• John R. Hamm, MD,

cardiologist• Denny Jackman, former

Modesto City Council member

• Vance Kennedy, PhD, hydrologist & farmer

• Vicki Morales, teacher• Sierra Club• League of Women Voters of

Stanislaus County

Against:• Modesto Chamber of

Commerce

Measure LResponsible Planning and Growth Control Initiative County of Stanislaus – Majority Vote Required

Measure L: Responsible Planning and Growth Control

• Should Stanislaus County have a more comprehensive and fundamental method to allow citizen involvement in the planning process through the establishment of a broad-based commission of Stanislaus County Residents to recommend a new General Plan, guided by the principles contained in this initiative and that the recommended General Plan would be submitted to the voters for their approval?

County Counsel Says:

• This initiative is intended to place a limitation on General Plan amendments which redesignate land from agricultural use to a residential use for two years until a new General Plan is placed before and adopted by voters.

• This initiative would establish a 15-member General Plan Review Commission made up from a broad-based coalition of citizens appointed by the Board of Supervisors that would be tasked with creating the new General Plan.

County Counsel Says:

• The General Plan Review Commission is directed to consider integrating policies into the new General Plan that would consider mitigation measures to permanently protect farmland; consider establishing a residential growth cap; consider whether or not growth should be directed to areas of poorer quality or less productive farmland, such as areas with poorer soils in the foothill regions of the County; encourage cities to adopt community boundaries; and require new development to provide adequate infrastructure and pay for services to support growth. Development of a new General Plan must ensure that proper planning occurs to address Stanislaus County's projected growth.

County Counsel Says:

• The initiative provides that the General Plan Review Commission shall draft a new General Plan that would be submitted to the voters within two years after the measure is passed. The new General plan shall become effective if approved by the voters. If voters reject the plan, the Board of Supervisors would be required to submit a revised plan to the voters for consideration. If the voters reject the Revised Plan, the Board of Supervisors would be authorized to proceed with the adoption of a further revised General Plan consistent with the principles of the initiative.

County Counsel Says:

• The initiative also provides that for a period of two years the General Plan may not be amended to redesignate land from agricultural or open space to a residential use without voter approval.

Measure L – A ‘Yes’ Vote means

• A YES vote means you want to change something, or that you favor what is being proposed.

• A YES VOTE will set a two year limitation on the conversion of agricultural lands to residential land use designations in the unincorporated portion of the County until a new, comprehensive General Plan is adopted by the voters which would be prepared by a General Plan Review Commission following guiding principles to establish policies that promote farmland preservation, discourage urban sprawl, and require each development project to pay its own way.

Supporters of Measure L Say:

• County officials placed it on the ballot, but are prevented by state law from actively campaigning.

• Growth requires proper planning, not slick campaign ads

• Responsible growth requires planning for needs related to transportation schools, public safety, sewer and water

• Responsible planning requires more than a simple yes or no vote on individual development projects

Measure L– A ‘No’ Vote means

• A NO vote means you want to keep things the way they are, or at least don't favor this particular change.

• A NO VOTE will retain the County's current General Plan policies and permit the Board of Supervisors to amend the General Plan in response to the changing needs of Stanislaus County residents pursuant to State planning and zoning laws.

Opponents of Measure L Say:

• County residential areas lack planning infrastructure like sewer, sidewalks and lighting

• Supervisors have committed 6,000 acres of prime farmland to concrete and congestion (Salida and Crows Landing)

• The measure calls for a broad cross-section of the community to serve on the 15-member general plan rewrite commission. But supervisors would appoint all of the members.

• Guidelines are squishy on what the rewrite commission should do. It repeatedly states that members would "consider" various growth-control suggestions.

Endorsements of Measure L:

For:• Kevin Chiesa, Stanislaus County

Farm Bureau

Against:• Robert Weatherbee, Turlock

area farmer & former County Planning Commission member

• Timothy Parker, former Newman City Council member

• Phil Rockey, former Oakdale City Council member

• Tim Fisher, former Modesto City Council member

• Garrad Marsh, Modesto City Council member

• Modesto Bee• League of Women Voters of

Stanislaus County• Modesto Chamber of Commerce• Sierra Club

5 Minutes of Questions

• Measure E• Measure L

Measure MThe Increase Accountability in City Hall Measure of 2008 City of Modesto – Majority Approval Required

Measure M: The Increase Accountability in City Hall Measure of 2008 - Modesto

• Should the City Charter be amended to increase accountability of City Staff to City elected officials, electors and tax payers and accountability of City elected officials to City electors and tax payers?

County Counsel says:

The Charter would be amended to:• Create a Citizen's Salary Setting Commission

of five unpaid City voters with restrictions on membership to prevent conflicts of interest.

• Add duties/responsibilities of Mayor to encourage accountability of City Hall

• Establish, as fourth charter officer, an independent City auditor with specified duties, including conducting annual post, performance, and special audits and investigations assigned by the Council; submitting to Council quarterly reports

City Counsel says…continued:

The Charter would be amended to:• Require Council to adopt, with

appropriate staff input, Statement of Policy that sets goals, objectives and aspirations to be accomplished for charter officers and City department heads and shall be used in Council's annual evaluations of charter officers and City Manager's annual evaluations of department heads.

The Charter would be amended to:• Require City Manager to submit to Council

annual proposed budgets…• Designate as unclassified employees:

assistant and deputy city attorneys, deputy directors, temporary/part time hourly paid employees, and appointed office staff of Mayor and Council Members.

• Prohibit combining offices of city charter officers except in case of emergencies but, in any event, for no more than three months.

Measure M – A ‘Yes’ Vote means

• A YES vote means you want to change something, or that you favor what is being proposed.

Measure M – Supporters Say:

• This measure will provide tough new accountability standards for Modesto's city government, including performance audits of all city departments, and greater budget oversight by the Mayor and City Council. These reforms also establish an independent City Auditor and require the City Council and Mayor to establish budget priorities and policies.

• Additionally, by voting "Yes" on Measure M, voters will create an independent citizens' commission to recommend council salaries, and impose mandatory salary caps on the City Council. Further, it upgrades the Mayor's duties and responsibilities, modernizes disciplinary practices and requires annual performance audits for key city personnel.

Measure M - A ‘No’ Vote Means

• A NO vote means you want to keep things the way they are, or at least don't favor this particular change.

Measure M – Opponents Say:

• No argument submitted.

For Measure M:

• Mark Frink, President, Modesto Police Officers Association

• Cecil D. Ridge, President, Modesto City Fire Fighters Association

• Joy Madison, President, Modesto Chamber of Commerce

• Sandra Lucas, Co-Chair, Modesto Citizens for Accountability; Member, Charter Review Committee

• Bob Dunbar, Councilman, Modesto City Council, 2003-2007

Against Measure M:

• Nothing submitted

Measure NElect City Council by Districts Measure of 2008 "By District" System City of Modesto – Majority Approval Required

Measure N: "By District" SystemCity of Modesto

• Shall The Mayor be elected at the regular municipal election on a general ticket from the City-at-large and Six Council members be elected by district?

Districts:

• The measure creates a Citizen's Districting Commission to determine the initial districts and any reapportionment needed after each 10 year federal census.

• Criteria for districts – geographically compact and contiguous; boundaries follow visible natural and man-made features; respect communities of interest; no advantage or disadvantage to incumbent. Consultants experienced with districting shall be utilized.

• Districts will be numbered.

Method of Election

• Six council members shall be elected by districts; must live in that district; voters who live in that district eligible to vote for council member in that district.

County Attorney says:

• Approval of this measure would create a nine (9) member Citizens Districting Commission, which would be tasked with determining the districts.

• The Commission would be appointed by the City Council no later than sixty (60) days after this measure is effective. There are numerous prohibitions on who can serve on the Commission to prevent potential conflicts of interest, as well as a requirement that the Commission membership refl ect the demographic and geographic diversity of the City.

City Attorney says:

• This Commission would be responsible for making recommendations to the City Council as to the adoption of a districting plan for the six (6) districts to be put in place for the November 2009 and November 2011 elections.

• Several public hearings must be held by the Commission and City Council to ensure public input before the City Council acts on the proposed districting plan.

• The measure also sets forth objective criteria to be used by the Commission in establishing the districts. The City Council must approve or disapprove the districting plan. The Commission must consider the Council's reasons for disapproval, however, the final decision for the districting plan ultimately remains with the Commission.

Measure N – A ‘Yes’ Vote means

• A YES vote means you want to change something, or that you favor what is being proposed.

• A "Yes" vote on this measure would amend the City Charter by switching the current city-wide election system to an election system commonly referred to as the "By District" system.

Measure N – Supporters Say:

• Measure N puts into action the vote of the people.

• Measure N amends the Modesto Charter to a "By District" elections system where candidates must live in the District they wish to represent, and voters living in the District vote on who will represent them

• Most cities the size of Modesto or larger use a "By District" system.

Measure N - A ‘No’ Vote Means

• A NO vote means you want to keep things the way they are, or at least don't favor this particular change.

• Currently, the City of Modesto's system of electing City Councilmembers is an at-large, or city-wide election system, where the Councilmembers are elected by "Chair" and can live anywhere in the City and are voted on by all voters in the City. There are six (6) Councilmembers and a Mayor for a total of seven (7) Council seats.

Measure N – Opponents Say:

• Nothing submitted

For Measure N:

• Brad Hawn, Vice-Mayor of Modesto • Garrad Marsh, Modesto City

Councilman • Odessa P. Johnson, U.C. Regent,

Former Modesto School Board Member • Carolina Bernal, CEO Hispanic Chamber

of Commerce • G. Thomas Wright, Member Modesto

Charter Review Committee

Against Measure N:

• No argument submitted against Measure N

5 Minutes of Questions:

• Measure M• Measure N

Propositions 94-97Amendments to Indian Gaming Compacts

Referenda

Propositions 94-97: Indian Gaming Compacts

• Should California voters ratify an amendment to existing gaming compacts between the state and specified Indian tribes which permits the tribes to collectively operate an additional 17,000 slot machines and omits certain projects from the scope of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) replacing it with a Tribal Environmental Impact Report and intergovernmental review?

Background: Propositions 94-97

• In 1999, the Governor and 58 Indian tribes negotiated compacts authorizing the operation of casinos on tribal land.

• The compacts allow for the operation of 2,000 Nevada-style slot machines, as well as card rooms and other gaming machines.

Background: Propositions 94-97

• While tribes are exempt under federal law from paying most state and local taxes, under the 1999 compacts, these tribes make payment into two state government funds.

• The Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF) is used to provide assistance to the 71 federally recognized Indian tribes that have no casino.

• The Special Distribution Fund (SDF) funds programs that assist people with gambling problems, reimburses expenses to state agencies that regulate casinos, and provides grants to local governments affected by tribal casinos.

Background: Propositions 94-97

• In 2006, four of the 58 tribes entered into negotiation with the Governor Schwarzenegger for new compacts:• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians,

Riverside County (Proposition 94)• Morongo Band of Mission Indians,

Riverside County (Proposition 95)• Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Nation, San

Diego County (Proposition 96) • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,

Riverside County (Proposition 97)

Background: Propositions 94-97

• As of July 2007, new compacts had been signed by the Governor.

• However, the tribes opted for an alternative solution – referenda by the voters.

• If these propositions do not pass, the agreement signed by the Governor will become law.

What a Yes Vote Means: Propositions 94-97

• Each of the tribes will be allowed to operate additional slots machines:• Proposition 94: Pechanga Band of Luiseño

Mission Indians, Riverside County – 5,500• Proposition 95: Morongo Band of Mission

Indians, Riverside County – 5,500• Proposition 96: Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay

Nation, San Diego County – 3,000• Proposition 97: Agua Caliente Band of

Cahuilla Indians, Riverside County – 3,000

What a Yes Vote Means: Propositions 94-97

• All four tribes will be able to omit certain projects from the scope of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), providing for a Tribal Environmental Impact Report and intergovernmental procedure to address environmental impacts.

What a Yes Vote Means: Propositions 94-97

• Each tribe will now pay revenue to the state’s General Fund, with set annual payments, and paying a percentage of revenue generated from the additional slot machines to the state.• Proposition 94: Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians,

Riverside County – $42.5 Million ($13.5 M increase over current payments)• Proposition 95: Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Riverside

County – $36.7 Million ($7.7 M increase over current payments)• Proposition 96: Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Nation, San

Diego County – $20 Million ($15 M increase over current payments)• Proposition 97: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,

Riverside County – $23.4 Million ($10.4 M increase over current payments)

Supporters Say

• The new agreements will create thousands of new jobs for Indians and non-Indians.

• Though all the affected casinos are in Southern California, the whole state will benefit from the revenues in the General Fund, and so will non-gaming tribes.

• Money raised by the amended compacts will ease our state’s budget crisis and provide billions of dollars for public safety, education and other services.

• More info: Coalition to Protect California’s Budget and Economy

www.YESforCalifornia.com

Support

Governor Arnold SchwarzeneggerJack O’Connell, State Superintendent of

Public InstructionChief Gene Gantt, California Fire Chief’s

AssociationLinda Adams, Secretary – California

Environmental Protection AgencyAlan Wayne Barcelona, President –

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Opponents Say:

• Three million Californians signed petitions to let voters overturn the amended gaming compacts.

• Only four of California’s 108 tribes would benefit, and these four tribes could easily manipulate the revenue sharing agreements.

• They promise more educational revenues, but there is no guarantee that revenues will benefit education.

• More info: Californians Against Unfair Deals www.NoUnfairDeals.com

Opposition

Marty Hittleman, President – California Federation of Teachers

John A. Gomez, Jr., President – American Indian Rights and Resource Organization

Lenny Goldberg, President – California Tax Reform Association

Dolores Huerta, Co-founder – United Farm Workers

Maury Hannigan, Former Commissioner and CEO – California Highway Patrol

John F. Hanley, Fire Capitan – Fire Fighter Local 798

Endorsements

For• Calif. Republican

Party• Calif. Chamber of

Commerce

• Against• California Federation

of Teachers• California Labor

Federation• Friends Committee

on Legislation• San Francisco

Chronicle• Modesto Bee

5 Minutes of Questions

• Propositions 94 - 97

Proposition 91Transportation Funds InitiativeConstitutional Amendment

Proposition 91: Transportation

• Should the California Constitution be amended to prohibit motor vehicle fuel sales taxes that are earmarked for transportation purposes from being retained in the state’s General Fund?

Background: Proposition 91

• California funds its transportation systems primarily with a mix of state and local funds.

State Transportation Funds• The state imposes various taxes and fees on

motor vehicle fuels and the operation of motor vehicles to support transportation programs.

• In 2007-2008, revenues from these sources are projected to total about $9 billion.

State Transportation Fund

The state imposes:• an excise tax of 18

cents per gallon on gasoline and diesel fuel used in motor vehicles that are driven on public streets and highways.

Sales Tax on Gasoline & Diesel:

The state imposes:• 6.25 percent sales

tax on gasoline and diesel fuel.• Public Transportation

Account (PTA)• Transportation

Investment Fund (TIF)

Local Transportation Funds

Each county has a “local transportation fund” (LTF) with revenues generated from state-wide . 25% sales tax

These funds can ONLY be used for specified transportation – primarily public transit

19 counties also impose a local optional sales tax

Proposition 91 – Additional Background

Didn’t we see this in the last election?

Yes - Proposition 1A in the November 2006 did essentially the same thing.

When 1A passed, the supporters of Proposition 91 no longer pursued their campaign – but once it qualified for the ballot, it could not be withdrawn!

Fiscal Effect – Proposition 91 – LAO:

• The measure would make state funding from transportation sources more stable and predictable from year to year.

• If interpreted to allow PTA funds to be loaned to the general fund, it may make funds for public transit less stable.

• If it allows loaning of LTFs to state General Fund for short-term cash flow, local transportation funding could become less stable.

• If outstanding TIF loan is stretched out to a year, there could be interest costs to the General Fund.

Prop 1A – What did it do?

• State law, as revised by Prop. 1A, still allows the state to borrow some gas tax revenue in the event of fiscal emergency but with stricter limits. It restricts those loans to just two of every 10 consecutive years, and requires repayment with interest within three years. No borrowing can take place until outstanding loans have been repaid.

Prop 91 – A ‘Yes’ Vote means

• A YES vote means you want to change something, or that you favor what is being proposed.

• A YES vote means that the California Constitution will be amended to restrict the state’s General Fund’s ability to borrow fuel sales tax revenues from transportation funds, and eliminate its ability to borrow specified transportation funds over multiple years.

Proposition 91 – Supporters say:

Original proponents now OPPOSE this measure and urge a no vote!

• Proposition 91 will completely close the Proposition 42 loophole that has been exploited by the Legislature and the Governor.

• Closing the loophole will send a firm message that these funds are off limits for anything other than the purposes the voters intended.

Current Supporters Say:

• Prop. 91 would eliminate the Legislature's ability to spend gas tax money on nontransportation expenses, and would allow it to borrow gas tax money only within a budget year. Loans would have to be repaid within 30 days of the adoption of the next fiscal year's budget.

Prop 91 – A ‘No’ Vote means

• A NO vote means you want to keep things the way they are, or at least don't favor this particular change.

• A NO vote means that the state’s General Fund would still be able to borrow fuel sales tax revenue from transportation funds, and continue to be able to borrow specified transportation funds for up to three years.

Proposition 91 – Opponents say:

• Proposition 91 is no longer needed, since Proposition 1A already stopped the politicians from taking our gas tax dollars to use for non-transportation purposes.

• Proposition 91 represents poor fiscal policy by earmarking revenues for specific programs and taking needed flexibility away from state and local government.

Note of Proposition 91

• The original proponents of this measure are now opposing it. As the original proponents, however, they are identified as the official ballot argument signatories in favor of the measure, despite their current opposition:• Mark Watts, Executive Director,

Transportation of California• Jim Earp, Executive Director, California

Alliance for Jobs.

Follow the Money on Prop 91

No contributions have been raised for or against Proposition 91.

Prop 91– Supporters and Opponents:

Supporters:http://www.yeson91.nethttp://www.socata.net/

Opposition: Original proponents

More info: http://lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspxhttp://cal-access.ss.ca.govhttp://www.smartvoter.org

Proposition 92Community CollegesInitiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

Proposition 92: Community Colleges

• Should the California Constitution be amended to formally recognize a community college system with separate funding formulas for public schools (K-12) and community college districts?

Community College Background

• 109 colleges in 72 districts – about 2.5 million students per year

• 70% of Californians in college are in community college

• A full-time community college students costs ½ of state expenditures for CSU students and 1/3 as much for UC students

• Approximately 2/3 of CSU and 1/3 of UC graduates began in Community College

Population Forecast

• The main mission of the community colleges is to educate the young adult population.

• The young adult population is forecast to grow significantly in the near future.

• Studies show that CC students double their average income within three years of enrolling.

• Students pay taxes.

Enrollment Funding Has Outpaced Population Growth

In four of the past five years, CCC received more funding for enrollment growth than it used to enroll additional students. In the past two years, CCC enrollment has actually declined.

Relatively low persistence and completion rates of CCC students.

• According to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, for example, while the college participation rate of working-age adults in California is among the highest in the country (due primarily to the state’s large community college system), persistence rates are below the national average.

• Researchers report that less than one-half of first-year, full-time CCC students return their second year, which is about 10 percent below the national average. Another study (by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems) finds that the CCC system ranked 45th among states in the ratio of FTE students to the number of degrees awarded in 2004-05.

Enrollment Growth Funding Has Outpaced Enrollment Growth

Funding for student enrollment at the California Community Colleges (CCC) has grown faster than the college-age population in recent years.

Funding Background

• About 2/3 of funding comes from state general fund & local property taxes

• Remaining 1/3 comes from student fees and federal funds

• Existing Prop 98 (1988) guarantees state will provide minimum funding for K-14 education

Proposition 92: Provision # 1 of 3

• Education Funding Level• Changes current minimum education

funding requirement into two separate requirements: one for K-12 schools and one for community colleges. Would take effect for 2007-2008 and be based on 2006-2007 spending.

• Currently: state guarantees financial support for K-14 education.

Proposition 92: Provision # 1 cont.

• New K-12 would use same year to year growth factors as under current law, which is based on attendance.

• CCC funding – new growth factor based on young adult population• Growth factor would increase if state

unemployment rate exceeds 5%, which it has in 13 of the past 15 years)

• Growth factor limited to no more than 5% in any year.

92: Fiscal Effect of Provision #1

• From 2007‑08 through 2009‑10, LAO estimates 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.

• K-12 attendance is expected to experience declines for the next few years. By contrast, the young adult population is forecast to grow between 2 percent to 3 percent for the next several years.

Legislative Analyst forecasts:

Additional state funding for K-14 over the next 3 years at an avg of $300 million/year• Years 1 & 2: Half the increase would go to K-12

and half to CC• Year 3: CC’s would get most new funding• After year 3: LAO does not expect that the new

funding formulas established by Proposition 92 would be in effect

• When formulas are back in effect, the fiscal effect would depend on the performance of the economy as well as the relative growth rates between K-12 attendance and the CCC student population growth factor.

Proposition 92: Provision # 2

• Student Fees• Lowers community college education fees from

$20 per unit to $15 per unit.• Significantly limits the state’s authority to

increase fee levels in future years.

• Currently:• Consistently lowest on U.S.• Fluctuates $11-$26/unit (2003-04 fee increase

coincided with drop of 305,000 students)• No data on effect when fees decreased from $26

to $20 – economy could effect• 25% pay no fees if < $65,000 family income

ACCCA – College Administrators

• Our colleges have managed a declining headcount scenario these last several years while increasing full-time equivalent students (FTES).

• We anticipate that the reduced student fees taking effect in spring 2007 will have the opposite effect of the two recent fee hikes, the first in fall 2003 and the second in fall 2004, and encourage greater enrollments. And then there are the signs of a weakening housing market and economy, which typically translate into higher enrollments.

92: Fiscal Effect of Provision #2

• Likely fees would remain at or near $15 per unit for many years

• Legislature can only increase the fee if per capita personal incomes exceeded 6.7% (occurred once in past 20 years)

• If fee remained at 20/unit = $70 million more in student fee revenue

Proposition 92: Provision # 3

• Governance• Formally establishes the community

colleges in the state Constitution• Increase the size of community colleges’

state governing board an the board’s administrative authority

Governance and Constitution

• Community Colleges were established as an adjunct to the K-12 system

• All changes have been made by statute• Therefore, California Constitution does

NOT establish or define community college

Background of 72 Local Districts

• Each district has a locally elected governing board• Hire chief executive officer• Hires and determines compensation for

campus staff• Determines course offerings• Manages district property

• These are all unchanged EXCEPT they would be in the constitution!

Changes for BOG

• Gives more control over hiring staff, making budget expenditure decisions within the State Chancellor’s Office but does not determine how large the budget will be

• Allows BOG to appoint chancellor’s executive staff free from civil service list restrictions• Currently, Governor appoints executive

staff from civil service rolls.

Composition of BOG

• Increases size of BOG from 17 to 19.• Currently 16 are voting; 1 non-voting• All would be voting by this proposition• Three members would include: cc student,

current or former cc faculty, nominee of state organization representing cc chief executive officers

• 12 chosen by governor from members of public (unchanged)

• 7 chosen by the governor from lists provided by specified CC groups that must include at least three nominees

If 92 passes, changes would require:

• Four-fifths vote of the Legislature and signed by the Governor or another vote of the people.

• Any amendments would be required to “further the act and be consistent with the acts purpose.

• Legislature would be prohibited from enacting changes that were counter to the measure’s intention

92: Fiscal Effect of Provision #3

• This measure would not change the state’s authority to appropriate funding for the BOG’s administrative budget. As a result, it would not have any direct impact on state costs. The proposition, however, would give BOG more control over whatever funds are provided to it.

Prop 92 – A ‘Yes’ Vote means

• A YES vote means you want to change something, or that you favor what is being proposed.

• A YES vote means that the State Constitution will be amended to formally recognize a community college system with separate funding formulas for K-12 schools and the community colleges, and that community college fees will be reduced to $15 per unit for the foreseeable future.

Supporters of 92 say:

• Prop 92 does not raise taxes. It lowers community college fees to $15 per unit, limits future fee increases, and stabilizes funding.

• A full-time community college student costs less than half what the sate spends on a California State University student, and one-third of what the state spends on a University of California student.

• Proposition 92 guarantees the community college system independence from state politics.

Prop 92 – A ‘No’ Vote means

• A NO vote means you want to keep things the way they are, or at least don't favor this particular change.

• A NO vote means that the existing laws and formulas regarding community college funding, fees, and governance would remain unchanged.

Proposition 92 – Opponents say:

• Ballot Box Budgeting: Proposition 92 locks huge new spending into California’s Constitution with no way to pay for it, other than taking from K-12 schools and other programs.

• It contains no accountability and no guarantee that the funds will reach students in community college classrooms.

• It doesn’t make sense to spend $70 million to roll back fees that are already the lowest in the nation.

Prop 92– Supporters and Opponents:

Arguably two of the most powerful teacher groups in the state, The California Federation of Teachers union and the California Teacher's Association are in a rare disagreement over the initiative.

The CFT (30% college teachers) supports the proposal, saying that altering Prop. 98 spending formula is the best way to mandate additional community college spending.

The CTA (2% college teachers) believes the proposition will jeopardize K-12 funding which is already inadequate given the state's current and future budget deficit.

Follow the Money on Prop 92

Yes: $2,816,405.00California Federation of

Teachers - $668,826American Federation of

Teachers, AFL-IO – $322,052

Los Angeles College Guild State PAC – $130,000

Faculty Association of California Community Colleges PAC - $100,000

PACE of California School Employees Association - $82,000

No: $806,101California Teacher’s

Association Issues PAC - $791,101

California Business Roundtable Issues PAC - $10,000

Johnson Machinery, Co - $5,000

Prop 92– Supporters and Opponents:

Support:• William Hewitt, Pres., Faculty

Assoc. of Calif. Community Colleges

• Rebecca J. Garcia, Pres., Calif. Community Colleges Trustees

• Dennis Smith, Secretary Treasurer, Calif. Federation of Teachers

• Stefan Lee, student, Sacramento City College

• Valerie Novak, student, San Joaquin Delta College

• Samuel Aguilar III, student, College of the Desert

Oppose:• David A Sanchez, Pres.,

Calif. Teachers Association• Bill Hauck, Pres., Calif.

Business Roundtable• Teresa Casazza, Acting

Pres., Calif. Taxpayers’ Assoc.

• Allan Zaremberg, Pres., California Chamber of Commerce

• Joel Fox, Pres., Small Business Action Committee

Prop 92 Supporters:

Support:Senators • Alan Lowenthal (D–Long Beach), • Carol Migden (D–San Francisco), • Gloria Negrete McLeod (D–San

Bernardino), • Alex Padilla (D-Los Angeles), • Mark Ridley-Thomas (D–Los

Angeles) and • Jack Scott (D–Pasadena) and Assemblymembers Mike Davis (D–

Los Angeles), • Mike Eng (D- Monterey Park), • Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), • Lloyd Levine (D-Sherman Oaks)• Curren Price (D-Inglewood)

Support:• California Labor Association• Sacramento Metro Chamber• United Farm Workers• Valley Industry & Commerce

Assoc.• United Teachers Los Angeles• National Latina Business

Women Association• Los Angeles College Faculty

Guild• California School Employees

Association

Prop 92 Oppose:

• California Republican Party• California State Conference

of the NAACP• City Watch• Ventura Co. Economic

Development Assoc.• Orange Co. Taxpayers

Alliance• Chambers of Commerce:

• Cerritos Regional• Gateway Chambers Alliance• Salinas • Oxnard• Pico Rivera

• California Professional Firefighters

• University of California• California State University• California Taxpayers Assoc.• League of Women

Voters of California• San Francisco Chronicle• Modesto Bee• Friends Committee on

Legislation• San Diego Union Tribune• San Francisco Planning &

Urban Research Assoc

Proposition 93Limits of Legislators’ Terms in Office: State of CaliforniaInitiative Constitutional Amendment – Majority Approval Required

Proposition 93: Limits of Legislators’ Terms in Office

• Should the California Constitution be amended to reduce the total time an elected official may serve in the state Legislature from the current limit of 14 years (with a maximum of 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the Senate) to a proposed limit of 12 years without regard to the house in which the time is served?

Prop 93: Background

• The state’s voters passed Proposition 140 at the November 1990 election. As well as other changes, Proposition 140 changed the State Constitution to create term limits for the Legislature–Members of the Assembly and Senate. Term limits restrict the number of years that individuals can serve in the Legislature.

• Currently, an individual generally cannot serve a total of more than 14 years in the Legislature. (An exception is when an individual serves additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.) An individual’s service is restricted to six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms).

Prop 93: Proposal

• Time Limits Without Regard to Legislative House. Under this measure, an individual could serve a total of 12 years in the Legislature (compared to 14 years currently). Unlike the current system, these years could be served without regard to whether they were in the Assembly or Senate.

• In other words, an individual could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses. (As under current law, an individual could serve additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.)

Prop 93: Proposal – 2 of 2

• Current Members of the Legislature. Under this measure, existing Members of the Legislature could serve up to a total of 12 years in their current legislative house (regardless of how many years were already served in the other house). This could result in some current Members serving longer than 14 years in the Legislature.

Prop 93: Fiscal Effect

• By altering term limits for Members of the Legislature, the measure would likely change which individuals are serving in the Legislature at any time. This would not have any direct fiscal effect on total state spending or revenues.

• The effect of their decisions on state spending & revenues are unknown and impossible to estimate.

Prop 93 – A ‘Yes’ Vote means

• A YES vote means you want to change something, or that you favor what is being proposed.

• A YES vote means members of the state Legislature could serve a maximum of 12 years in office, without regard to whether the years are served in the Assembly or Senate.

Supporters Say:

• Proposition 93 strikes a balance between the need to elect new people with fresh ideas, and the need for knowledgeable, experienced legislators to solve complex problems facing our state.

• The simple but important adjustments of Proposition 93 will let legislators spend more time working for taxpayers, and less time worrying about which office to run for next.

• Independent studies prove it will help make our Legislature more effective, accountable and better able to deal with the complex problems facing California

Prop 93 – A ‘No’ Vote means

• A NO vote means you want to keep things the way they are, or at least don't favor this particular change.

• A NO vote means members of the state Legislature could continue to serve a maximum of 14 years in office–up to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate.

Opponents Say:

• Proposition 93 is a scam written by politicians and funded by special interests that will benefit 42 termed-out incumbent politicians by giving them more time in office.

• This measure actually lengthens politicians’ time in office by doubling Assembly terms from six to 12 years, and increasing Senate terms from eight to 12 years.

• California’s leading taxpayer groups oppose Proposition 93 and say it’s just another attempt by politicians to deceive the public and evade term limits.

93: Support & Opposition

Support:• Betty Jo Toccoli, President, Calif.

Small Business Association• Richard Riordan, former Calif.

Education Secretary• Susan Smartt, Executive

Director, Calif. League of Conservation Voters

• Democratic Party of California• San Francisco Planning &

Research• Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger• Planning and Conservation

League• California Labor Federation

Oppose: • California Chamber of

Commerce• Liane M. Rudolph, former

Chairman, Calif. Fair Political Practices Commission

• Rick Mattos, President, Calif. Assoc of Highway Patrolmen

• Elizabeth M. Perry, Public Policy Director, Older Women’s League of California

• Martha Montelongo, Vice-Pres., Calif. Term Limits Defense Fund

• Jon Coupal, Pres., Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc.

• Steve Poizner, California Insurance Commission

• Republican Party

Follow the Money on Prop 93

Yes: $6,675,969• California Teachers

Association Issues PAC: $1,000,100.

• California State Council of Service Employees Issues Committee: $700,000.

• AFSCME: $610,000.• California State Council

of Laborers issues PAC: $300,000.

• California Dental Association: $250,000.

• Los Angeles Casinos PAC: $250,000

No: $1,714,284• U.S. Term Limits, Inc:

$1,500,000• Term Limits America PAC:

$150,000.• Charles Munger

Physicist, Palo Alto, CA: $50,000

• Committee to Elect Bill Postmus: $5,000.

• Bill Berryhill for Assembly: $500.

5 Minutes of Questions

• Proposition 91-93

Thank you for joining us!

League of Women Voters of Stanislaus County

Resources – handout available

• SmartVoter – League of Women Votershttp://smartvoter.org

• Legislative Analyst: http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot_source/Propositions.aspx

• Secretary of State: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/

• Understanding initiatives process http://sos.ca.gov/elections/initiative_guide.htm

• UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Libraryhttp://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/

introfeb2008.html