February 5, 2008 Election
Pros 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
Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office –
Initiative Constitutional Amendment Patty
93
94- Amendments to Indian Gaming
97 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 twothirds 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 E
Thirty 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 L
Responsible 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 M
The 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 N
Elect City Council by Districts Measure of
2008 "By District" System
City of Modesto – Majority Approval Required
Measure N: "By District" System
City of Modesto
• Shall The Mayor be elected at the
regular municipal election on a
general ticket from the City-atlarge 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 94-97
Amendments 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 9497
• 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 9497
• 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 9497
• 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 Schwarzenegger
Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of
Public Instruction
Chief Gene Gantt, California Fire Chief’s
Association
Linda Adams, Secretary – California
Environmental Protection Agency
Alan 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 91
Transportation Funds
Initiative
Constitutional 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.net
http://www.socata.net/
Opposition:
Original proponents
More info:
http://lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspx
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov
http://www.smartvoter.org
Proposition 92
Community Colleges
Initiative 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 firstyear, 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 onethird 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: $2,816,405.00
No: $806,101
California Federation of
Teachers - $668,826
American 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
California 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 93
Limits of Legislators’ Terms in Office: State of California
Initiative 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 twoyear 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 onehalf 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 Voters
http://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 Library
http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/hot_topics/2008/intr
ofeb2008.html