Special election looms large for local schools

May 19 ballot measures called critical to keeping districts afloat

A special election is coming next month, and local school administrators are watching it closely.

After months of wrangling over the state's budget deficit through 2010, estimated at nearly $42 billion, California politicians finally passed a long-overdue budget in February. But even that budget wasn't the final word on the matter: Legislators decided to let California voters make the decision on major aspects of the budget, including cuts to social and educational services, transferring money from special funds and deciding whether to borrow against lottery profits.

Voters get the final say on May 19, when they vote on six measures intended to balance the state budget through the next year and a half.

Only two of these propositions are directly related to education, but all of them could have a major effect on school budgets. Fifty percent of the state budget goes to pubic schools and community colleges; if these measures fail, education would inevitably suffer bigger cuts to compensate for the shortfall, local educators say.

"It is important for public education that these pass," said Mountain View-Los Altos High School District Superintendent Barry Groves.

Both MVLA and the Mountain View Whisman Elementary School District already took hits in February, and administrators are still working to figure out what exactly the cuts means for local schools and how much districts will get from the federal stimulus package.

The high school district faces $2 million in cuts through 2010, most of which is coming out of the Adult School (see story on ESL cuts, page 5). The elementary school district will lose $2.6 million during the next year and a half.

"If money does not come into the state there will be less money for schools," Groves said. "Because it is so late, we would have to look at [dipping into our reserves."

League opposes measures

Each of the six propositions, labeled 1A through 1F, address the budget shortfall in their own ways. All require a simple majority to pass.

Under Proposition 1B, California must repay public elementary, middle and high school districts and community colleges $9.3 billion it owes the schools for not meeting state funding requirements over the last two years. The state would make these payments using a reserve established under Proposition 1A. (If 1A fails, then 1B automatically fails.)

The four remaining propositions ask voters to approve transferring of money, borrowing against the lottery and preventing some elected officials from receiving a raise when the state faces a deficit.

Many educational groups, such as the California Teacher's Association (CTA), publicly support all the measures, saying they're needed to keep social and educational programs running.

"Next year if these two propositions do not pass, we will be looking at a totally different situation," said Gloria Valdez, president of the local chapter of the CTA. "We will be, like the majority of schools in the state, in real difficult times."

But some surprising groups have come out against the propositions. The League of Women Voters, which traditionally supports education and health measures, says these propositions are not a solution, and the League officially opposes most of them (the group is neutral on 1B and 1F).

Sue Graham, president of the Los Altos-Mountain View chapter, said the League does not see these measures as solving the state's budget problems.

"In general the League feels these are stopgap measures," Graham said. "It's just moving money around."

The League recognizes the need for more educational and health funding, she said, but "This isn't the way to do it."

The election, she added, "is putting it out to voters who have limited knowledge."


Following is an overview of the six measures on the ballot in the May 19 special election. Information is provided by the California League of Women Voters.

Prop 1A: State Budget

If passed, Proposition 1A would extend the length of recent tax increases in an effort to put more money in the state reserve. It would also place stronger restrictions on how this money can be spent.

Proponents say the proposition would help the state prepare for future downturns, while opponents say the proposition is too complex and removes legislative flexibility.

Prop 1B: Public Education Funding. Payment Plan

Under Proposition 1B the state would have to repay public schools and community colleges for not meeting funding obligations during the last two years.

The reserve, set up under Prop 1A, would help fund the $9.3 billion the state owes schools. If Prop 1A doesn't pass, 1B will not pass either.

Proponents say the proposition would allow the schools to receive required funding they may not otherwise see. Opponents say passing 1B means supporting extended tax increases under 1A, which they believe is not the way to address the state deficit or problems in the schools.

Prop 1C: Lottery Modernization Act

All profits from the state lottery currently go toward public education, totaling about 1 percent of schools' funding. Proposition 1C would change this, and under this measure the state could instead borrow $5 billion from future lottery profits to pay back debt. Schools would receive their funding from the state general fund instead of from lottery profits.

Proponents say this will provide funding for schools, while helping to balance the budget and potentially avoiding higher taxes. Opponents say this is only a one-time fix, and the state should not rely on gambling to fix its money woes.

Prop 1D: Protects Children's Services Funding

Proposition 1D would change the way the state funds some social and health programs for children under the age of 5. The group First 5 currently receives taxes from tobacco sales to help address health and educational needs for underrepresented children.

Prop 1D would transfer $340 million in 2009-10 from the First 5 fund and then $286 million each year for the next five years from tobacco taxes to the state general fund to help pay for similar programs for low-income children. First 5 would not be reimbursed.

Proponents say this will help prevent drastic cuts from health services for at-risk children, but opponents argue that children would be affected by cuts to the First 5 programs.

Prop 1E: Mental Health Services Funding

If passed, Proposition 1E would transfer money from a specific fund for mental health services to the state's general fund.

Prop 1E would transfer about $230 million each year for two years to pay for state mental health programs, specifically for Medi-Cal patients under age 21. The money would not be reimbursed.

Proponents say the proposition would allow the state to continue providing essential mental health services. Opponents argue that current programs are working to reduce incarceration and homelessness and should not be altered. These transfers, they say, would hurt a vulnerable population.

Prop 1F: Elected Officials' Salaries

Under Proposition 1F, state officials would not receive pay raises when the state faces a deficit of 1 percent or more. The League of Women Voters estimates that not giving raises of 3 percent to all elected officials would save $420,000.

Proponents argue that many state residents are not getting raises, and state officials shouldn't either, while opponents say withholding these raises will not give legislators an incentive to balance the budget.


Posted by Inspired, a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Prop 1D does NOT ask you to pay ANY new taxes.

It helps by taking some from taxes that are already being levied.

It temporarily takes much needed funds from an agency that has over $2 BILLION to use up before there are any potential changes required in their budgets.

Please do not throw this GREAT idea and read Prop 1D before you vote!

First 5's are sitting on over $2 BILLION dollars, funds they can use over the next 5 years while they help the rest of California. It's a total misstatement for them to say that those monies are already committed to certain programs because with one vote their commissions can re-direct those reserves to whatever they choose to. So, who's to be trusted?

Well, IMO, it's not First 5. They are run by Commissioners who vote for budgets that direct cash to their OWN departments and organizations. There are now wild exaggerations about how 1D could affect people: just not so – reserves will be used. Perhaps such claims are why Prop 1D puts an auditor on the Commission to oversee their actions.

If that does not bother you then this should: the First 5 lobbyist has received $1 million of First 5 funds - about $200K of that went straight to her pension plan - IRS forms say so! Prop 1D stops her from taking any new First 5 funds!

Vote YES on 1D !

Posted by Inspired, a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm

Here's something else to chew on about First 5 (Prop 1D):

Although some expenditure for evaluating programs is required by the First 5 statute, over the last 7 or so years, audited financial statements reveal that First 5 commissions have spent well over $100 MILLION on evaluation. How can it cost that much?

Well, First 5 evaluation payments go mainly to private consulting firms like Harder and Company, not to children 0 to 5!

Based on audited financial statements and adding a standard 3% for inflation, an analysis shows that in 10 years, they are on course to spend over $300 MILLION on evaluation.

In 15 years, it will top $500 MILLION. In 25 years: $1 BILLION dollars+.

First 5 Commissioners are misspending funds: Proposition 10 was not meant to make the evaluators RICH!

Posted by debf, a resident of Rex Manor
on Apr 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Opponents of Prop 1F say withholding raises will not give elected officials incentive to balance the budget? Are you kidding? The incentive should be balance the budget or lose your job, it's what we elected you to do. The rest of society is seeing lost bonuses and raises, why do elected officials feel they are exempt from laws and situations that impact the very people they are elected to represent?

Posted by amatulic, a resident of North Whisman
on Apr 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm

One of the things that got California into this mess is excessive borrowing - voters never seem to see a bond measure they don't like. Now Prop 1C represents, yet again, even more borrowing, but this time with no obligation for the state to pay back the loan. Instead, the payback relies on future gambling revenues. Something about that makes no sense.

1F is a harmless populist measure. It won't do any good, but won't do any harm. All it does is treat public employee salaries the same way private employee salaries are treated: when the company has losses, nobody gets a raise. That's fair.

Posted by Nooo, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 29, 2009 at 9:15 pm

Vote No on everything.

This is the kind of political BS that got us in this mess. It's time elected official started working instead of wasting money and time.

Posted by Johnny Robots, a resident of North Whisman
on Apr 30, 2009 at 11:21 pm

I'm voting no on all of it except 1F.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Palo Alto quietly gets new evening food truck market
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,598 views

On Tour - The Highly Selective Liberal Arts Colleges: Occidental, Pitzer, and Scripps
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,622 views

See Me. Hear Me. Donít Fix Me.
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,427 views

Questions for Council Candidates--Housing
By Steve Levy | 24 comments | 1,245 views

Rock N Roll Green Beans
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 930 views