Propositions not worthy of support Propositions not worthy of support (October 21, 2005)

THE OPINION OF THE VOICE

Much of the context for this November's special election relates to the political health and future aspirations of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Rather than test his leadership and political skills by attempting to work with the Legislature, he has decided again to take his case directly to voters, relying on his fading charisma and an infusion of millions of dollars in advertising to carry the day for him. He has closely identified himself in support of propositions 74, 75, 76 and 77. After a close look, the Voice finds all four propositions wanting. Here's a look at our position on the four measures. See next week's Voice for an analysis of the remaining four propositions on the coming ballot.
Proposition 73

This proposition would prohibit abortions for minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies a minor's parent or guardian, except in cases of medical emergency or with parental waiver. Doctors would be subject to penalties for violation.

In the past, Californians have strongly supported freedom of choice. This initiative is an effort to get part of what anti-choice crusaders want, since they know they can't win the battle head-on. We believe family communication cannot effectively be legislated through a constitutional amendment. Parental notification laws force some teenagers to choose between talking with parents or having illegal and unsafe abortions.

The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention -- and strong, caring families -- not new laws that endanger our daughters. Doctors, nurses and health care providers, including the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association and the California Academy of Family Physicians, oppose Proposition 73. The Voice recommends a NO vote on Proposition 73.
Proposition 74

This proposition extends the probationary period for public school teachers from two years to five years and defines "unsatisfactory performance." Because it appears to give school boards and administrators more authority in determining whether a teacher is performing satisfactorily, one might expect this initiative to be supported by school boards and administrators. But according to California School Boards Association (CSBA) Executive Director Scott Plotkin, "The initiative was written without consultation from any experts in education law, so it is poorly crafted and contains fatal flaws relative to teacher dismissals and collective bargaining."

If the initiative contained only the tenure provision, CSBA would likely have supported it, Plotkin said, adding that two years was not long enough for districts to effectively evaluate a teacher's performance. It is the second provision in Prop. 74 that would define "unsatisfactory performance" -- which could result in a teacher's dismissal after receiving two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations -- that caused CSBA to oppose the initiative. The organization said the initiative would actually give districts less discretion than they currently have to define unsatisfactory performance of teachers, and that dismissal proceedings could not go forward for at least two (and likely three) years. The unsatisfactory evaluations would have to be made in consecutive years.

Many experts believe that a clean extension of the current tenure review period of two years (actually, it's more like 15 to 18 months) to a full two to three years, would accomplish the stated goal of this initiative. The Voice recommends a NO vote on Proposition 74.
Proposition 75

This measure prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political contributions without individual employees' prior consent. It also requires unions to maintain and, upon request, report member political contributions to the Fair Political Practices Commission. This measure is backed by the Governor and the California Republican Party, which donated $200,000 to the campaign.

The reality of elections today is that most Democrats rely on unions for their core campaign funding, while Republicans rely on corporations to a much greater extent than Democrats do. This proposition would intervene in the internal business of unions and makes it more difficult for them to contribute funds to candidates -- mostly Democrats. It does nothing to undercut the corporate funding of Republicans.

We don't want to see unnecessary government intervention, a more distorted political playing field and a one-sided bonanza for Republican candidates. The Voice recommends a NO vote on Proposition 75.
Proposition 76

The Proposition 76 analysis by the legislative analyst in the state ballot pamphlet runs over seven pages. If this initiative were to pass, application of its complex provisions would generate controversy and litigation for years to come.

The League of Women Voters, in opposing it, says: "This initiative places too much power in the hands of one person. It lets the Governor declare a 'fiscal emergency' simply on the basis of revenue estimates prepared by his/her own administration and then cut services without legislative oversight. It will cut funding for vital programs, potentially including everything from emergency services to health care.

"It would overturn our commitment to education through the guarantees in Propositions 98 and 111 to maintain education funding, cutting school funding by about $4 billion a year -- $600 per student."

The California PTA says losses caused by Proposition 76 would "translate to more overcrowded classrooms, more teacher layoffs, more cuts in arts and music programs, fewer textbooks, elimination of more librarians, physical education specialists, nurses and counselors." Other opponents include a long list of labor groups, seniors, nurses, the Sierra Club and the California League of Conservation Voters. The Voice recommends a NO vote on Proposition 76.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.