With campaigns for and against propositions slated for the Nov.
8 special election in full force, UCLA hosted a community forum
Wednesday that was aimed at voicing opposition to three
controversial propositions on the ballot.
Entitled “Unwelcome Propositions: The Governor’s
Special Election,” a panel of speakers including a state
assemblywoman, union representatives and UCLA’s undergraduate
student government president spoke in opposition to Proposition 74,
75 and 76, arguing that the propositions would weaken labor unions,
strip powers from teachers and union members and potentially lead
to an increase in student tuition fees.
One topic of discussion, Proposition 76, would tie state
spending allowances to growth in revenues and allow the governor to
make budget cuts unilaterally in certain special circumstances,
such as when the governor’s office declares a fiscal
emergency. Proponents say it was designed with the intent of
preventing the type of overspending that led to the drastic budget
cuts made last year, including major reductions in the UC
budget.
But all of the speakers at the forum said it would deal a blow
to higher education by giving the governor the power to
unilaterally make budget adjustments to bring state spending into
line with revenues.
“Whenever cuts are made to balance the budget, they almost
always come from higher education,” said California State
Assemblywoman and keynote speaker Karen Bass.
Bass pointed to drastic cuts made last year to UCLA outreach
programs and the UCLA Labor Center, warning that these types of
cuts could become more frequent if Proposition 76 is passed.
By potentially reducing higher education funding, the passage of
the proposition could also lead to increases in UC and CSU student
fees, said Jenny Wood, president of USAC and master of ceremonies
of the event.
Proposition 74 would increase the waiting period from two to
five years for new teachers at elementary and secondary schools to
receive tenure.
Supporters of the proposition say its passage would enable
schools to have more time to adequately assess the capability of
new teachers and determine if they should be given tenure.
But event speaker Joshua Pechthalt, vice president of United
Teachers Los Angeles teacher’s union, argued Proposition 74
would “weaken teachers and unions, putting them under the
thumb of school officials” by increasing the waiting period
for tenure.
Pechthalt said a new teacher would be less likely to voice
criticisms of the school system during the first five years of
their career at a school, for fear of losing their job.
During the waiting period before being given tenure, school
administration officials can terminate a teacher’s contract
at the end of any academic year without reason or explanation,
Pechthalt said.
If the proposition is passed, schools could potentially take
advantage of new teachers without due process for a longer period,
said Max Hechter, vice president of the University, Professional
and Technical Employees union, one of four unions that helped
organize the event.
The proposition would also negatively affect students by
limiting the ability of the public education system to prepare
students for education at the UC and other universities, Wood
said.
“(Proposition 74) hurts teachers’ rights and the
ability of teachers to invest in the education of their
students,” she added.
Wood said that the proposition would also discourage students
from entering the teaching profession.
The UC recently launched a new program to encourage students to
become teachers, a program that Wood said she felt would be
adversely affected by Proposition 74.
Proposition 75 would prohibit unions from using union dues
collected from members for political causes unless specific written
consent is given each year.
The measure, which would require written consent from individual
union members before the union could use their dues for political
causes, is “the Governor’s attempt to silence the
dissent that’s been so effective against him,” Hechter
said.
The proposition was motivated by concern that members’
dues would be used for causes they did not support.
But this concern is unfounded because most union dues do not go
toward political causes, and all union members have the option to
opt out of paying dues automatically to the union altogether,
Hechter said.