Thursday, April 16, 1998
Nine propositions look to change schools inside and out
POLITICS: Term limits, prison terms also covered in June’s state
primary
By Catherine Turner
Daily Bruin Contributor
If all nine propositions designated to appear in California’s
June Primary are passed, voters should expect significant
changes.
Props. 219 through 227 cover a variety of issues, ranging from
education to political contributions.
Prop. 223, 224, 226 and 227 directly and indirectly affect
public education.
Prop. 223 prohibits school districts from spending more than 5
percent of funds from all sources for administrative costs. Failure
to comply with this allotment of administrative costs would result
in fines of up to $175 per student in the individual school
district.
Although the wording of the measure seems to imply that more
money would be spent directly on students and programs, the
proponents, Parents, Teachers and Educators for Local Control
testify that, because small school districts would be unable to
comply to the 5 percent rule, they would suffer an unfair loss of
money.
"Because money has to stay in education, it will basically be
redistributed to large school districts, like L.A. Unified, who are
not going to have a problem complying," said Bonnie Mertus,
campaign director for No on Prop. 223.
Any event that takes place off the school site would be
considered administrative; this could even include things like
school bus repairs, which some districts could not afford to
designate as administrative costs.
"The proposition is poorly written; it is a one-size-fits-all
proposition and it doesn’t work for every district," Mertus
said.
Prop. 224 also threatens the development and needs of public
schools, according to Scott MacDonald, communications director for
No for Taxpayers Against 224.
The proposition imposes restrictions on state-funded design and
engineering contracts. It would require an independent cost
analysis before contracts are awarded.
Contractors would be responsible and financially liable for
their contract performance.
"Proposition 224 can delay construction of new classrooms where
we need it. Money would be better used to improve education," said
MacDonald, who thinks that all construction will needlessly be
delayed if Proposition 224 is passed.
The bill is ultimately meant to create a defined competitive
bidding requirement, which would ideally find lower fees and save
taxpayers money.
According to a study conducted by Tony Miller, former secretary
of state and founder of the Californians for Political Reform
Foundation, many state engineering contracts are made with private
engineers who have often made large political contributions.
Under state contracts, taxpayers are required to pay until the
job is performed correctly. Under Prop 224, the engineers would be
required to fix their mistakes at their own cost.
The proposition will also force companies to have "contractor
responsibility," said Kristen Sykes, press assistant to Taxpayers
for Competitive Bidding. "Proposition 224 is really just about
finding the best deal for taxpayers."
However, MacDonald said that the proposition will lead to much
higher taxes because as many as 15,000 new state employees,
including state engineers, would have to be hired.
Prop. 226, also known as "Paycheck Protection for Working
Californians," requires the permission of employees or union
members to withhold wages or union dues for political
contributions. It also prohibits foreign contributions to state and
local candidates.
The proponents of the proposition, which include some teachers
and union members, feel that they should have control over where
their wages go. Many workers are forced to donate to parties that
they do not support.
"I support Proposition 226 because I want a choice and a voice.
But most importantly, because I want to be a good teacher, not a
political donor," said Elizabeth Lee, a member of the California
Teachers’ Association, which supports the measure.
Although unions currently give workers a certain time period to
claim that they do not want their money donated to political
causes, supporters of Prop. 226 feel that more should be done to
ensure that workers have absolute control over how their money is
spent.
"Seventy-five percent of union members are not aware of the fact
that they don’t have to give their money to politics," said Eric
Christen, field director for Prop. 226.
Opponents to this measure claim that the proposition would
detour unions and employee organizations from participating in
politics in order to protect pensions, health and safety laws and
health care benefits.
Shifting from outside of the classroom to inside, Prop. 227
addresses what language should primarily be spoken during
class.
Prop. 227 requires that all public school instruction be in
English, unless parents request otherwise and show special
circumstances.
The measure would require that schools provide short-term
English immersion programs for children learning English.
Supporters of this measure believe that if children are immersed
in the English language earlier that they will master the language
sooner, which would be to their advantage even as far down the line
as applying to college.
"Children will be able to compete better for jobs and schools,
and even SAT scores," said Sheri Annis, press secretary for the
campaign English for the Children.
Annis also believes that with the obliteration of affirmative
action in already competitive California public universities,
mastering the English language will only help to prepare and
qualify students who are from foreign, non-English speaking
countries.
Other voters believe that Prop. 227 might be detrimental to
children who are already facing other challenges that occur with
moving to a foreign country.
"The proposition is discouraging to a person’s identity because
they would alienated from their own culture," said Elizabeth Geyer.
chief of staff of the Internal President USAC.
Geyer also doubts the reliability of the proponents’ premises.
"The proposal has never been tested anywhere,"
While most measures are fueled by the disagreement between
proponents and opponents, other props are introduced because voters
have expressed an explicit and consensual need for them.
Prop. 219 requires that statewide/local ballot measures apply to
all parts of jurisdiction, despite how they voted. Measures could
not be altered based on vote percentage.
"It is a nonpartisan proposition. It would apply to all
measures, including taxes, welfare reform and education," said Wade
C. Teasdale, consultant to California Senator John Lewis, author of
Prop 219.
Currently, if a measure is passed, jurisdictions that did not
vote for measure are still required to pay taxes for it, but they
sometimes do not benefit from it.
Under current law, revenues are only required to be returned to
jurisdictions that had a majority vote.
The proposition, which began as a senate constitutional
amendment, is a response to Prop. 172, which stated that tax
revenues would be collected in all counties, but used only in the
counties whose votes supported the cause by a majority.
It has already surpassed the two-thirds bipartisan vote in the
Senate and State Assembly.
Another constitutional amendment, Prop 220, requires that upon
the agreement of a majority of a county’s superior and municipal
court judges, all superior and municipal courts be
consolidated.
The consolidation would make the responsibilities of superior
and municipal courts virtually the same.
Both courts would be able to listen to every kind of hearing,
whereas before, there might have been referrals to another court,
which could take longer.
Prop. 220 is an attempt to reduce costs, which have raised since
the state was required to pay for all future increases in costs of
trial courts.
It has "potential annual net savings to the state, in the range
of millions to tens of millions of dollars in the long term," as
stated by the attorney general.
Prop. 221 is also looking to reorganize the court. Commission on
Judicial Performance currently oversees judges. The presiding judge
at each court responds to complaints against commissioners and
referees.
With the implementation of Prop. 221, the Commission on Judicial
Performance would handle disciplinary matters and complaints
against all judges, referees and commissioners.
Most of these complaints pertain to problems such as willful
misconduct in office, persistent failure or inability to perform
the duties of a judge and habitual intemperance in the use of
intoxicants or drugs.
Through Prop. 225, California seeks to establish the state’s
official position on supporting a U.S. Constitutional amendment to
enforce national Congressional term limits.
The state of California would hold that their official position
is that no more than two terms should be allowed in the Senate and
no more than three terms in the House of Representatives, each a
maximum total of six years.
Instead of limiting terms, Prop 222 wishes to ensure that
certain prison terms will last for life.
Prop. 222 seeks to make the prison sentence to individuals
convicted of second degree murder of a peace officer on duty less
lenient.
The measure would ensure that convicted individuals would be
sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
It would also eliminate the ability to earn credits to reduce
prison sentences.
"There are two aspects that make (this initiative) important to
voters. One, it provides another measure of protection of people
who protect us, and two, the heinous nature of the crime makes it
necessary for their sentences to be as long as possible," said
Dennis Rogers, legislative director for Assemblymember Rod
Pacheco.