Prop. 92

Before I tackle Prop. 92, a few words-

1) After writing my review of Prop. 91, I figured I should go back and compare it against Prop. 1-A to make sure that Prop. 91 is irrelevant. After reviewing and comparing them, I am satisfied that Prop. 91 is irrelevant, and, for that matter, Prop. 1-A looks to be the better of the two. So, No it is.

2) Congrats to Obama for taking the Iowa Democrat caucus and Huckabee for taking the Republican caucus. I won't harbor a guess as to who will eventually win the Democratic nomination (let's say I'm voting present), but as for Huckabee- I'm not a fan, add the fact that some 60% of Iowa voters that identified themselves as evangelicals voted for him, leaves me extremely uneasy; course, Pat Robertson came in second in the Iowa caucus in 1988, it's not that surprising). I'll be looking for New Hampshire to bring about some more encouraging voting patterns.

3) My friend Vansmack and I have been putting together a voting guide the past few elections, so you can find any rebuttal or comments over there. He's also keeping a board showing our recommendations.

On to the business at hand, and Prop. 92.

First off, it took me 6 tries to finally get through the analysis and come to any conclusion on it. So, here's what I know about Prop. 92-

1) It changes to formula for appropriating education funds to the community college system;

2) Lowers fees to $15 per unit and limits the ability of the legislature to increase those fees; and,

3) Formally recognizes the community college system in the state constitution and increases the Board of Governors from 17 seats to 19 seats.

Change to Formula-

Currently, funding for K-12 and community colleges is set by Prop. 98, approved in 1988. What Prop. 92 proposes to do is revise the formula for community college funding to population based (K-12 funding is currently set through attendance percentages). So, the state has a certain amount of money from the General Fund that it uses for education expenses (around 40% or so). That pool of money is the divided up between K-12 and community colleges. According to the voter guide, community colleges get about 10% of that pool. The proposition proposes to change the growth factor for community college budgets to be population based, specifically, the population of 17-21 years old or 22-25 year old, whichever is higher, with a bonus for years when unemployment exceeds 5%. It is important to note that while it ties the growth rate to population, it makes no accounting for enrollment. So, regardless of how many people actually enroll and attend community colleges would not be taken into account, only population (even if that increase does not match enrollment increases). In short, this proposition seeks to increase funding for community colleges at the expense of K-12 education, especially in years where the young adult population grows at a higher rate than K-12 attendance rates, or increase overall funding on K-14 education (at the expense of other budgetary priorities).

Fees-

The proposition also sets per unit fees at $15 and limits the ability of the Legislature to raise those fees. Specifically, fees can be raised by the percentage change in per capita personal income or by 10% (whichever is lower), however, the per capita change is then rounded down to the nearest dollar. What that means is if per capita personal income does not rise by 6.7% a year, the fees stay at $15. So, if fees ostensibly are there to help fund education, and funding levels are expected to increase under this proposition, but the fee portion of this is likely to stay at $15, how will the state make up the difference? As noted above, the formula change is likely to increase the percentage amount of education funding taken out of the general fund to make up the difference for K-12 funding, couple that with less money coming from fees, that can only mean less money going to other projects, OR an increase in taxes to pay for the lost money.

Community college recognition and Board of Governors-

There really is no problem with this section. It adds recognition of the community college system to the state constitution, which is no big deal. Secondly, it increases the number of seats on the Board of Governors from 17 to 19, and gives the Board more control over their budget. I'll skip over the part that wonders who will make sure the Board spends the money wisely, because the Board should be in a better position to know where money needs to be spent than the legislature or Governor.

So, what does this all add up to? First, some recent news to add perspective. As recently reported by the Mercury News, Gov. Schwarzenegger looks to spend $6-7 billion on education reforms. I won't get into the details of it, but suffice it say, the majority of it appears to be for K-12 education. With a Governor that a) plans to increase K-12 funding, b) a state that is actually $14 billion in the red and c) looking at 10% across the board funding cuts, how does Prop. 92 plan to keep community colleges afloat? Even without these other circumstances, Prop. 92 doesn't appear to be able to accomplish all it promises without putting other priorities at risk.

Therefore, I recommend a No on 92.