Prop 93 Update

Earlier, I posted my recommendation on Prop. 93 as a No. After reviewing the language, and two articles on it, it appears that part of my analysis for opposing Prop. 93 is wrong. I note that it would re-start the clock on legislators, not resulting in any meaningful change for 12 years. It appears that my reading of the legislative analysts report was wrong, and after looking back over the text of the proposition, I can say that I mis-understood the "re-setting of the clock."

Also, I have reviewed two additional pieces on this proposition, both from Republicans on why Prop. 93 should pass. The first is an op-ed written by Gov. Schwarzenegger that appeared in the L.A. Times on January 15, of which there have been numerous articles about. The second is an article written by State Senator Jim Battin that appeared in today's Flash Report.

Let me first address my own review of Prop. 93. The first two points about Prop. 93 remain- I have no problems with reducing the years one can serve from 14 to 12 and allowing those years to be spent in whatever form that person chooses (although, logically, it means 2 terms in the assembly and 2 terms in the senate). My issue remains with the language that, in essence, exempts current legislators that would otherwise be termed out and allows them to remain in office up to 12 years. How my analysis changes is that I originally read that as to mean that legislators re-started at zero, and could then stay for 12 additional years. After further review, my original analysis was wrong, and the text means that in addition to however many years that individual has already served in their current house, they can serve additional terms adding up to 12 years. For example, under the current term limits law, a person in the assembly is limited to 6 years in office (3 terms). If Prop. 93 passes, those legislators would now be allowed to run for 3 more terms (6 years) in the assembly before hitting their 12 years. A term-limited person serving in the senate would be allowed one more term, since their terms last 4 years. All told, a legislator who is termed-out for this cycle could spend a total of 18 years in the legislature, instead of 16 as originally passed by the voters.

Even with that new analysis, I still do not believe that changing the rules and allowing current members who are term limited out to benefit from the rule change is correct.

I will note that I completely agree with the Governor's analysis of the problem with term limits- it's creating less thoughtful legislation, legislators are not allowed to build experience with a topic (much less the legislative process), and, as a result, are often being overwhelmed with lobbyists. This is indeed a problem with term limits, and one that needs to be addressed (I really do not have an opinion on term limits; I understand the need for some turnover, but at the expense of institutional knowledge is a choice that I haven't made yet). I don't really care that the Governor backed away from his pledge to not support term limit reform without redistricting reform; if this term-limit proposal was more fair, I don't think most conservative bloggers/columnists would care either. But the exemption language remains the sticking point. Then to read Sen. Battin's plea to pass Prop. 93 so that term-limited Republican legislators can run again and keep the seat just reinforces my concerns with allowing current term-limited legislators a break.

So, I still say No on 93.

A two-fer. . S.F. Props. B and C

Today, we look at San Francisco Propositions B and C.

Proposition B would create a new deferred retirement option for the city's police officers. Specifically, if a police officer hits their retirement period, he or she can choose to enlist in a new program that would defer retirement for three years, allowing the officer to continue earning their salary, but deferring retirements benefits for those three years. The proposal will then be re-evaluated after three years.

I do not see how this is anything but good for the city. It allows time for the city to recruit and train new police officers, yet keep a steady level of active duty police officers, which are definitely needed, as well as keeping some well-needed experience available to new recruits.

This proposition is fairly straight-forward, and a good idea.

Therefore, I recommend a Yes on Prop. B

Next we are faced with Proposition C.

What a waste of time and effort. It asks if it should be city policy that Ess Eff try to obtain Alcatraz Island from the federal government and turn it into a "Global Peace Center." Really? Even though it is nothing more than a statement of policy, the audacity of people to get this on the ballot is astounding, not to mention that they found enough people to sign this (and apparently verified by the city). But, in an effort to do a sound analysis of this, I will say. . .with the City facing deficits, the cost of acquiring Alcatraz would be crippling, then the cost to the city to pay for the destruction of the prison, the required clean up of the prison (and who knows what fun stuff is on the island), the construction of this new center, the expected upgrades in transportation to and from the island, and the costs of running and maintaining said center, the costs to do all of this would be very expensive (which the ballot supporters project to be $1 Billion (with a B)), money which the City does not have.

Therefore, I recommend a No of Prop. C.

Uncomfortable

So, here's a situation that really can only happen to a guy.

Was in the men's restroom here at work, and was at the urinal. There are two of them, with a little divider between the two. Right to the left and perpendicular to the urinals, is a bank of 5 stalls, the furthest one being the handicapped stall. So, I'm at the urinal, and the stall next to the handicapped one is occupied. A guy walks in and promptly walks right behind me into the first and closest stall to the urinal and where I'm standing. Really? You had to choose that exact stall, you couldn't have chosen the second stall, which would have allowed 1 stall between you and the 4th stall and 1 stall between me and you? You had to choose the one right next to me? Not cool at all.

Ok, with that rant done, let's move on to the City of Berkeley.

Now, I have my problems with the City of Berkeley, but they've surprisingly done some decent things like criminalizing sleeping on the streets and so forth, but today, they've undone all that. Today, the Chronicle reports that Berkeley has too many memorial benches. According to the article, these benches, that people pay to be installed in 2 parks in Berkeley as a way to memorialize and remember family members, are "destroying the "visual character" of the city's "parkland and urban forest."" Deputy City Manager Lisa Caronna further notes that

"Do we want plaques and memorials strewn over our public parks?" she added. "A lot of people are offended by it - they feel that the reminders of other people's family and friends diminishes the feeling of freedom and peace you're supposed to have in a public park."

Really? A bench is offending people and diminishes a feeling of freedom and peace. . .in a park?

They are considering limiting the ability of people to pay the City to install a bench unless that person had "a transcendent relationship between the park and the individual." Now, one definition of transcendent is "Being above and independent of the material universe." So, how would the city define "transcendent"? For example, couldn't the spirit (or even a memory) of a dead person be transcendent? And couldn't that spirit then be linked to that park, say. . by a bench that allows a family member to sit and remember that individual, perhaps bringing an internal peace to that family member? What a terrible thing that would be.

Good news and bad news

Bad news first, 9th Circuit granted Ess Eff's request for a stay of a lower court's order that would have gutted Ess Eff's universal health care coverage.

Good news, the state appeals court let stand a lower state court ruling that overturned a proposition passed by the City outlawing the legal possession of a handgun by city residents.

Guess which story got a bigger headline on sfgate.com?

Time for a break

Just to show that it's not all fun and games here, today I'm going to talk about the Baseball Hall of Fame announcement. In case you missed it, Goose Gossage was the only player to receive enough votes to be enshrined in Cooperstown this summer. To that I say Congratulations Goose, it has been a long time coming, and, like Rob Neyer, I don't really expect another reliever to get in until Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera become eligible (sorry Lee Smith, John Franco and everyone else).

But, let's look at the next 5 highest ranking nominees (to be inducted, player needs to receive 75% of the vote or higher, or 408 votes this year).

Jim Rice got 392 votes (72%)
Andre Dawson got 358 votes (66%)
Bert Blyleven got 336 votes (62%)
Lee Smith got 235 votes (43%)
Jack Morris got 233 votes (43%)

After that, the only new player that received more than 5% of the vote was Tim Raines, who got 132 votes (24%).

Here is a comparison between this year's results and last year's results for Goose and the next 5 highest:

Goose increased his vote total from 388 (71%) to 466 (86%), an increase of +78

Jim Rice increased his vote total from 346 (63.5%) to 392 (72%), an increase of +46

Andre Dawson increased his vote total from 309 (57%) to 358 (66%), and increase of +49

Bert Blyleven increased his vote total from 260 (48%) to 336 (62%), an increase of +76

Lee Smith increased his vote total from 217 (40%) to 235 (43%), an increase of +18

Jack Morris increased his vote total from 202 (37%) to 233 (43%), an increase of +31

As the change in votes notes, Goose and Bert Blyleven received the biggest jumps in support from last year. Coupled with a weak first time list of nominees (only Tim Raines survived the 5% cut) and the Cal Ripken/Tony Gwynn monster from 2007, it should not be surprising to find new support for some long-time nominees. There are some interesting voting patterns over the past 3 years regarding these nominees- between 2006 and 2007, only Goose and Rice increased their vote totals. Goose went from 336 in 2006 to 388 in 2007, and Rice went from 337 in 2006 to 346 in 2007. So, the addition of Ripken and Gwynn obviously played a role in the voters' minds. Which on the one hand is understandable, but on the other, is not. In a year with weak candidates (2006 only Bruce Sutter was inducted-questionably- and 2008 only has Tim Raines as a viable candidate), the voters appear inclined to vote for those they may not ordinarily vote for, and become more stingy with their votes when big names are on the ballot. Why? I have no idea, other than when compared to big names (like Ripken and Gwynn), those players don't "feel" or "look" like hall of famers, I suppose.

Let's look at Bert Blyleven: 2006 vote he got 277 (53.3%), 2007 vote he got 260 (48%), and 2008 he got 336 (62%). While his career numbers have obviously not changed, his vote totals have slowly been rising since his first year of eligibility in 1998, which is when his career numbers probably looked the best (for example, when he retired, he was 3rd in career strikeouts, now he is 5th). In essence, he is a poor man's Don Sutton (and it took Sutton 5 times to make it). Sutton finished with 324 wins over 23 seasons (774 games, 756 games started, 178 complete games and 58 shutouts), Blyleven finished with 287 wins over 22 seasons (692 games, 685 games started, 242 complete games and 60 shutouts). Basically, Sutton started 71 extra games and won 37 more games, but Blyleven had 65 more complete games, 2 more shutouts and 127 more strikeouts in fewer starts.

If we look ahead to 2009, only two names appear to be able to surpass 5%: Rickey Henderson and Mark Grace. Rickey should be first ballot, but is he a big enough name to suppress Rice, Dawson and Blyleven's vote totals? It would certainly appear that Rice, Dawson and Blyleven are on their way to future induction, however, Rice only has one year left of eligibility, Blyleven has four and Dawson has 8 years left. I also expect Tim Raines' vote totals to increase over the next few years.

As for Mark Grace, I simply throw out this fun stat- Mark Grace had the most hits of any player in the 1990s, and every other decade's hits leader is in the Hall.

Along with Rice, Tommy John is also in his final year of eligibility before the baseball writers; if they do not reach 75% in next year's election, their fate moves on the Veteran's Committee, which is a whole other ballgame. I suspect the same fate awaits Lee Smith and Jack Morris, along with Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Alan Trammell and Don Mattingly.

At some point I suppose I should put up my obligatory list of Hall of Famers that should not be in the Hall of Fame, and my list of players that should be in the Hall of Fame. But I'll save that for another day.

Prop. 93

Or, How I Am Trying to Pull A Fast One on the Voters and Extend My Time in Office Another 12 Years, by Fabian Nunez.

There are three simple things this proposition does, two of them good, one of them not. First, it reduces the total amount of years a person may serve from 14 years to 12 years. Secondly, it allows a person to serve those 12 years in any combination of state senate and assembly. Thirdly, it restarts the clock for everyone currently serving in the Legislature. So, let's do this quickly.

1) Sure, reducing the years on can serve from 14 to 12, why not. It would make it easier to mix and match the ability to serve in the state senate and assembly.

2) Again, sure, if someone wants to spend all his time in the assembly or the senate, why not.

3) Ahhh, here's your trouble. The true intention of this proposition makes itself clear- this is nothing more than an attempt by certain members of the legislature Fabian Nunez to stay where they are and re-set the original term limit proposition. Does there need to be changes to the term limit rules? Sure, see items 1 and 2, but that change surely can be affected sooner than 12 years from now, because that's effectively when the changes will fully take effect. The term limit law is clear- 3 2-year terms in the assembly and 2 4-year terms in the state senate. This proposition re-sets the clock and allows all current members of the legislature a clean slate to stay in office for another 12 years, for a possible total of 26 years. I certainly do not think that when the voters passed the original term limit measure they expected this.

Therefore, I recommend a No on 93.

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.