|
With
nearly 70 percent of the vote in just before midnight Wednesday,
Proposition 39—the school bonds initiative—was apparently
headed for victory.
The measure was ahead in the Bay Area, Los Angeles County and the
central coast. With 68 percent of precincts counted, the initiative
was winning 52.7 percent to 47.3 percent—or 3,208,164 votes
to 2,884,172 votes.
For the second time in eight months, Californians voted today on
whether to lower the threshold for approving school bond measures.
In March, voters narrowly defeated a proposal—Proposition 26—to
decrease the vote needed to issue local school construction bonds
from two-thirds to a simple majority. Supporters of the measure
quickly bounced back with a new statewide initiative—Proposition
39—that would lower the vote requirement to 55 percent.
Opponents of the measure held out hope that the initiative would
fail when all the votes are counted. "We’re not ready
to concede defeat," said Joel Fox, former president of the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which led opposition to the
proposal.
Fox said many voters did not know what they were voting for because
the ballot summary "did not mention that the two-thirds vote
was being reduced. They did see that in Proposition 26."
Proposition 39 has big guns behind it. Gov. Gray Davis, former Gov.
Pete Wilson, the state’s largest business groups, scores of
high-tech mavens and just about the entire educational establishment
are supporting it. The Jarvis association is leading a much smaller
coalition against the proposal.
Despite this, and despite the widespread support in California for
greater spending on education, opinion polls showed the battle of
Proposition 39 to be a tight one.
In a way, that is not surprising, because school bonds, after all,
are financed by increases in property taxes, and few issues are
more contentious in this state than property tax increases. The
Jarvis group has capitalized on homeowners’ fear of property
tax increases while at the same time acknowledging the need for
more spending on school facilities. On the other hand, supporters
of the initiative have addressed voters’ fears of wasteful
school spending by emphasizing provisions that increase oversight
into how bond money is spent.
Over the past 14 years, voters have approved more than $18 billion
in school bonds. If the threshold had been 55 percent instead of
two thirds, an additional $13 billion in bonds would have been approved,
according to the ballot statement of the state legislative analyst.
The William S. Hart school district in northern Los Angeles County
knows what it is like to lose a school bond vote even while winning
the support of a large majority of voters. In June, the rapidly
growing district lost a bond vote by 12 votes—66.1 percent
of voters backed the measure, just half a percent less than currently
required.
Money is desperately needed to build three high schools over the
next several years to relieve severe overcrowding, said Paul Priesz,
principal of Valencia High School, one of the four high schools
in the district. "We could build another high school today
and fill it immediately," he said.
Valencia itself is only seven years old. It was built for 2,100
students, but explosive population growth has filled it with 2,800
students, he said. Next year, there will be at least 3,000 students.
Other high schools in the district are similarly crowded, he said.
The school’s stop-gap solution has been to build 22 portable
classrooms over two athletic fields. If voters do not approve a
tax increase, the next step will probably be to have classes in
shifts, he said. That would be disruptive to children’s education,
Priesz said.
Schools that are crowded or in poor physical condition make "a
difference in the learning environment," said Dale Martin ,
spokeswoman for the California Teachers Association (CTA), the powerful
teachers’ union. "My kids are in the public schools in
San Francisco, and the schools there are terrible."
For Jon Coupal, chairman of the opposition to Proposition 39 and
president of the Jarvis association, the very fact that supporters
of lowering the vote requirement have put an initiative on the ballot
so soon after their March defeat reveals arrogance toward taxpayers.
Voters, he said, might ask, "‘What part of ‘no’
don’t you understand?’"
Coupal accused backers of the initiative of being duplicitous by
talking a lot about the accountability provisions. But, he said,
those measures are "not part of the body" of Proposition
39 itself. Instead, they were approved by the state Legislature
in June to go into effect automatically if Proposition 39 passes.
If Proposition 39 itself passes, it can be changed only through
passage of another statewide voter initiative. But the accountability
measures in the law enacted by the Legislature can be reversed by
the Legislature.
"If these accountability provisions are so important, why didn’t
you put them in Proposition 39 itself?" he asked.
In reality, some accountability measures are in the text of Proposition
39, and others can indeed be reversed by a legislative vote. The
text of the initiative itself prohibits using school bond funds
for spending on school administration, requires school districts
to delineate the specific projects to be funded and mandates two
independent audits each year to monitor spending.
The accompanying legislation creates citizen watchdog groups to
monitor and publicize school bond spending and gives them the power
to halt a project if audits show wasteful or unauthorized spending.
The legislation also limits the amount of property tax increases.
Yet, as Coupal pointed out, those provisions could be overturned
by the Legislature without a voter initiative.
Backers of Proposition 39 emphasize that a supermajority—albeit
a smaller one—would still be needed to pass bond measures.
But the larger two-thirds majority is needed to protect property
owners "from having taxes forced on them by non-homeowners
and the educational establishment," said Dean Andal, chair
of the California Board of Equalization. For example, Andal said,
in Stockton, where he is from, a majority of voters are either renters
or school system employees. They would then have the votes necessary
to force homeowners to pay higher taxes, he said.
"Democracy is democracy," said James Morante, spokesman
for the California School Boards Association. "Last time I
checked, 51 percent was a majority." Right now, he said, school
bond measures are often defeated by "a tyranny of the majority."
Business groups and corporate CEOs—especially heads of high-technology
firms—are among the strongest backers of Proposition 39.
"We need to assure ourselves that California will have a prepared
workforce for the jobs that are there today, and for the jobs that
will be there tomorrow," said Bill Hauck, president of the
California Business Roundtable. "The whole key to sustaining
California’s economic vitality is a quality school system.
It’s very difficult to educate young people effectively if
they don’t have proper facilities."
Business supporters of the measure are being hypocritical, said
Joel Fox, former president of the Jarvis group. High-technology
companies oppose Internet-related taxes and scour the tax code for
loopholes, he said. "They seem to be supportive of tax cuts
when it comes to them," he said.
He also pointed to Proposition 37, which would raise the threshold
for approval of certain fees—such as fees to clean up damage
caused by pollution—from a majority vote of the legislature
to a two-thirds vote (or, in some cases, to a two-thirds vote of
voters). "In essence, the business community says it wants
a two-thirds vote if it serves their interests," Fox said.
Fox acknowledged the need to improve and expand California school
facilities. "But there are other ways to raise money for school
construction," he said.
For example, voters approved a $6.7 billion statewide bond issue
in 1998. Using statewide bonds is fairer, because "everyone
pays," not just homeowners, he said.
Andal asked why the state has not spent any of the $20 billion in
surplus money it has had over the past two years on school construction
or repairs. "The state legislature and governor have a lot
of nerve going back to homeowners and asking them to pay higher
property taxes when the state general fund is flush with money and
they haven’t spent a dollar of that on school construction,"
he said.
A little-noticed provision in Proposition 39 would require each
school district to provide charter schools facilities that are "reasonably
equivalent" to other facilities in the district. Charter schools
are publicly funded but are run by organizations or individuals
who are not bound by most state school regulations. Currently, school
districts are required only to provide charter schools with existing
unused school facilities, but passage of Proposition 39 would require
them to either buy or construct facilities if the charter schools
need them.
Even some supporters of Proposition 39 have problems with that provision.
Oakland School Board member Jean Quan said money should be spent
to improve existing public schools instead of giving more money
to charter schools. But she said her fears were mitigated in part
by a measure that allows school districts to deny funding to charter
schools with fewer than 80 students. In addition, she said, the
benefits of increased overall funding that would come from passage
of Proposition 39 outweigh problems that might arise from increased
funding for charter schools.
The teachers’ union led the effort to pass Proposition 26—the
March school bond initiative that failed. The CTA has taken a less
visible role this time because it is concentrating on Proposition
38, the school vouchers proposal on the current ballot, Martin said.
Davis, on the other hand, was in the background in the Proposition
26 battle and has taken a leading role on Proposition 39. Martin
said the CTA has no quarrels with Davis on the importance of passing
Proposition 39, although, she said, "we would have liked the
participation of the governor early on in the campaign" to
pass Proposition 26.6.
|
