Given the response to
this diary discussing California Propositions 73 and 74, and the overwhelming inclination to vote NO on 75, as promised, here is my take. I had said that I expected to vote YES. As I studied the issue, more and more questions emerged. Part of my problem is that I don't trust the unions to behave any more ethically than the next guy.
The opposition says a law is not needed:
Individual government employees may choose whether or not to join the union that represents their group of employees. A union's negotiations affect all employees in the group--both members and nonmembers of the union. As a result, members of the group--whether they join a union or not--typically pay a certain level of dues and/or fees to a union for these bargaining and representation services.
But unions in some California counties have undermined the guaranteed free choice to join or not join. I have experienced for myself the
strong-arm tactics of the teachers union
I should add that I was personally harassed on three occasions by union representatives: once in the principal's office, once when I was a parent accompanying my child's field trip, and once when they called me at home at night, all just because I thought we should discuss charter schools in our democratic society. I could not believe the union considered such discussion taboo and the lengths they were willing to go to shut down discussion. If their stand is correct, they should be able to prevail on the merits.
The teachers union has negotiated contracts in some counties that stipulate that the union has the final right of approval for all new hires. A teacher who opts out of the union may very well be also opting out of a job. As far as non-members go:
Non-members pay fees to the union for collective bargaining services, but the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that unions cannot use these fees for political purposes. The union must send financial statements to the worker to ensure that no unauthorized fees are used for politics. Today, 25% of state employees contribute no money to their union's political activities.
Apparently, only members are paying fees that could be used for political purposes; money from non-members cannot be used for political purposes.
I have a number of questions about this proposition. The opponents say the intent of the proposition is to cripple the ability of Democrats to fight its political fights and to deliver a permanent Republican dominance of the state. How could this happen? Is the union customarily taking stands at odds with its members? Why would union members not support the union's political causes? If the union members do not support the union's objectives why should they be forced to financially support those objectives? Are the unions afraid their Democratic members would rather hold on to their money and leave the union without the resources to pursue objectives on behalf of Democrats? Are unions obeying the law with regard to non-members fees?
Polls show change in Californian's support of Prop 75. Earlier polls showed that Californians favored Prop 75, but a poll from yesterday indicates a change of heart. "Still, nearly four in 10 union members support the measure, despite the current law allowing them to block their dues from being spent on political campaigns." I wouldn't want my dues spent on causes I do not support, but since there is a law in place already, this law should be enforced, instead of putting redundant measures on the ballot.
Another thing that bothers me is the reporting requirements of this proposition. The unions would be required to submit records on who allowed their dues to be used for political purposes and who didn't to the Fair Political Practice Commission. Although these records are currently not subject to public disclosure, there is nothing guaranteeing that will always be the case. Laws change, policies change. I'm conservative enough to oppose the idea of government collecting any more information on its citizens.
I have no love for the unions. They have been guilty of using strong arm tactics and unconstitutional behavior to get their way. But I favor enforcement of current law, and the reporting requirements bother me. Therefore my pendulum has swung and I now recommend a NO vote on Proposition 75.
Proposition 76: State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
This proposition is at once very difficult and very easy. The legislative analysis, at eight pages, is the longest and hardest to digest without a dose of Tylenol. The analysis is an education in the murky world of school finance, but this quicky course is insufficient to provide any real understanding into such a complex issue.
Although California's budget woes are terrible, balancing its budget at the expense of school children is wrong-headed. I can personally vouch that there is a ton of wasteful spending in the schools that should be addressed within each school. Much of the wasteful spending is due to a common policy that if one department saves money, its budget is cut by the amount of saving the next year. For example, I was once given a $16,000 budget for a particular project. I took a proposal to the principal detailing how I could accomplish the project for $8000. He told me to spend all the money anyway. Such a policy actually punishes the fiscally conservative. So department head spend their budget limit and then some in order to justify asking for a little more the next year.
I believe schools should adopt of variance on the household budget philosophy where savings in one department is used to make up a shortfall in another or saved for future contingencies, and where various department heads work together to make sure wasteful spending is cut while continuing to encourage spending for academically positive outcomes. In most schools each department competes with the others for a larger slice of the pie. School finance could use a serious overhaul of philosophy and policy, but this proposition isn't it.
The measure grants the Governor new powers to (1) declare a fiscal emergency based on his or her administration's fiscal estimates, and (2) unilaterally reduce spending when an agreement cannot be reached on how to address the emergency.
Specifically, the measure permits the Governor to issue a proclamation of a fiscal emergency when his or her administration finds either of the following two conditions:
* General Fund revenues have fallen by at least 1.5 percent below the administration's estimates.
* The balance of the state's reserve fund will decline by more than one-half between the beginning and the end of the fiscal year.
Once the emergency is declared by the Governor, the Legislature would be called into special session and then have 45 days (30 days in the case of a late budget) to enact legislation which addresses the shortfall. If such legislation is not enacted, the measure grants the Governor new powers to reduce state spending (with the exception of the items discussed below)--at his or her discretion--to eliminate the shortfall. The Legislature could not override these reductions.
There is nothing in this law which would prevent the governor from unilaterally cutting school funding.
I find it ironic that Republicans are consistently favoring legislation that expands the scope of government while standing on a platform that favors limited government. I said earlier that in spite of the apparent difficulty of school finance, this proposition is easy. I'm conservative enough to be wary of increasing government powers, especially unilateral powers whether the government is Democratic or Republican. Therefore I recommend a
NO vote on Proposition 76.