California Special Election Proposition Analysis

With campaigns for and against propositions slated for the Nov. 8 special election in full force, UCLA hosted a community forum Wednesday that was aimed at voicing opposition to three controversial propositions on the ballot.

Entitled "Unwelcome Propositions: The Governor's Special Election," a panel of speakers including a state assemblywoman, union representatives and UCLA's undergraduate student government president spoke in opposition to Proposition 74, 75 and 76, arguing that the propositions would weaken labor unions, strip powers from teachers and union members and potentially lead to an increase in student tuition fees.

One topic of discussion, Proposition 76, would tie state spending allowances to growth in revenues and allow the governor to make budget cuts unilaterally in certain special circumstances, such as when the governor's office declares a fiscal emergency. Proponents say it was designed with the intent of preventing the type of overspending that led to the drastic budget cuts made last year, including major reductions in the UC budget.

But all of the speakers at the forum said it would deal a blow to higher education by giving the governor the power to unilaterally make budget adjustments to bring state spending into line with revenues.

"Whenever cuts are made to balance the budget, they almost always come from higher education," said California State Assemblywoman and keynote speaker Karen Bass.

Bass pointed to drastic cuts made last year to UCLA outreach programs and the UCLA Labor Center, warning that these types of cuts could become more frequent if Proposition 76 is passed.

By potentially reducing higher education funding, the passage of the proposition could also lead to increases in UC and CSU student fees, said Jenny Wood, president of USAC and master of ceremonies of the event.

Proposition 74 would increase the waiting period from two to five years for new teachers at elementary and secondary schools to receive tenure.

Supporters of the proposition say its passage would enable schools to have more time to adequately assess the capability of new teachers and determine if they should be given tenure.

But event speaker Joshua Pechthalt, vice president of United Teachers Los Angeles teacher's union, argued Proposition 74 would "weaken teachers and unions, putting them under the thumb of school officials" by increasing the waiting period for tenure.

Pechthalt said a new teacher would be less likely to voice criticisms of the school system during the first five years of their career at a school, for fear of losing their job.

During the waiting period before being given tenure, school administration officials can terminate a teacher's contract at the end of any academic year without reason or explanation, Pechthalt said.

If the proposition is passed, schools could potentially take advantage of new teachers without due process for a longer period, said Max Hechter, vice president of the University, Professional and Technical Employees union, one of four unions that helped organize the event.

The proposition would also negatively affect students by limiting the ability of the public education system to prepare students for education at the UC and other universities, Wood said.

"(Proposition 74) hurts teachers' rights and the ability of teachers to invest in the education of their students," she added.

Wood said that the proposition would also discourage students from entering the teaching profession.

The UC recently launched a new program to encourage students to become teachers, a program that Wood said she felt would be adversely affected by Proposition 74.

Proposition 75 would prohibit unions from using union dues collected from members for political causes unless specific written consent is given each year.

The measure, which would require written consent from individual union members before the union could use their dues for political causes, is "the Governor's attempt to silence the dissent that's been so effective against him," Hechter said.

The proposition was motivated by concern that members' dues would be used for causes they did not support.

But this concern is unfounded because most union dues do not go toward political causes, and all union members have the option to opt out of paying dues automatically to the union altogether, Hechter said.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=34565

I had already made my decisions about how I will vote on propositions 73-77, but I was having some difficulty sorting out 78 and 79.

This is useful information. Thank you for posting it.

I intend to vote YES on 75. If my union wants my money, they can ask permission.

This prop isn't about 'protecting your paycheck' or giving you a fair say or any other right-wing Orwellian language/propaganda that is being spouted about this Proposition. This is about making the working class and unions less powerful in our already corporate driven political process. Guess who the main backers of this Prop are? The unions are outspent at least 20 to 1 already by corporations--and they don't have to get their shareholders permission. Think about it (if you really are a union member) do you want less power? Also, there are already opt/in or opt out provisions with every union that allow for this already.