Tuesday, June 2, 1998
Propositions
Proposition 219
Proposition 219 requires that statewide and local ballot
measures apply to all parts of the county, despite how the county
voted.
Currently, if a measure is passed, jurisdictions that did not
vote for the measure are still required to pay taxes for it but do
not always benefit from it. Revenues are only returned to
jurisdictions that had a majority vote for the specific measure
being enacted.
The proposition, which began as a Senate constitutional
amendment, is a response to Proposition 172, which stated that tax
revenues would be collected in all counties but used only in the
counties whose voters supported the cause.
There are no official opponents to this measure.
Proposition 220
Proposition 220 requires that all superior and municipal courts
be consolidated with the agreement of a county’s superior and
municipal court judges.
Municipal courts handle cases first. If the decision is
appealed, the case then goes to the superior court. The
consolidation would make the responsibilities of superior and
municipal courts the same.
Both courts would be able to listen to every kind of hearing.
previously, referrals to another court may have been made,
prolonging the court process and increasing the costs of trial
courts.
Net savings, depending on the number of courts that choose to
consolidate, can range from millions to tens of millions of dollars
in the long term.
Proponents: Senator Bill Lockyer, District 10
Opponents: None
Proposition 223
Proposition 223 prohibits school districts from spending more
than 5 percent of funds from all resources on administrative
costs.
Failure to comply would result in fines of up to $175 per
student in the district. It requires that school districts reduce
administrative costs by up to $700 million statewide.
The proposition would require that districts account more
accurately for administrative costs, move operations from central
locations to school sites and reduce administrative spending.
Proponents believe that Proposition 223 will increase community
control by giving the local school boards the funds they need to
improve education.
It will also shift $1.3 million a year back into the classroom
without a tax increase.
According to Yes for Prop. 223, it takes control of wasteful
spending. School districts unable to comply can request a waiver at
anytime.
Opponents believe that because small school districts would be
unable to comply to the 5 percent rule, they would suffer an unfair
loss of money.
They point out that any event which takes place off-campus would
be designated under Prop 223 as administrative. This could include
expenses such as bus repairs, which some districts can not afford
to designate as administrative costs.
They also believe that the proposition is a plan to primarily
benefit large school districts like L.A. Unified, which according
to Parents, Teachers and Educators for Local Control, will not have
a problem complying.
Proponents: Children’s Rights 2000
Opponents: Parents, Teachers and Educators for Local Control
Proposition 224
Proposition 224 requires the implementation of an independent
cost analysis before state-funded design and engineering contracts
are awarded.
The cost analysis would compare the costs between private
contractors and public employees performing the work.
Contractors would be responsible and financially liable for
their contract performance. Before, taxpayers usually have to pay
for expenses resulting from mistakes not accounted for in the
contract.
The bill is ultimately meant to create a defined,
competitive-bidding requirement.
Proponents want Proposition 224 to pass because they feel it
will be the best deal for taxpayers.
They feel that because of the current lack of contractor
responsibility, bridges and buildings are not built as efficiently
or safely as they would be if Proposition 224 is passed.
Opponents claim that the passage of Proposition 224 will result
in bigger state government and higher taxes.
They say that it will "rig the system," by prohibiting cities,
counties and school districts from continuing to make contracts
with private design, engineering and environmental experts.
When seismic retrofitting is performed, opponents of Proposition
224 say that it will be done without the necessary expertise of
independent contractors and will be handled entirely by state
bureaucrats.
Proponents: Taxpayers for Competitive Bidding
Opponent: Taxpayers Against 224
Proposition 226
Proposition 226, otherwise known as "Paycheck Protection for
Working Californians," requires that unions obtain the permission
of their employees before they withhold wages or union dues for
political contributions.
It also prohibits foreign contributions to state and local
candidates. The proposition is meant to give employees more control
over where their wages go.
Supporters of the measure feel that workers and union members
should have more control over where their wages go.
They also claim that the time period that enables workers to
distinguish whether or not they want their money to go to political
causes is too short and not advertised enough.
Opponents argue that the proposition would detract from the
ability of unions and employee organizations to participate in
politics in order to protect pensions, health and safety laws and
health care benefits.
Proponents: California Foundation for Campaign Reform
Opponents: No on 226
Proposition 227
Proposition 227 requires that all public school instruction be
in English, unless parents show certain circumstances.
Included in the proposition is a short-term English-immersion
program for these children. This program would, under normal
circumstances, not exceed one year. If students are not learning as
quickly as they should be, their parents can request a waiver for
their child to stay in the program longer.
During the one-year immersion program, students would be
required to attend all classes in English and have periodic
sessions in which learning English would be the primary focus.
Supporters of this measure believe that if children are immersed
in English at a young age they will master the language sooner and
will be better able to compete for schools and jobs in the long
run.
Opponents feel that the measure is not backed up by concrete
research or premises. Though parents are able to request a waiver
for more English training, opponents feel that most students’
parents, especially those whose English abilities are limited, are
often intimidated by schools and the government. Thus, they would
be unable to properly request the waiver.
Proponents: English for the Children
Opponents: No on 227