Daily Archives: January 31, 2006

education

The battle for community college funding.

Strangely enough, it seems a battle is brewing between the Democratic gubenatorial candidates for education.  The interesting part is that it’s not over K-12, but rather, community colleges.  Steve Westly announced a plan to pay for community college degrees in Sacramento yesterday.

Westly outlined a two-part proposal to provide loans to pay for community college degree programs and then forgive the loan debt for students who graduate or complete requirements to transfer to a four-year school.
  “Make community college free for every Californian. But ask for responsibility in return,” Westly said at a luncheon gathering of the association, which represents 460 trustees from 109 community colleges across California.
  Westly predicted that it would cost $100 million to $200 million to make community college degree programs free, depending on student enrollment. … Westly said the cost of making community college free for degree-track students could be borne by meeting budgeting requirements for Proposition 98, the state law that sets funding guarantees for education.(Sac Bee 1/31/06)

Check the flip…

Well, you have to give Westly credit. He appears to be an improving politician.  He saw that the California Teachers Association (CTA) endorsed Angelides last week.  He knows that he cannot win the Democratic primary without at least SOME of the education vote.  So, who else is there to court? Higher education of course!

Now, if Westly is planning on fully funding community colleges under Prop 98, there IS plenty of money for his plan. Angelides only suggests a reduction of about $500 for the two years.  Obviously, the Angelides plan can easily be funded, but Westly’s will take a lot more funding.  For the last several years, community colleges have not getten their fair share of Prop 98 funding, with much of it being diverted to K-12 education.  In order to fully fund community colleges, money may have to be moved of elementary education.  The CTA would certainly not be pleased with that.  That being said, Westly is certainly better than the Governator, who has underfunded education since he has been in office.

But Westly suggested none of that, sticking mainly to the pleasant aspects of his plan. You can’t blame him for that.  I actually quite like the plan, and its incentives toward completion of the degrees (or transfer to a four year institution). Angelides quick reduction in fees would also make a lot of sense as well.  But, with the focus that community colleges, you have to think that the real winners will be the students of California.

Uncategorized

Public Campaign Financing?

(Wanted to bump this up…rather unfortunate. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

UPDATE: It turns out the law was actually a “shell” bill, with no force at all.  If it were passed by Senate, it would do absolutely nothing:

On Monday, the Assembly passed sweeping legislation in a historic vote to
reform campaign finance in California.

Only it didn’t.

Lost amid the media reports and the cheering from advocates was a small
provision, buried in the second-to-last paragraph of the 16-page bill. It
stated that, “The provisions of this act are set forth for display purposes
only and shall not be operative.”

That uncommon provision, inserted on Jan. 24, lowered the threshold for
passage of the bill, which was sponsored by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock,
D-Berkeley, from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority.

It also stripped the bill of the force of law.

If the bill, as passed by the Assembly, were to pass through the Senate
unchanged and be signed by the governor it would do nothing, as it is “for
display purposes only,” according to legislative analysts.

So while it was widely reported that legislation authorizing public
financing of political campaigns cleared the Assembly, the reality was
different: Hancock’s bill would actually have to return to the Assembly
without the “display purposes” provision–and pass with a two-thirds vote–to
go into effect. Those votes are unlikely to come.

Well, that’s unfortunate, but not entirely suprising.  As I said below, it’s an idea not totally ready for prime-time.  But, hopefully we’ll see a real vote on public  campaign financing sooner rather than later.  It’s an opportunity for California to be a national leader.

The original post is on the flip…

The Assembly passed a public campaign finance bill: (SF Chron 1/30/06)

California would consider switching to public financing of political campaigns under a bill approved by the Assembly on Monday. It was the first time assemblymembers have ever passed such a measure.

The bill would provide public money to candidates who voluntarily give up outside contributions — similar to systems in use in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine.

The voluntary system would require candidates to first raise a large number of small donations from within his or her legislative district before qualifying for public financing. The candidate would then have to agree not to spend additional money, including his or her own money. Candidates who don’t accept the limits would be subject to the same fundraising rules as are currently in effect.

San Francisco has a fairly similar plan.  In SF, the Board of Supes can run as publicly financed candidates already and there is a push to do the same with the Mayor. (Capitol Weekly)

With all the recent lobbying scandals, there is a slow shift towards public financing.  While the momentum may not be there yet, especially in a Shwarzenegger administration, it will happen eventually.  Public financing settles the issues of lobbying abuse, puts the people back in charge of the government, and eliminates special access for big donors.  In other words, with the exception of outright bribery, public campaign financing can solve ALL of the major campaign-related ethical issues.

The slow shift has seen matching for small donations in other states and a push for tax deductions for small donations.  While it may not be an idea ready for prime time yet, it will happen.  You watch… 😉