Copyright© 2000 by School Services of California, Inc.
Proposition 35 Good or Bad for Community
Colleges?
Proposition 35-The Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act-has qualified for the November 7, 2000 election. Proposition 35 would permit the State of California and all other governmental entities, including community college and school districts to contract with qualified private entities for architectural and engineering services for all public works improvement. The choice and authority to contract shall extend to all phases of project development including permitting and environmental studies, rights-of-way services, design phase services and construction phase services. The choice and authority shall exist without regard to funding sources whether federal, state, regional, local or private, whether or not the project is programmed by a state, regional or local governmental entity, and whether or not the completed project is a part of any State owned or State operated system or facility.
The initiative is sponsored by the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California and supported by the American Institute for Architects. Proposition 35 is opposed by Californians Opposed to School and Road Delay which is affiliated with the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG).
You may recall, in 1998, PECG sponsored Proposition 224 which would have prohibited state and local governments from contracting with a private company in instances where work by civil service employees (state architects and engineers) was claimed to be less costly. Proposition 224 was defeated.
Public education entities seem to be divided in their support for Proposition 35. According to the California Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), which supports the Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act, the initiative would codify existing law concerning a school district's method for choosing architectural and engineering services, and would not pressure a school district's ability to build schools on its own schedule and would maintain the current authority to select professional services.
In addition to CASH, other proponents of the measure believe that Proposition
35 would help to:
Proposition 35 is opposed by a number of labor organizations and state democratic Senators and Assembly Members. Also, a number of K-12 school districts, are opposed to the initiative. The opponents have characterized Proposition 35 as an attack on school and other public employees. They contend that the measure will result in more state regulations and loss of control for school district, administrators and parents. Rather than speeding-up the construction process, PECG, believes that the initiative will cause further delays in school construction and result in lengthy, contentious litigation. Also, the opponents maintain that Proposition 35 is unnecessary because local jurisdictions already have authority to contract out architectural and engineering design work.
Both CASH and CASBO support "yes" votes on Proposition 35. Both organizations have considerable expertise in this technical area and have studied the issue closely.
Proposition 35 is confusing both because of its technical nature and because of the awkward way in which it is worded. Even careful reading may leave the reader confused as to the real impact and intent of the initiative.
To review the complete text of Proposition 35, plus pro and con arguments,
log on to the Secretary of State'' web-site (Vote2000.ss.ca.gov/voterguide/).
The Legislative Analyst's Office also has an analysis of the initiative,
which you can review by accessing their web-site
(www.lao.ca.gov/initiatives/2000/35).
--Arnold Bray