Legislators Gather to Discuss Proposition 92
At a joint hearing on December 13th, members of the Senate Education Committee, Assembly Higher Education Committee and the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance came together to discuss Proposition 92, the Community College Governance, Funding Stabilization, and Student Fee Reduction Act . (The Elections Code authorizes the appropriate committees of the Legislature to hold public hearings on a ballot initiative, but precludes the Legislature from altering or preventing the measure from appearing on the ballot.)
In his opening remarks, Senate Education Committee Chair Senator Scott, who himself is a former community college president, clarified that the intent of the hearing was not to take a position or to support or oppose the measure. Rather, the purpose of the hearing was simply to give legislators the opportunity to hear an impartial analysis from the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), as well as to hear the various arguments in favor or opposition from proponents and opponents of the measure.
According to the LAO, reducing the enrollment fee to $15 per unit would result in a loss of $70 million annually to the community colleges. However, the additional revenues resulting from the restructuring of the Proposition 98 funding guarantee make up for this shortfall.
Scott Lay, President and CEO of the Community College League, a chief proponent of the initiative, stated that Proposition 92 corrects a major flaw in Proposition 98 where community college enrollment is increasing faster than K-12’s enrollment, because the current Proposition 98 funding formula is based on K-12 enrollment growth only. There isn’t enough money within the current Prop 98 formula to fund the increasing young adult student population. Without fixing this glitch, Lay argued, community colleges will be forced to cap enrollment again, as occurred in the early 1990’s.
Opponents from a number of organizations, including California State University and California Teachers Association (CTA), expressed concerns with the financing portion of the initiative. The CTA representative argued that the measure would require an additional $1 billion for community colleges, but that the initiative doesn’t specify a source of funding. Since there is no funding source specified for any new revenues generated under this proposal, it was argued that state programs affecting health, transportation, or even higher education could be negatively affected.
One thing that was agreed upon by all participants in the hearing is the important role community colleges play in our higher education system.
The fate of Proposition 92, which, among other things, guarantees community colleges a share of K-14 education funding that grows as the young adult population in the grows, will be decided by voters when they cast their ballots for the February 5th Presidential Primary.
—Deborah Harmon and Dave Heckler