Legislation Sent to Governor to Assist Students Displaced By Hurricane Katrina

California’s institutions of public higher education have stepped forward to assist students enrolled in universities and colleges in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi who are victims of Hurricane Katrina. Education leaders have announced that it is important that students who were enrolled in schools in the Gulf Region are able to continue their education uninterrupted. The Governor has directed California’s community colleges to make sure that students are able to attend classes until the educational facilities in the Gulf Region can be reopened.In order for California community colleges to be of assistance, there needs to be modification to existing law as it pertains to nonresident tuition. Districts currently do not have the authority to waive nonresident tuition for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. However, individuals who were living in the affected states who have retained their California residency would be able to return to California and apply for admission to the community colleges as residents. Thus, during the final days of the 2005 legislative session, AB 1646 was amended to provide community college districts with the authority to waive nonresident tuition for Gulf Region students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

AB 1646 (Committee on Higher Education), as originally introduced, contained technical revisions relating to the operation and organization of the California Community College system and its component districts and campuses. As amended on September 2, 2005, the bill provides the following exemption:

Education Code Section 76140 is amended to read:
(3) (A) A student who, as of August 29, 2005, was enrolled, or admitted with an intention to enroll, in the fall term of the 2005-06 academic year in a regionally accredited institution of higher education in Alabama, Louisiana, or Mississippi, and could not continue his or her attendance at that institution as a direct consequence of damage sustained by that institution as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

(B) The chancellor shall develop guidelines for the implementation of this paragraph. These guidelines shall include standards for appropriate documentation of student eligibility to the extent feasible.

(C) This paragraph shall apply only to the 2005-06 academic year.

AB 1646 is on the Governor�s desk and he is expected to sign it shortly as an urgency measure, becoming effective upon his signature.

Career Technical Education Funds Likely to Be Restored

Readers may recall that SB 794 (Scott, D-Altadena) would have required the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to assist economic and workforce regional development centers and consortia, including middle and junior high schools or high schools, to improve linkages and career technical education pathways between high schools and community colleges. This bill was intended to be a vehicle for allocating the $37.4 million set aside in the 2005-06 State Budget by the Governor.

SB 794 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee because the Assembly Democratic leadership was upset over the Governor�s veto of budget provisions that attempted to link $20 million in funding for Career Technical Education with $20 million for the K-12 English language learner programs.

The Administration made it clear that, if there was attempt to link funding for these programs together again, they would face another veto. Thus, on September 2, 2005, two bills were amended to place these issues before the Governor again for a second time.

SB 70 (Scott, D-Altadena) was amended to provide $20 million (the original amount included in the Governor�s proposed State Budget in January) for the support of career technical education programs. Specifically, this one-time funding is appropriated to the Board of Governors for grants for the following purposes:

 For the Board of Governors to assist economic and workforce regional development centers and consortia to improve career technical education pathways between high schools and community colleges, as follows:

 Expanding certificate programs in identified strategic priority areas

 Aligning existing technical preparation programs and curriculum in high schools and community colleges to more industry-driven programs

 Promoting the California Community College Economic and Workforce Development Program�s integration of business and high school career programs

 Creating new articulated courses between high schools and community colleges

 Accelerating training for those students who choose more expeditious methods

 Exploring more relevant practicum models that integrate coursework and internships

 Improving the quality of career outreach materials

 Disseminating materials and curriculum to all middle and high schools

 For the Chancellor of the community college system to develop an implementation strategy to address the above objectives as part of an annual expenditure plan submitted to the advisory committee for the California Community College Economic and Workforce Development Programs and the Board of Governors

 For the Board of Governors to ensure that elementary and secondary school educators collaborate with college faculty in implementing these provisions

The above requirements would be operative only in fiscal years in which the Legislature appropriates funds for this purpose.

SB 70 is currently on the Governor�s desk. He has until October 9th to sign or veto the legislation. Since funding for the career technical education program was included in the Budget initially, and this bill does not contain provisions that link it to English language learners, the Governor is likely to sign it.

Governor Indicates Potential for Tax Increases if Proposition 76 Fails

On September 2, 2005, in an interview on a Sacramento radio station, Governor Schwarzenegger acknowledged that he would consider raising taxes if his proposal to control state expenditures fails in November. Proposition 76, the California Live Within Our Means (LWOM) measure, would dramatically reduce the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee for schools and authorize the Governor to unilaterally cut state spending when the budget falls out of balance.

In the interview, the Governor indicated that Proposition 76 is a crucial piece of his plan to eliminate the state�s structural budget gap. When asked by Daniel Weintraub, a Sacramento Bee columnist, whether the Governor would be forced into a corner if the voters reject this measure, the Governor responded, �Absolutely. Absolutely. Then we have to look at raising taxes. Because this is the only option we have in order to create the money. This is why I tell people, vote yes on Proposition 76, and make sure that we do everything we can to pass this proposition so that we force our legislators once and for all to live within their means and not to continue spending money and to keep making promises to people that they can’t keep.”

In a Field Poll released on September 5, 2005, Proposition 76 is trailing badly. The poll, which was conduced in late August, found that only 19% of likely voters supported the measure, with 65% opposed. This is a sharp drop from the previous Field Poll conducted in June that saw 35% indicating support and 42% opposed. In the latest poll, the measure is failing among every category of voter�Democrats (5% support) and Republicans (39% support), men (29% support) and women (10% support) , and Southern Californians (17% support) and Northern Californians (22% support).

Special Election Update

In the past two weeks, three polls were released by the widely respected Field Corporation pollster Mark Baldassare. The first, released on September 2, 2005, covered the topics of job performance for both Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, along with respondents� opinions on the special election in general. Nobody fared well. More than 52% of those polled disapproved of the job Governor Schwarzenegger is doing in office, leaving only 36% approving his performance�a marked contrast to a year ago, when 22% disapproved and 65% approved of the Governor�s performance. The number of self-identified conservative respondents who disapproved of the Governor has doubled from 13 to 26%, while Democrats� support has eroded from a 45% to 36% approve/disapprove split to 17% to 73%.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the performance ratings of the Legislature�at 27% approve and 54% disapprove�are nearly the same as previous Field Poll results for 2005. This reflects a long-term decline in approval of the Legislature from the heady days of 2001 and prior; however, it does not reflect voters� perceptions of their own local legislators, who generally fare far better than the institution as a whole.

Most significantly, a notable negative reaction to the Governor�s call for a November special election was recorded, with 57% opposing the special election�increasing to 63% when the cost was mentioned. Similarly, 57% of respondents believed the Governor should cancel the special election, with only 34% wanting the election to proceed. These figures are not significantly different from Field Polls conducted earlier this year.

In a second Field Poll, released on September 5, 2005, respondents were asked their opinion on several propositions, including the three associated with Governor Schwarzenegger�s �Year of Reform.� Proposition 76, the �California Live Within Our Means� Act (LWOM)�the cornerstone of the reform proposals�has reversed dramatically from June 2005 poll numbers, with 65% of respondents saying they would vote �no,� and only 19% supporting the budget reform proposal. In June, only 42% were against Proposition 76, and 35% were in favor of it.

The teacher tenure proposal, Proposition 74, which would extend tenure requirements from two years to five years, is the only initiative to remain with a significant majority�though even that is falling noticeably. Respondents indicated that 46% would still cast a �yes� vote for Proposition 74, with 32% voting �no.� However, in June 2005, this measure was leading by a large margin�61% supporting and 32% opposed.

Proposition 77, the legislative redistricting proposal, fares no better than the other �Year of Reform� measures, and again remains largely unchanged from earlier polls, with 32% supporting the proposition and 46% opposed. Curiously, these numbers are inversely proportionate to the opinion of the Legislature�s job performance.

Proposition 75, which would limit labor unions from using member fees without written approval, is the only proposal Governor Schwarzenegger has not officially endorsed, though it would seem to be in his interest by reducing unions� political power. The percentage of respondents indicating a �yes� vote (55%) and a �no� vote (32%) are not significantly different from earlier polls.

The final Field Poll, released September 6, 2005, showed that a notable majority (56%) of respondents are not inclined to re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor during the 2006 election.

It is anticipated that Governor Schwarzenegger will announce this Friday that he will be seeking re-election just one day before the start of the GOP convention. It is believed that this will bolster his sagging initiatives while quieting supporters who are mostly of the Republican business community persuasion.

Governor Schwarzenegger has been dropping hints for the last several weeks. Yesterday, during a town hall meeting in Fresno, he stated, �I�m going to make an official announcement on Friday, this Friday. I believe very strongly in follow-through. Follow-through is the most important thing. If you start something you�ve got to finish it.�

Staffing Changes

With the next election just around the corner, proponents and opponents alike have begun to shift into high gear. In the last several days, two members of the Administration have taken an unpaid leave of absence to campaign for Team Arnold and promote the Governor�s initiatives. They are Communications Director Rob Stutzman and Chief of Staff Pat Clarey, who will now serve as campaign managers until after the special election. Until that time, Margita Thompson, currently serving as Press Secretary, will pull double duty by replacing Stutzman until his return, and the Governor�s Legal Secretary Peter Siggins will serve as Interim Chief of Staff. These departures are on the heels of the departure of Director of Finance Tom Campbell, who is now spearheading the work on Proposition 76.

Also this week, Southern California Businessman Bill Mundell, who donated generously to aid the qualification of Proposition 77�the redistricting imitative�announced he was forming his own �Yes on 77�-style campaign that would operate separate and apart from the Governor�s California Recovery Team. Apparently, the decision to run an independent campaign was based on the concerns that the proposition would fail if it was tied to the Governor�s reform initiatives. The latest polls have support for Proposition 77, hovering around 46%, a sharp decline from 61% reported in June of this year. Silicon Valley businessman Steve Poizner will spearhead Schwarzenegger�s work on this initiative.

Ask Arnold (Bray): “How Does the STRS Earnings Limitation Work?”

Q. If we hire a former teacher, who is collecting retirement benefits under the State Teachers� Retirement System (STRS), what is the maximum amount he/she can earn in any one year? Is that amount calculated in the calendar year or the fiscal year? What happens if the maximum is exceeded?

A. The current earnings limitation for a STRS retiree is $27,940. This amount is for the fiscal year of July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Each year, this amount is increased by the amount of the increase in the California Consumer Price Index.

When a district reports to STRS any wages for a STRS retiree, the retiree receives a letter from STRS indicating that the wages will be counted toward the limit. Once a retiree exceeds the limit, any earnings over the limit will result in a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the retiree�s monthly retirement allowance.

By the Way . . .

Legislative Committee Rejects Request to Review Bond Sale Process. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) rejected a request from Assembly Member Joe Canciamilla (D-Pittsburg) to have the State Auditor examine the difference in interest and underwriting costs between competitive and negotiated bond sales of school and community college districts. The Assembly Member sought this study following the Legislature�s failure to pass his AB 1482, which would have authorized local education agencies to sell bonds through negotiated sales only if specific conditions were met, otherwise bonds would have to be sold through a competitive process.

At its August 24, 2005, hearing, the committee received testimony pointing out that there are appropriate roles for both competitive and negotiated sales and that the lowest interest costs should not be the sole criterion on which to base bond sale decisions. Ultimately, JLAC concluded that other audit requests warranted more consideration and the Assembly Member�s request was denied. This action followed a similar rejection by the committee at its June 29, 2005, hearing.