Californians voted en masse to oppose Proposition 92 on Feb.
6, a controversial initiative that would have benefited the state’s community
colleges by increasing funding and lowering fees in an attempt to make them
more accessible.
If passed, Proposition 92 would have implemented a number of
changes to
colleges: gaining independence from state politics, lowering unit fees by $5
and limiting future increases to no more than the cost of living.
The item’s proponents estimated an increase of $300 million
in funding and maintained this could be done without greatly affecting other
educational funding or raising taxes.
The initiative, however, was greatly opposed by
organizations such as the California Taxpayer’s Association, California
Teachers Association and the University of California, which believed the
proposition would “lock up” the state’s general fund and lead to an increase in
fees or reduction in funding for other government services at a time when the
state is already facing a major fiscal deficit.
Proposition 92 was ultimately defeated after receiving only
37 percent of the vote, which its supporters attributed to bad timing.
“Obviously, we’re disappointed,” said Jennifer Wonnacott,
official spokeswoman for the group Yes on Proposition 92.
However, Wonnacott said she finds some consolation in the
knowledge that the issue forced community college issues to the state’s
political forefront.
“The whole campaign has made one thing clear,” she said.
“The story has now been told about the mistreatment and underfunding of
community colleges.”
Dian Hasson, director of higher education for the California
Teachers Association and teacher at
timing was a factor in the result.
Though she opposed the measure, Hasson said the state’s
projected $14.5-billion budget deficit made the item’s timing not “optimal.”
In the announcement last month of his proposed budget for
the 2009 fiscal year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger outlined his plan for drastic
budget cuts to nearly all state-funded departments and programs in an attempt
to combat the declared fiscal emergency.
These cuts include funding reductions for all public
education institutions within the state, encompassing community colleges, the
UC system and the CSU system. The budget suggests a total reduction of $291.7
million for community college general apportionment funds.
Hasson said supporters of the proposition may not have
realized the opposition it would face during such a financially unstable time.
Nonetheless, Hasson said she is optimistic about the future
of higher education in
calling it “a real economic engine for the state.”
“All higher education needs better funding,” she said. “This
is my main criticism of Prop. 92.”
The UC Board of Regents, who openly challenged Proposition
92, expressed similar concerns. UC Office of the President spokesman Ricardo
Vazquez said that increased teamwork is necessary to improve the situation.
“It is important for all higher education to work together
and present one voice to
he said.
Supporters of Proposition 92 said they remain hopeful
despite the vote’s outcome.
Wonnacott reassured her supporters and students who will be
affected by the decision, saying that that its proponents will continue to
fight for “accessibility and affordability” in the state’s higher education.
