Proposition 80

Utility regulation, specifically electricity. Who doesn't think we need that? Does the name Enron ring a bell?

Currently Californians receive about 70% of their electricity from investor owned utilities (IOUs), like Pacific Gas and Electric, which are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). But the other 30% of our electricity comes from other sources: namely, local publicly owned utility companies (like the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District). They provide about 14% of the electricity used by Californians. The rest is provided by commercial electric service providers (ESPs) with a very small amount (4%) coming from the Dept. of Water Resources, and that is mainly to supply the State Water Project.

IOUs are currently regulated by the PUC. Publicly owned utilities are not. ESPs are only required to register with the PUC; they are not regulated with regard to rates and services. Proposition 80 would change that. Proposition 80 would also change some environmental legislation.

Currently, there is a requirement, known as the Renewables Portfolio Standard, which states that by the year 2017 one-fifth of the total electricity supply must come from renewable sources, such as wind or solar power. This is regardless of whether the electricity comes through an IOU, an ESP or a community choice aggregator (the group that is authorized to negotiate for electricity from providers other than the electric utility currently serving a particular location).

The current law also allows most consumers to pay a standard rate, regardless of the time of day or the season, despite the fact that IOUs pay varying rates that are time and date dependent.

Proposition 80 will change the current law in the following ways:

- The deadline for reaching the requirements of the Renewables Portfolio Standard will be moved up, from 2017 to 2010;
- ESPs will be under the control of the PUC with regards to energy procurement, contracting, resource management, efficiency standards and enforcement of requirements;
- Current IOU customers will be prevented from switching to ESPs (but Prop. 80 will allow current ESP customers to "grandfather" their direct access service).
- Will allow current direct access customers to switch to IOU service, but only under specified conditions. (However, this measure does NOT restrict either current or future service changes initiated by community choice aggregation).
- Puts into law a long-term procurement plan that would include a number of factors the PUC has already incorporated into its planning, but that have not yet become legal requirements;
- Puts into law current PUC practices regarding resource adequacy requirements;
- Deletes an existing provision that allows electricity providers to cease efforts towards increasing their renewable electricity sources once they reach the 20% mark.

Proponents of Prop. 80 say that we can't wait any longer to return to regulation. They point to the Enron debacle and warn that unless we regulate electricity providers, there is no way to prevent a similar situation from developing again. Opponents say that nobody wants another Enron, but we need to stop living in the past and start thinking about the future. Yet they have presented no ideas for avoiding a future Enron-like situation. What's more, their arguments for voting against Prop. 80 are downright nonsensical.

For example, opponents of this proposition say it will "make it extremely difficult to improve the State's standards for generating electricity for renewable sources, which could seriously undermine adoption of wind, solar, and geothermal technologies. Growth of California's green businesses could be placed at risk." Huh?

This proposition actually increases the speed with which renewable sources must reach the standards previously set, and removes the prior cap on potential increases to renewable energy requirements. How can either of those changes to current law be interpreted in any way that supports the belief that they will harm green business growth or make it harder to improve the State's standards with regard to renewable energy? There is no evidence to back up this assertion and the logic is flawed as well.

In an effort to promote the ideology of free enterprise, opponents of Prop. 80 seem to forget that electricity is not a luxury some of us can simply do without. People die when it's too hot and they can't turn on an air conditioner. Food rots when refrigerators are turned off for prolonged periods of time. Free market economics is all well and good for small ticket items and non-essentials, but we saw what it does to utilities. Say it with me one more time: ENRON.

Prop. 80 isn't perfect. It does remove some customer freedoms with regard to changing utility providers. But how can the PUC ensure that utility companies have the resources to meet all their customer's needs if they do not build some stability into the customer base? This is not about taking away freedom, it's about logistics and the realistic need to control customer flow.

Personally, I am very happy to comply with stricter direct access laws if it means having the freedom to turn on the lights when I need to without being price-gouged or having to fear that at a most inopportune moment, I might be subjected to a rolling black-out.

--Laurie

Props. 78 and 79

Propositions 78 (Discounts on Prescription Drugs) and 79 (Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates).

Yes, these two sound a lot alike. But there are specific differences worth noting. Prop. 78, for example, relies on voluntary discounts from drug companies. Prop. 79 makes those discounts a requirement. Those in favor of Prop. 78 say the voluntary discounts work elsewhere so they ought to work here. Opponents say they don’t always work elsewhere and we can't be sure they'll work here. What's more, opponents point out that the drug companies themselves are favoring Prop. 78.

The backing of Prop. 78 by prescription drug companies may be due to the fact that Prop. 79, in addition to requiring drug discounts, will also make it a civil violation to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription drugs. Prop. 78 does not.

There are also differences between the two propositions with regard to who will qualify. In general, Prop. 78 requires a smaller family income to qualify participants and a 50% higher annual fee (though, to be fair, the actual amount is only about $5 more per family). Prop. 78 also excludes from coverage a larger population based on whether or not they have other coverage and/or are state supported.

However, the most troubling (and least discussed) differences between the two have nothing to do with drug companies or prescription drug benefits. If Prop. 78 is approved by the voters, it will circumvent an important protection provided by the State Constitution. Currently, if a proposition contains a provision that conflicts with another proposition, and both measures are approved by the voters, the conflict is resolved in favor of the proposition with the most number of votes. In other words, even if passed, a proposition will not be adopted in its entirety if another measure, with a conflicting provision, receives more votes. When that happens, the provision from the proposition with the most votes takes precedence. All other parts of both passed measures are then implemented, with the conflicting portion of the measure with the least votes having been replaced by the competing provision from the measure with the most votes.

If Prop. 78 passes, however, it has built into it that all its provisions will go into effect and none of the provisions of a competing measure would take effect, provided Prop. 78 receives the higher number of "yes" votes. In other words, it will bypass a portion of our State's Constitution and will require the proposition to be adopted in its entirety--and Proposition 79 to be ignored in its entirety--even if there are no directly conflicting provisions, and even if Proposition 79 passes.

If you read even further in the text of the measure, you'll also find this: "If this measure is approved by voters but superceded by law by any other conflicting ballot measure approved by the voters at the same election, and the conflicting ballot measure is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force of law." What this appears to mean, is that if Prop. 79 were to pass with more votes than Prop. 78 and be implemented, but at some later date (no limits specified) Prop. 79 were to be found "invalid" then Prop. 78 would come out of the shadows and take effect as law, automatically, with no opportunity for discussion or re-assessment of the situation.

Prop. 78 is not just about a prescription drug plan backed by prescription drug companies; it's a law that means to sneak itself into implementation through the back door, should it be turned away at the front.

As for Prop. 79, my biggest concerns are the unknown fiscal costs. While health care and prescription drug benefits are at the top of my list of important causes, I'm not convinced that it's a working plan that California will really benefit from.

What I can tell you is that unlike Proposition 78, Prop. 79 does not attempt to bypass the State Constitution to protect itself, nor does it self-implement, automatically, if a competing measure receives more votes but is later found to be invalid. In other words, Prop. 79 is either coming through the front door, or it's staying home.

Prop. 78, on the other hand, won't go away even if it receives fewer votes than Prop. 79; rather, it will hang out in the alley until its proponents find a way to categorize Prop. 79 as invalid--then it will slide on in, unnoticed. And frankly, that makes me a little nervous.

--Laurie

Proposition 77

Redistricting. Another Constitutional Amendment. This one is being referred to as The Bipartisan Voter Empowerment Solution. It would amend the Constitution so that redistricting plans would be decided by a panel of retired judges. Currently, redistricting plans are included in the legislation and become law after passing the Legislature and receiving the Governor's signature. If the Governor and the Legislature are unable to come to an agreement with regard to redistricting plans, the California Supreme Court oversees the process.

Proponents say Proposition 77 will put the matter back into the hands of the voters. They base this on the fact that Prop. 77, if passed, will require that all redistricting plans be voted on. If the voters reject a redistricting plan, according to Prop. 77, another panel would be appointed to create a new plan. Proponents of Prop. 77 also say that the legislators who are currently responsible for redistricting have too much control over the process. To prove their point, they cite the fact that in November 2004, not a single district switched parties.

Opponents of Proposition 77 say that the process is already in the hands of our elected representatives in the California Legislature. They worry that the panel of judges who will ultimately design future redistricting plans might be prone to the influence of special interests. They are also concerned about the money that will be spent designing and implementing plans that might not pass--not to mention the cost of the elections themselves. And, like me, they are reluctant to amend the state Constitution for something that appears to be motivated by self-interest.

One of the biggest flaws in this proposed initiative is that it allows redistricting plans that have not yet been voted upon, to be implemented. That seems a little backward, doesn't it? If the idea is to put the planning process back into the hands of the voters, but the initiative promising to do that allows plans to be implemented prior to approval, how are voters' gaining control? And what if the plan is implemented and then voted down? There will be costs associated with the failed plan on both ends--neither of which would be the case if plans were not carried out until after they had been approved by voters.

Opponents of Prop. 77 also point out that politicians will be appointing the judges who will design the redistricting plans. Therefore, the suggestion that Prop. 77 takes special interests out of the redistricting process is one many, myself included, find a little hard to believe.

--Laurie

Proposition 76

This State Spending and School Funding Limits Initiative, if passed, would make major changes to the California Constitution. In addition to placing a second limit on state expenditures, this measure grants substantial new powers to the Governor, to make unilateral decisions on state spending, under certain circumstances. Prop. 76 also changes the minimum funding requirements for K-12 schools and community colleges.

Proponents see this as a fiscally responsible law designed to pull California out of debt. Opponents believe this measure gives too much power to the Governor and will lead to cuts in much needed social programs in order to balance the state budget. Some are also concerned because the measure contains no guarantees that budget cuts will not be accompanied by tax increases.

It's a bit of a catch-22. If Prop. 76 passes (with Schwarzenegger as Governor) liberals worry that he will cut social services to meet the new, stiffer, budget requirements. However, if Prop. 76 is in place and a liberal Governor replaces Schwarzenegger, conservatives are concerned that tax increases will be implemented to cover state revenue shortfalls.

The history of this initiative should also be considered. The framers point to California's historic inability to pass balanced budgets, saying "The Legislature is chronically late in passing budgets and seems institutionally incapable of passing balanced budgets." Yet, according to legislative analysts, California has been making progress, despite the shortfalls that occurred in 2001, as a result of the stock market plunge and the subsequent economic downturn. Unfortunately, the same analysts predict another shortfall in 2006-07, hence the desire to create legislation to address the budget deficit.

While few would debate the need to balance the state budget, this initiative is really about how it's done. The two main issues appear to be : 1) Using reductions in minimum funding requirements for schools to achieve a balanced budget, and 2) Allowing unilateral budget decisions to be made by the Governor, without consent of the Legislature, in order to balance the budget.

Personally, I'm disinclined to vote to change the State Constitution, unless it is done to protect individual rights. Granting greater powers to a particular individual does not seem to me to be an appropriate reason for altering the Constitution. What's more, if the framers of this initiative are correct, and the Legislature is "institutionally incapable of passing a balanced budget" then making it a legal requirement to do so will only ensure that the ultimate decision-making power rests with a single person: the Governor. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

--Laurie

Proposition 75

The Public Employees' Right to Approve Use of Union Dues for Political Campaign Purposes Act will require public employees to sign an annual consent form if they wish to allow any portion of union dues or fees collected from their paychecks to be used for political purposes. This sounds very reasonable. The issue, however, is whether or not this reasonable sounding measure is necessary.

I recently listened to a long discussion on this proposition on public radio. It was fascinating because the proponents of the proposition were mostly representatives of large corporate interests, not union members upset about having their contributions used in ways they did not approve of. It was also interesting to hear callers, many of whom were union members, talking about their own unions and how they handle this issue. Apparently, some unions already have a simple form for their members to use to indicate their preferences regarding use of member contributions for campaign purposes. Others seem to be following a completely different set of rules and are not allowed to opt out of making campaign contributions unless they withdraw from the union. Still others say they have no problem with the political contributions made by their leaders because they vote, democratically, for their union representatives. Therefore, in the same way our elected representatives in Congress speak for us, union leaders make fiscal decisions for their members. While they may not always agree with them, they understand that this is how the system works.

The point of all this is that unions are not all alike and are not all operating under the same rules. Therefore, a single law that requires a set system to address this issue doesn't really make logistical sense, from my perspective. In addition, it is interesting to note that corporations, not individuals, seem to be behind this proposition. And, as is the case with both Prop. 73 and Prop. 74, the title of this measure makes it sound both reasonable and necessary, but the text of the measure and the context in which it is to be applied, do not.

What's more, Prop. 75 is being supported based partly on the fact that the employees involved are public employees, paid by the state. But the union is not a public organization. The dues the members pay to fund their respective unions are meant to empower the unions to work for the members as a whole. With big business and government interests often at odds with employee interests, using union dues for political purposes is unavoidable if unions wish to be effective in bargaining on behalf of their membership. Whether the money is sent directly to a particular campaign or used to lobby for the interests of the union, the point of both is to allow employees a collective voice. What corporate interests want, it seems to me, is to curtail the ability of unions to utilize the power of their collective voice. They couch it in terms of individual rights, but what they are attempting to do is actually take a powerful collective voice and convert it into an ineffective group of individuals with no venue for working as a group with shared interests.

Finally, if there are problems with specific unions failing to respect their members wishes, then why didn't those very union members create the measure and put their effort into getting it passed? Proposition 75 was conceived, created and paid for by large corporate interests. That ought to tell you something. --Laurie

Proposition 74

This proposition is known as the Put the Kids First Act. Proposition 74 will change the time a teacher must work prior to receiving tenure. Currently, in California, there is a two-year probationary period. Proposition 74 would change that two years to five, for any teacher whose probationary period began in the 2003-2004 fiscal year, or after. In addition, it would eliminate a teacher's right to an administrative hearing before being terminated, regardless of tenure.

Under Proposition 74, if a permanent employee (tenured teacher, in this case) is found to have two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, that teacher may be removed based upon those evaluations. The terminated teacher may then request an administrative hearing. However, current law requires that a teacher be granted an administrative hearing prior to dismissal. Prop. 74 would change that.

Proponents, mostly conservatives, say this will allow them to lose problem teachers. Opponents say it's payback. They say teachers are being "punished" because they refused to let Governor Schwarzenneger get away with reneging on his campaign promise to put education first. They also say the real problems are lack of needed classroom materials, too few teachers per student, and generally inadequate government support of public education.

So who is right? This one's not easy. Before discussing the right and wrong of it, let's look at the concerns behind the proposed changes. We are told, by the Governor, that we can improve our education system by making it easier to fire teachers and by requiring that they work longer to earn tenure. Currently, there are only two states that require the same five-year probationary period that the Governor is suggesting: Indiana and Missouri. There are also three states that have a one-year probation period: Connecticut, North Dakota and South Carolina. Proponents of Prop. 74 say a longer probation period is necessary to improve the quality of teachers, which will improve the quality of education. If that's true, we should see some correlation between schools with longer probation periods and better overall student performance.

But according to the 2003 statistics on state-by-state performance levels for elementary school students, the three states with a one-year probation period ranked higher than the two states with the five-year probation period. Middle school rankings for 2003 show slightly different results. One of the one-year probation period states (South Carolina) scored below Indiana and Missouri, but the other two states with a one-year probation period (Connecticut and North Dakota) still bested the states requiring a full five-years on the job before offering tenure. Granted, this is not a scientific study. But it does suggest that the length of a teacher's probation period is not linked to student performance.

The second issue being cited by proponents of Prop. 74 is that it will allow for easier removal of problem teachers. Again, let's start with what we have now. Currently, a teacher may be removed from the classroom for exactly the same infractions the new measure, if passed, would include. In other words, the causes for dismissal of a teacher will not be changed by Prop. 74. What will be changed, should Prop. 74 pass, is the number of evaluations a teacher will be subjected to (Prop. 74 would require five evaluations during the same time period that teachers currently undergo two evaluations). This means that in addition to using school funds to conduct additional teacher evaluations, the time between evaluations is shorter. While that may sound like a good idea, it presupposes that more evaluations, closer together, will weed out problem teachers. But is that true?

If a teacher is guilty of immoral conduct, dishonesty, illegal activity or any of the other problem behaviors that could lead to dismissal, would a formal evaluation actually be required to bring the problem to the attention of the appropriate authorities? I think not. Rather, reports from unhappy students and/or parents would likely be the way in which school authorities would discover any infraction sufficient to warrant dismissal. That being the case, it's hard to imagine needing to more than double evaluation exercises in order to find out which teachers are really causing problems.

What's most troubling to me, however, is that Prop. 74 will strip teachers of the one protection mechanism they have for preventing unfair dismissal based upon ideological differences. The current law reads that "immoral or unprofessional conduct" is at the top of the list of items that warrant dismissal. This is not new to Prop. 74. However, the current law has a check and balance feature that prevents one person's morality from infringing on somebody else's: a tenured teacher is entitled to an administrative hearing prior to dismissal. This allows the teacher time to present his/her case and requires that presumably objective third parties are privy to whatever breach of morality the teacher might be accused of. This is extremely important because morality and professionalism are subjective terms. One person's definition may differ quite greatly from another's.

If Prop. 74 passes, however, a teacher may be dismissed simply because he receives two consecutive evaluations claiming that said teacher is not up to the evaluator's personal "moral" standards. The potential for abuse here should be obvious.

Proposition 74 is presented as a measure aimed at taking care of kids, but it's really nothing more than an administrative action that will cost money to implement (how much, no one seems to know) and does nothing tangible to improve the quality of education our children will receive. --Laurie

Proposition 73

We're getting down to the wire--just one week to go before the November 8 special election. There are eight propositions to vote on. They cover a variety of subjects: unions, prescription drug benefits, school administration, abortion law and utility regulation.

If you're on the conservative side, you may see this election as a chance to curtail certain individual freedoms--freedoms that allow others to make choices that go against your own conservative values. Proposition 73, for example, will require pregnant minors to wait longer for abortions and will require that they inform their parents (with certain exceptions) prior to terminating a pregnancy.

Proposition 74 also includes a waiting period--this one is for teachers seeking tenure. Conservatives are backing Prop. 74 because it allows teachers to be fired more easily for poor performance, while also increasing the time they must work prior to achieving tenure. Conservatives see this as an issue of teacher accountability. But liberals tend to view it as a way of scapegoating teachers, while failing to address the real problems with California's educational system, such as budget cuts and poor system administration.

Each of the propositions on this November ballot can be pretty easily categorized as either conservative or liberal. Chances are, if you are a conservative, you'll be voting "yes" on the first six propositions, in keeping with the Governor's recommendations. If you're left of center, however, you'll mark "no" on props. 73-78 and say "yes" to 79 and 80, in keeping with the recommendations of MoveOn.org.

If, however, you're a moderate, and you're not inclined to vote by association, here are some of the specifics to chew on. Let's start with Prop. 73.

Proposition 73:

This measure, cited as the Parents' Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative, is supported by the idea that people have "an interest in and a responsibility for protecting the health and well-being of children, ensuring that parents are properly informed of potential health-related risks to their children, and promoting parent-child communication and parental responsibility."

One can hardly argue with a law meant to promote the health and well-being of children by promoting parent-child communication and parental responsibility. Unfortunately, if we look at the underlying premise for this measure closely, we see some major flaws in it. First, if a 13-year-old girl is pregnant and chooses not to inform her parents, there is already a serious problem in the family unit: birth control and AIDs awareness have not been taught effectively, for starters. Given the importance of educating our children on both topics, the parents of said 13-year-old girl have already failed to be ultimately responsible for their daughter's health and well-being.

Yet Proposition 73 will require that a physician report, in writing, to the parent or guardian of an unemancipated minor before performing an abortion on said minor. It further requires the notice be written in both English and Spanish. In addition, a 48-hour period of "reflection" must be imposed after the written notice is delivered, prior to the actual performance of the abortion.

While the intent of the legislation is clear, one can't expect to promote communication between a parent and child by passing a note from a third party. Granted, under Proposition 73, if the unemancipated minor does not wish to comply with the written notification requirement, she does have the option of filing a petition with the juvenile court. And, to their credit, the drafters of this measure have factored both timeliness and economic concerns into processing such a request. After specifying her reasons for the request to withhold parental notification, the court will waive the petition filing fee. What's more, the court will conduct the hearing by 5 p.m. the day following the filing, and the judgment will be entered within one court day of the submission of the matter. So far so good--but then what?

"If the judge finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the unemancipated minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion, the judge shall authorize a waiver of notice of a parent or guardian." But what if she's not deemed capable of making a "sufficiently mature and well-informed" decision? What do you suppose will happen when the court rules not to allow the abortion without parental notification?

Here's another rarely asked question: if she's not mature enough to have an abortion, how can she possibly be mature enough to have a child? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is that she's not--and she's knows it. That's why she wants the abortion in the first place. If she can't get one from a physician who is a law-abiding citizen, she will find another way to end her pregnancy--one that won't require her to tell her parents about it. I wonder, what kind of back-alley enterprise will she end up resorting to? Let's not confuse our beliefs and our morality with reality. This is a practical issue--not a moral one.

Let's take a look at another scenario. Let's say the judge finds that notice of the parent or guardian is not in the child's best interest. According to Prop. 73, the judge may then also issue a waiver of the notice. But should he find that the reason the notice is not in the girl's best interests is due to "physical, sexual or emotional abuse" then "the court shall ensure that such evidence is brought to the attention of the appropriate county child protective agency."

Again, that sounds okay. But let's take a closer look at what this means. If a child is fearful of her parents and knows that in order to get a waiver for notification the government will refer her to another government agency--one that will investigate her situation--then, in effect, parental notice has not been waived at all. It's simply been diverted so that it will come, later, from another source.

Practically speaking then, the end result of this of legislation will not be to protect young girls--it will be to frighten them into seeking the services of possibly unethical, probably unqualified and most certainly less competent practitioners who are only too eager to take fast cash from a desperate and frightened young woman with nowhere else to turn.

If we want to promote family values and a pro-life agenda, let's set up educational programs for parents and children so that questions about sex, AIDs, pregnancy, etc., can be asked and answered in a supportive environment. If we wait until a child is pregnant and try to legislate such values, we will likely succeed only in adding to her emotional, psychological and possibly physical trauma--and that's not what anybody wants.

Tomorrow: Proposition 74--stay tuned. -- Laurie