Public employee union dues. Restrictions on political contributions. Employee consent requirement. Initiative statute.

Possibly the most frequently campaigned for or against proposition in the upcoming election, Proposition 75 would require union representing government employees to procure written approval from all bargaining unit members on whether or not the employee’s union dues may go towards political support. The dream proposal for any boss, this is proposal by a Republican governor to repress the ability of unionized employees working for him to oppose him. All of this is done under the guise of protecting the rights of employees.

Already, unions may not use the fees paid by non-members for political purposes. Those fees, obtained in “agency shops,” must only go towards the costs the union pays in negotiating and representing the employees. However, this proposal goes further, limiting unions representing public employees from funding political causes from funds provided by full members, unless the member allows his or her contributions to go towards the lobbying.

Unions tend to shoot themselves in the foot on this one. Because of political alliances, unions often endorse proposals and candidates with limited or no relevance to workplace issues. For example, many unions have endorsed a no vote on Proposition 73, seemingly to appease allies in the Democratic Party. This certainly erodes support from members, who see part of their paychecks going towards causes they individually disagree with.

However, the root of this proposal is not to “protect the paychecks” of public employees. This is a proposal to lessen opposition to a certain governor’s proposals. It will limit unions’ abilities to fight for increasing compensation and employee rights.

Union political participation is one of the only ways the common Californian joins in governance other than voting. Most people do not contribute to political causes other than in their union dues. The union takes members dues with the intention of giving the underrepresented laborer representation in the halls of government. The Valley knows the labor movement well, as the late Cesar Chavez organized workers in agriculture throughout the state. It is this devotion to assisting the underpaid, overworked Californians that drives labor lobbyists.

However, Governor Schwarzenegger believes union lobbyists for teachers, law enforcement, and fire crews have overrun the state government. Proposition 75 is merely an attempt to weaken the voice of Californians he is not likely to appease. The governor has made no secret of his pro-industry focus. If he can lessen the opposition to his proposals by denying the labor movement a reliable financial source for lobbying tactics, he will more easily promote his agenda to state officials and the general public.

Although the money going towards unions for political action will decrease, Schwarzenegger has demonstrated no problem with raising higher and higher amounts of political contributions from rich donors. A democracy is strong when the people in it have equal access and are able to affect government. Unions, even with their faults, give regular people access to officials usually only given to big contributors. They give workers the ability to fight initiatives that will hurt labor, and they give workers the power to effectively change laws to raise wages and improve safety conditions. As this proposal limits the ability of certain groups to participate in governance, ValleyVue supports a NO on 75.

Public school teachers. Waiting period for permanent status. Dismissal. Initiative statute.

This initiative is one of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Big 4 Reforms.” Make no mistake; this “reform” is simply an attack by the governor against a group he believes to be a major political enemy—the public school teachers in the state of California. Sadly, it is because of his unwavering support for measures such as Prop 74 that have caused a riff between him and teachers. VOTE NO on 74.

Consider the vast majority of jobs in the state of California. Many have probation periods for workers. These periods are an introductory phase in which the employee is tested to see if they can master the job within an allotted timeframe, in order to continue employment at the place of business. This often ranges somewhere between 3 months to a couple years. For current public school teachers in the state of California, the “probation” period is two years. This period of time is more than long enough to gauge a new teacher’s effectiveness in his or her job. The proposed increase of a teacher’s probation period from 2 to 5 years is unnecessary.

California, especially in certain areas of the Valley, continues to face a shortage of new public school teachers. Increasing the probationary periods for teachers is not going to help matters. In recent years, the state has tried to recruit people to the profession by offering college aid, support programs, and some salary increases. The state still faces a future of insufficient numbers of teachers. While trying to balance schools’ needs for a certain quantity of teachers with the increased focus on the quality of education, the state has trouble finding a way to increase test scores.

Governor Schwarzenegger is going about solving the problem the wrong way. He must realize teachers are essential to the success of education in California. They need his support, not his attacks. Ask any teacher about the solution to increase educational quality in California, and you will get an answer. It is an answer the Governor is not ready to face. Test scores are valuable tools, but they are generally not the best reflection of the teachers working in schools with low marks. Schools in rich districts and low crime areas can attract and pay teachers who are experienced and well qualified. Inner city schools or school districts in repressed economic areas like the Valley communities from Bakersfield to Stockton most often take teachers with ties to the area, paying them at significantly lower rates. These teachers are as committed to the profession as their counterparts in more economically advantaged districts, but it is plainly obvious they do not receive the same resources.

Another thing to consider is the reality of California students. The Valley itself is extremely transitory, with students often being transferred to different schools during a single school year. This is especially evident in Valley towns with agricultural based economies. Farm families often move several times a year as various harvesting seasons begin. Also, the Valley has also become a major immigration destination for families from a number of countries. As the diversity of the Valley increases, so must the ability of schools to assist students in learning English from whichever country their family originated. When test scores are low at these schools, state officials must not seek to blame teachers working there. Instead, they must give extra resources to the schools to support the educators in providing valuable instruction for all students.

Teachers already can be fired. When a teacher is not performing to a level expected, they can lose their job. Proposition 74 only makes it easier for school administrators to fire valuable employees for a longer period of time. It also allows tenured teachers to be fired without the right to challenge their dismissal, the right of due process that is afforded to millions of other Americans in their private or public sector jobs. This proposal is the Governor’s attempt to punish a group of political opponents. In fact, the California Legislative Analyst for the election stated lower costs would only occur in districts where teachers were fired before the five-year probation is up and where a number of permanent, tenured teachers are let go. This would set up a district with high turnover and poor teacher experience in order to keep costs down. How in the world would that positively benefit the students? Again, VOTE NO on 74.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Over the next couple of weeks, ValleyVue will endeavor to provide readers with a guide to the upcoming special election in California. As mentioned in a previous article, the proposition overviews will be focused on the Valley’s interests in as much as possible. However, the reader must realize these reviews will reflect the writer’s biased opinions. This is a commentary magazine, after all. Whether you agree or disagree with ValleyVue’s assessments, the most important thing you can do on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 is to vote in the direction you would like California to go. If anything, this blog is meant to encourage its readership to local, regional, state, and national participatory democracy. --Editor-in-Chief Dan Borlik 10/26/05
_____________________________________________________________________
Focus: Proposition 73

Waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy. Initiative constitutional amendment.

This initiative has been proposed to ensure physicians inform a child’s parents 48 hours before they may perform an abortion procedure on their child. As usual, an abortion issue brings out the same alliances as always. As is their respective parties traditional strategies, Democrats are generally against, and Republicans are generally for. Looking more at the political organizations appealing to the conscience of voters, women’s groups and Planned Parenthood have come out against the measure, while church groups most often support it.

It would be simple to suggest to voters to simply follow their own convictions and feelings on abortion as to whether or not you should support it. However, Proposition 73 is only about abortion on the surface. The key to this proposal is the right of parents to know the medical services being provided to their children. In schools right now, it is required to let parents know of any injury or illness the child incurs, as well as what treatment is received. This is sound policy, for parents are the guardians of their children in every sense of the word guardian. Why should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental knowledge?

Of course the obvious retort is that some children must have the procedure quickly to avoid a potential health problem. The proposed law states that in cases of medical emergency, the notification can be waived. On the flip side, the potential medical benefits resulting as a side effect of this law would be numerous. It would hold abortion providers more accountable by a child’s parents, and indeed allow parents to ensure a safe place for the child to receive services. The parent would have the chance to support their child with alternatives and guidance. By beginning a legal procedure of notification, it is likely abusive family situations might come to light. It would also result in the increase of the prosecution of adults who have unlawful relations with minors.

Opponents of Proposition 73 suggest minors will be placed in danger by not being able to have abortion procedures secretly. There case has not been made, especially in comparison to the potential benefits of parental notification. Minors are a special legal category because the law recognizes they are still developing into adulthood. As such, they must be protected from having to make the very adult decision about whether or not to have an abortion on their own. Not only can an abortion result in physical damage, the emotional scars of abortion can haunt someone, necessitating psychological assistance. This most certainly will be amplified in a child, who also must deal with the sociological impact of becoming pregnant as a teenager. For the great majority of children, parents must and should be counted to provide the greatest amount of love and support for their child. VOTE YES on 73.

It is supposed to usher in new life for downtown Sacramento. A Sacramento skyscraper condominium/hotel project would bring two towers, 53 stories high at the northwest end of Capitol Mall. “The Towers on Capitol Mall” were advertised to potential investors and condo owners that it would be the “epitome of class, where urban chic meets the ultimate in elegance.”

There are some rumblings from city hall in Sacramento that this project may not get going at all. A source in the mayor’s office has let ValleyVue know there is serious question as to how viable the project is, going so far as to say it may not happen at all, comparing it to the city’s failure to plan for a new basketball arena. This would be a serious failure for Mayor Heather Fargo, whose main focus during her years of office has been to spur development downtown.

The two towers would be built separately, the second being constructed after successful completion of the first. The project has captured the imagination of many Sacramento residents, who see it as a cornerstone to many projects being proposed downtown. The 53 residential stories the towers would make them the tallest buildings on the Sacramento skyline. Some people have complained about losing views from other buildings. Also, people have worried the height of the project would overwhelm the Capitol building. To this end, there has been talk about widening the building height restriction limits already set by Sacramento planners.

However, most of the talk has been positive. Since many experts agree that a way to “turn around” a blighted downtown is to add more people of varying economic classes, many people see the Towers as a spark for needed downtown residential development. Others liked the addition of a 4 star hotel in the area between the Capitol, the Convention Center, Old Sacramento, and Raley Field baseball stadium. Indeed, as soon as the project started moving forward, Sacramento saw several other high-rise projects proposed, including a business building with a replica of the Parthenon as its crown that would go nearby on the Mall.

Hopefully this project will be able to move forward. For some reason or another, in her latest term of office, Mayor Fargo seems to be hitting various snags. From the collapse of talks with the Sacramento Kings on a new arena to the continuing difficulty in jumpstarting the development of the downtown rail yards, the city seemingly cannot push major projects through to fruition. The Towers project, although very large in symbolic significance, is not a huge chunk of land, nor is it necessary for taxes to rise to pay for it. Most reports have said that pre-construction commitments to buy condos have been solid. It should be a good test to see if the Fargo administration can keep this promising project going.

"Sacramento is screwed up" says an oft running political ad in advance of November 8th's special election in California. The advertisement backs Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger propositions 74, 75, and 77. Proposition 74 increases the time needed for teachers to receive tenure in public schools. Proposition 75 makes it necessary for unions with members in government agencies, schools, and departments to ask members if money may go towards political purposes. The third proposition, 77, would allow for the appointment of a panel of retired judges to draw the district boundaries for state offices.

Obviously, there are many Sacramento residents and officials who are concerned that this ad and other comments by politicians that downgrade or insult Sacramento will create a bad impression of the city. Schwarzenegger's office has maintained the governor's campaign promise to "clean up Sacramento" is meant for the bureaucracy of the capitol. Nonetheless, when politicians make such statements, they must consider the nearly two million residents who live and work in the Sacramento metropolitan area.

It is highly likely the writers and politicians who create these statements of scorn are based in the Bay or in Southern California. It seems a strategic goal for those who are trying to gain support from voters throughout the state to try not to alienate a significant area of the state. Sadly, in the same way that pundits refer to Washington when talking about the national capital, Sacramento will remain a political abstract to many in L.A. and San Diego who will likely never visit. Bay Area politicians sometimes speak down on Sacramento because it is a separate region, often looked at as a less cultured cousin. It doesn't discourage Democratic Bay politicians from attacking Sacramento when they consider the more Republican tilt in the Valley.

While this analysis completely ignores the political context of this advertisement, it is appropriate for ValleyVue to focus on the Sacramento slam. If someone were to say "L.A. is screwed up," there would be some sense to that. Ditto for San Francisco. Sacramento is a little more under control, more fair-minded. Over the next few weeks, the upcoming election's proposals will be discussed on this blog, keeping in mind the issues facing the Valley. At least at ValleyVue, we are committed to seeing our cities upgraded rather than insulted.