Yes on Majority Bond Vote

Business leaders from Silicon Valley giants to small Latino-owned firms in Southern California make the best arguments for first-rate public schools. They are hunting far and wide for skilled employees and therefore back Proposition 26, which would make it easier to approve local school bond measures.

The California Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the California Assn. of Realtors and the Latin Business Assn. are among dozens of business organizations that support Proposition 26 on the March 7 ballot. The initiative would allow voters to approve local school bond measures by a majority vote instead of the unreasonably high two-thirds super-majority required since 1879 by the California Constitution. Yes, approval of local bonds to build new schools and make repairs raises property taxes slightly, but that is an investment many voters would willingly make. Even childless homeowners understand the tight link between public school quality and property values.

Gov. Gray Davis, who has made improving public education his top priority, supports this return to majority rule. A school bond measure can currently attract 65.9% of the vote, a landslide in a presidential election, and still fail.

As to the consequences, ask the children of Anaheim, where a 1998 measure polled 55% but failed. Forced to attend school on split shifts, some youngsters start at 7:45 a.m. while others leave as late as 5 p.m. In rural Santa Maria, a small district north of Santa Barbara, a junior high physical education teacher runs her program without a gym, lockers, showers, an office, phone or even a mailbox. In that same district, where a school bond measure won 64.3% of the vote in June, still 151 votes short of passage, a special education teacher does speech therapy in a van. Conditions like these are why the California Teachers Assn. co-sponsored Proposition 26, along with Reed Hastings, CEO of a high-tech firm and a strong supporter of charter schools. If Proposition 26 passes, charter schools--the last best hope for a quality public education in some areas--could also benefit from the proceeds of local bond measures.

School districts need local bond funds because Proposition 1A, the $9.2-billion statewide bond measure approved in 1998, requires districts to put up matching funds. Districts that cannot afford the local match can lose millions in state money, as Compton did when a 1998 school bond measure failed to pass by 88 votes.

Voters who worry that local bond funds will be wasted should throw the incompetents off their local school boards. They also should insist on local citizen oversight panels to add protection to the independent audits required by Proposition 26.

Pete Wilson supported reducing the two-thirds threshold when he was governor. His popular class-size reduction program, which encourages school districts to limit primary grades to 20 students per teacher, is another reason to vote for the proposition. Smaller classes require more classrooms and additional schools.

Vote yes on Proposition 26 on March 7.

*

Proposition 20: School districts need to raise funds locally because they have little discretion in how they can spend most state and federal education dollars. That lack of flexibility causes us to oppose Proposition 20, which would earmark one-half of gains in lottery proceeds for textbooks, even if schools had more pressing local needs. How to spend lottery proceeds should be decided locally, just as approval of a local school bond measure should be decided by a local majority. Reject Proposition 20.