Measure 1B aims to avert suit, mollify teachers

Published online on Monday, May. 04, 2009

SACRAMENTO -- State leaders devised Proposition 1B both to avoid a court fight and to gain a powerful campaign ally in the California Teachers Association.

After revenues plummeted this year, the state was able to pay schools a lower amount of money under Proposition 98, the constitutional requirement governing state education funding.

California will pay $7.9 billion less than schools would have otherwise received.

Education groups believe the state is required to pay that money back to them in later years under Proposition 98. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in his January budget that he believes the state can avoid repayment under Proposition 98.

With school groups threatening to sue the state for that money, state leaders agreed to pay education a total of $9.3 billion starting in 2011 if voters approve Proposition 1B.

That includes $1.4 billion the state owes schools from 2007-08.

Lawmakers included the mechanism for paying back schools in Proposition 1A, so schools cannot get the $9.3 billion unless both Propositions 1A and 1B pass.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates it could take the state five to six years to repay that total amount.

The money is of crucial importance to schools because it gets factored into future calculations for education funding.

Two unions, the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, support Proposition 1B, though only the CTA supports Proposition 1A.

David Sanchez, president of the California Teachers Association, acknowledged that should either measure fail, CTA will consider legal action to recover the $9.3 billion.

"If that happens, mitigation takes awhile," he said.

At the very least, state leaders gained a campaign ally by including Proposition 1B on the ballot.

So far, CTA has raised more than $7 million to fuel an ad campaign promoting Propositions 1A and 1B.

The California Federation of Teachers recognizes that its no on 1A position defies conventional wisdom, considering that it needs 1A to pass for 1B to take effect.

CFT President Marty Hittleman said his group's stance on 1B is symbolic and that it prefers taking the governor to court.

"We're supporting 1B because we think the public should send a message to the Legislature that they support public education," Hittleman said.

Anti-tax groups are opposed to Proposition 1B, but they are largely focusing their opposition on Proposition 1A.

Lew Uhler of the National Tax Limitation Committee suggested additional tax dollars would be necessary to pay for Proposition 1B over time if it passes.

The measure does not raise taxes, though it could force the Legislature to seek additional revenues in future years.