1088

Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute.

Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown impact on school district teacher salary costs as a result of changes in teacher tenure and dismissal practices. Fiscal impacts could vary significantly district by district.

I've only heard a smattering of the arguments against this proposition and they all basically sound like their coming from people who whine professionally.

I see no problem in extending the tenure qualification time for California teachers. This is not to say that I think all the teachers in California aren't worth the powder to blow them to Hell, but two years isn't enough time to truly deem any teacher as 'tenured'. If they're really qualified, then there should be no problem in making them prove it for five years instead of two.

1084

Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. Initiative Statute.

Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees' and organizations' political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees.

For the moment, I am not part of a union of any sort and if I were to become part of one (this is a distinct possibility when I consider that I'll be working for the U.S. Navy as a full-time engineer in the near future) I sure as Hell wouldn't want them throwing the money that I'd pay in *cough* 'dues' towards some political lacky that I wouldn't trust any further than I could throw them.

If the big unions, especially the ones that get their 'dues' from public employees, are gonna go burning their money on political campaigns (take a serious look at the California Teacher's Association in their attempts to get more money from Schwarzenegger for education), then they should ASK their members if it's okay.

1131

School Funding. State Spending. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98), permitting suspension of minimum funding, but terminating repayment requirement, and eliminating authority to reduce funding when state revenues decrease. Excludes above-minimum appropriations from schools' funding base. Limits state spending to prior year total plus revenue growth. Shifts excess revenues from schools/tax relief to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment. Requires Governor to reduce state appropriations, under specified circumstances, including employee compensation, state contracts. Continues prior year appropriations if new state budget delayed. Prohibits state special funds borrowing. Requires payment of local government mandates. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Spending limit could constrain state expenditures over time. Other provisions would have major impacts on state budget decision making, which could lead to varying outcomes regarding the level of state spending and on the composition of that spending among education, transportation, and other state programs. Provisions allowing Governor to reduce appropriations could result in lower state spending in certain years when the state was facing unresolved budget shortfalls.

To be honest, I'm gonna have to look into this one a lot further and read the 'fine print' associated with it before I make up my mind.

1072

Reapportionment. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Amends state Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges’ panel and filed with Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan, process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may order new plan. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal impact: One-time state redistricting costs, probably totaling a few million dollars. Comparable savings for each redistricting effort after 2010 (once every ten years).

I don't know the exact numbers when it comes to state/federal elections of California's representatives, but I do know that the way the districts are laid out makes the notion of 'elections' a joke. The districts are created in such a manner that each district has a distict majority of either Democrats or Republicans and the only way for an incumbant to be thrown out of office is to have them caught on video raping dogs or something just as heinous.

Mix up the districts and make the candidates prove to the people that they're the right person for the job instead of just 'phoning it in'.

1129

Prescription Drugs. Discounts. Initiative Statute.

Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by the Department of Health Services. Enables certain low - and moderate - income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. Imposes $15 application fee, renewable annually. Requires Department's prompt determination of residents' eligibility, based on listed qualifications. Authorizes Department to contract with pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance, and to negotiate rebate agreements with drug manufacturers. Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness. Creates state fund for deposit of rebate payments from drug manufacturers. Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities to implement the new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between the time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug manufacturers would be borne by the state General Fund. Unknown savings on state and county health program costs due to the availability of drug discounts.

NO - not in this form anyway. The one phrase that stands out to me is:

A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund.

Yes, there might be some benefit to low- and middle-income families (myself included), but to pay for this program and the many facets that aren't readily available it's gonna either demand an increase on taxes or a cut in something else that's just as 'needed' here in California.

1106

Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates. Initiative Statute.

Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services. Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset administration costs. At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts. Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent. Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as defined, unlawful. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities for a new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between the time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug makers would be borne by the state General Fund. Unknown costs and savings as a result of provisions linking drug prices for the new drug discount program to Medi-Cal prices, including the potential effect on the state's receipt of supplemental rebates; unknown savings on state and county health program costs due to the availability of drug discounts; and unknown costs and offsetting revenues from the anti-profiteering provisions.

Again, this has got the same types of holes in it as the previous proposition, except this one is counting on 'rebates' from pharmacutical companies. And I hate to say this but dispite the massive campaign ads to make you think that these pharmacutical companies are making these drugs for the betterment of mankind, these companies are out to make money - period.

Yes, they like to help people.....help them buy their latest drug that they've dumped millions of dollars in development. Ever wonder why there are so many commercials on television that tout the latest drug that helps you have better sex? Get rid of acidi indigestion? Give you more natural tears from your eyes? It's because the pharmacutical companies are looking to make up the development cost of their creations.

I go nothing against pharmacutical companies trying to make a profit (although I get a little pissed when I'm shelling out $50 for a perscription each month for certain medications), but they'll be watching these last two propositions like a lion watching a gazelle drinking at the watering hole: TAKE DOWN TIME.

I might be changing my mind on some of these in the future and it'll depend upon what argument(s) both proponents and opponents put forth as the Special Election gets closer and closer.