School year shrinking as budget crisis grows
Louis Freedberg, California Watch
Monday, July 19, 2010
Rich Pedroncelli / AP
State schools chief Jack O'Connell says reducing the school year "is a major setback" for students.
Just as education experts are encouraging more classroom time to improve student grades and test scores, many California districts are moving in the opposite direction by shortening their school year amid a sustained and draining budget crisis.
Sixteen of the state's 30 largest school districts, including San Francisco, San Jose and Fremont in the Bay Area, are reducing the number of days in the academic year, according to a survey by California Watch. The changes are expected to affect about 1.4 million students.
Educators say a shrinking school year, along with other cuts, could depress hard-won academic gains in recent years. It is a dramatic illustration, they say, of how the state's budget crisis is eroding the core of public education in California.
The move comes amid cutbacks in other aspects of public education, including rolling back or eliminating the state's program intended to limit class sizes in the early grades to 20 students.
"This is a major setback," said Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell. "We're reducing opportunities for our students, which puts California students at a competitive disadvantage relative to other states."
A little more than a decade ago, California increased the number of instructional days to 180, catching up with most other states. Two years ago, as the state's economy deteriorated, the state gave districts permission to reduce the calendar to 175 days, but few exercised the option.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/19/MNQ01EFBET.DTL&feed=rss.news_pageone#ixzz0u9Z9vzjw

Pension Reform: Can Arnold Lift SB 400?

Written by Ed Mendel, Calpensions.com
July 19, 2010
More stories are at http://calpensions.com

A 17-page CalPERS sales brochure told legislators a decade ago that a major increase in state worker pension benefits would not increase state costs, but annual state payments to the pension fund have soared from $159 million to $3.9 billion since then.
The professionally designed pamphlet apparently helped build a persuasive case in 1999 for SB 400, which sailed through the Senate on a 39-to-0 vote and passed the Assembly 70-to-7.
But now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to roll back pensions for new state hires to pre-SB 400 levels. The governor with only a half year left in office has said he won't sign a new state budget without pension reform.
"The single biggest threat to the fiscal health and to California's future obviously is our public pension system and the crisis that we have," Schwarzenegger said in April as he endorsed a Republican-backed reform bill rejected by the Democratic majority.
The e-mail version of a news release for the governor's round table pension discussion last week has an Internet link to the CalPERS brochure. The governor's pension advisor, David Crane, quoted from the brochure at a legislative hearing in May.
The brochure contains several unequivocal statements that replacing a pension cut enacted in 1991 with major pension increases (some up to 50 percent), while also boosting payments to current retirees, would not increase state costs.
"NO INCREASE OVER CURRENT EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IS NEEDED FOR THESE BENEFIT IMPROVEMENTS," says a line written in capital letters describing the impact on taxpayers.
"This is a special opportunity to restore equity among CalPERS members without it costing a dime of additional taxpayer money," says a quote attributed to "Dr. William D. Crist, President, CalPERS board, June 16, 1999."


Crane told the hearing the brochure failed to say the state would have to pay for investment shortfalls, the stock market would have to boom, CalPERS employees would get bigger pensions, and CalPERS board members get campaign money from beneficiaries. http://publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governments-publicceo-exclusive/1712-pension-reform-can-arnold-lift-sb-40

Schwarzenegger's minimum-wage fight enrages state workers
By Kevin Yamamura and Jon Ortiz
kyamamura@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Jul. 18, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Five years ago, the state correctional officers' union paraded a mobile billboard around the Capitol bearing an unflattering picture of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his bathing suit.
That demonstration seems mild compared to the frustration state employees feel this year toward the Republican governor. Schwarzenegger has incurred the wrath of rank-and-file employees through efforts to reduce pay and benefits, particularly his latest push to impose minimum wage.

Schwarzenegger was heckled by fairgoers when he toured the State Fair this week. His office has received a flood of e-mails critical of his actions toward state workers, some so colorful they were reviewed by the California Highway Patrol. Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/18/2897615/schwarzeneggers-minimum-wage-fight.html#ixzz0u3WYIxiR

Nurses Union Needs to Pay Attention to Patients Instead of Politics
Written by CA Political News on July 17, 2010, 10:33 AM
Those who can't, organize

CalWatchdog, 7/17/10

When did nurses, teachers, cops and firefighters become card-carrying union brotherhood and sisterhood thugs? Service jobs used to be defined as jobs where caring for others was the priority; teaching children, providing health and medical care, and protecting society from bad guys and catastrophic events, was job-one.

But with the advent of political power from within the unions, service jobs seem to have taken a back seat to union activities for many in these professions. Job-one became Union YES!

Thursday of this week, looking more like a CodePink gathering than nursing professionals, a rally took place by nurses at the home of gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman in Atherton, CA. More than 1,100 well-organized nurses arrived in buses carrying signs and banners stating, Nurses wont be pushed around.

CBS5 reported several nurses claiming, Our pensions, our union rights, were threatened, and We need to stand up and fight this person. Protesting nurses yelled and chanted, Were going to beat back the Whitman attack. The union hired a plane to fly over Whitmans house with a banner that read, Nurses say no to Whitman.

Sarah Pompei, the spokeswoman for the Whitman campaign said that Whitman has requested many meetings with the nurses. Pompei provided six letters written to the nurses asking for opportunities to meet and explain Whitmans positions on issues pertaining to nursing and health care. Whitman has also asked for the mailing list of the nurses union membership in order to send a letter to members, but the request was denied.

In a statement, Pompei said of the rally, The radical leadership of the California Nurses Association has decided to spend untold thousands of dollars from members dues on a stunt. Have they surveyed their membership to ask whether they agree with the expenditure? How many nurses are being forced to use sick days to attend this political theater? in a statement?

In an attempt to quell the myths surrounding her positions on health care, Whitmans campaign created a website called TRUTH FOR NURSES to reach out to nurse members, and explain Whitmans positions on nursing and health care, as well as the explosive issue of nursing ratios. The site also provides reports on how the California Nurses Association spends the dues money of member nurses.
http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/5708

Biggest Threat on November Ballot
By Loren Kaye
President of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education
Thu, July 8th, 2010
An initiative sponsored by government worker unions has qualified for the November ballot - and it may well be the most threatening issue facing businesses and taxpayers in 2010.
So what does it do? According to sponsors, Proposition 25, the "On Time Budget Act," merely reduces the legislative vote requirement to pass the state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority, and stops paying legislators if the budget is late.
But when you think about it, why would the California Federation of Teachers, California Faculty Association, California School Employees Association, California Professional Firefighters, Professional Engineers in California Government, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and California Nurses Association invest millions of dollars in a measure simply to reduce the vote on the state budget? What else does it do that its sponsors are not talking about?
A more accurate title would be the Majority Vote for Everything and Bye-Bye Referendum Act.
First, the measure eliminates - yes, eliminates - the ability to subject certain bills to voter referendum. That is, bills "providing for appropriations related to the budget bill" may be approved by a majority vote of the Legislature, and take effect immediately without voter recourse to using the referendum process (see new paragraph (e)(1) in Section 12 of the measure).
Second, the measure effectively repeals the protection of the legislative two-thirds vote requirement for certain bills that increase taxes, enact general obligation bonds, and allow the Legislature to increase its living expenses, among others. That is, bills that likewise provide "for appropriations related to the budget bill" that would otherwise require a two-thirds vote to take effect would no longer be subject to that vote threshold (see the first clause of new paragraph (e)(1) in Section 12 of the measure).
Imagine the implications of this measure.
http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/loren-kaye/7280-biggest-threat-november-ballot

Governor leans on Willie Brown to pressure for pension change

At a Capitol meeting with the press Thursday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger relied on the support of a Democratic icon - former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown - to bolster a new demand that a specific change in state worker pensions be made before he signs off on a budget.
At a minimum, the governor said, he wants legislators to roll back current pension terms to those that existed before 1999 legislation created more generous rules.
"All I'm asking is for them to reform and roll it back and we will be home free," and saving billions that would otherwise go to finance retirement for public employees, Schwarzenegger said.
He argued that because of the budget deficit, social programs are being sacrificed to meet pension obligations that should be changed for new state workers.
Then he introduced "my friend" Willie Brown, the San Francisco Democrat who led the Assembly for years. Brown backs pension changes but was not specific about what he thinks legislators should do.
"I'm sure glad you said 1999 because I had departed" the Legislature by then, Brown told the governor with a chuckle. "It's one of the few things I can't be blamed on."
Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/07/governor-leans-on-willie-brown.html#ixzz0t8Q2s93t

 

Most Americans Not Willing To Pay Higher Taxes For Public Employees, Entitlement Programs
Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Most Americans would not pay higher taxes for specific public services in their states, but they are more supportive of paying for education and staffing law enforcement than supporting state employees and entitlement programs.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Adults shows that only 19% would be willing to pay higher taxes to avoid layoffs of state employees. Sixty-nine percent (69%) say they would not be willing to pay more in taxes for this reason. Another 11% are undecided.

Adults feel similarly when it comes to funding entitlement programs. Twenty-two percent (22%) would pay higher taxes to prevent cuts in entitlement programs for low-income Americans. Sixty-three percent (63%) say they would not pay more to keep these programs afloat. Another 15% are undecided.
Americans are slightly less opposed to paying higher taxes for education. Thirty-four percent (34%) say they are willing to pay higher taxes to provide funding for public education, but 54% say they are not. Another 12% aren’t sure.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) say they are willing to pay higher taxes to increase the number of police and firemen in their communities. Still, 52% say they would not be willing to do so. Another 10% are not sure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/july_2010/most_americans_not_willing_to_pay_higher_taxes_for_public_employees_entitlement_programs

Why union-households don't loathe Whitman as much you'd think they would...

Among the many nuggets in Wednesday's just-emancipated Field Poll on the CA guv race is this one: In California households where a union member lives, Jerry Brown leads Meg Whitman by 47 percent to 41 percent.
OK, so a lead's a lead -- and Jerry's got waaaaay bigger problems in this poll, as our story notes. But when you think about all the union-backed independent expenditures that have been pounding Meg-a-millions -- not the least of which is the California Nurses Association -- you'd think that would be more of a yawning gap, no?
"Not necessarily," Henry Brady, dean of UC-Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy, told us. "The rank-and-file union membership is not as liberal as its leadership."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=67296#ixzz0t0rei9Cc

Zero-interest loans to help state workers

Banks and credit unions will offer zero-interest loans and other assistance to the 200,000 California government employees who may see their pay reduced to the minimum wage as a result of the state's budget stalemate.
The Golden 1 Credit Union, a lender that caters to state workers, will offer zero-interest loans to customers whose pay falls because of the stalled spending plan, according to a statement Friday. About 1,100 legislative aides and gubernatorial appointees whose pay was stopped on Thursday already have access to so-called budget-impasse loans, said Donna A. Bland, the company's chief financial officer.
"We're trying to show our support for our state-employee members," Bland said in a telephone interview. Golden 1, based in Sacramento, describes itself as the sixth-largest credit union in the nation with about $7 billion in assets.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/07/BUJ21E9VT7.DTL&feed=rss.business#ixzz0t0s0hOVc