South City Classroom Teachers Association Campaigns for Prop 30

A state tax measure to fund public education and help balance the state budget gets local support.

South City representatives of the Classroom Teachers Association may knock on your door this fall to talk about two controversial state measures that will appear on November's ballot: Proposition 30 and 32.

"We're geared up and organizing ourselves for campaign work," said SSF CTA president Jan Speller.

Their campaign will be to support Prop 30, which would increase income taxes on individuals who earn over $250,000 annually and families with an annual income higher than $500,000. The tax would last seven years and its revenue would go toward public education and the state general fund.

Prop 30 also includes:

  • Increases sales and use tax by ¼ cent for four years.
  • Allocates temporary tax revenues 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
  • Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent.
  • Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments.

South City's CTA is currently educating its 483 local members on the propositions, and will soon begin phone banking, and closer to Election Day, they will canvas.

Speller said that if Prop 30 fails, budget cuts that the South San Francisco Unified School District has experienced in recent years will only be exacerbated.

"We're in a district that's pretty lean now; there's no fat left," she said.

Prop 30 also addresses the larger state deficit and would direct revenue to the general fund; if voters reject the measure, the state budget would have to be reduced by $6 billion.

The SSFUSD Board of Trustees voted to support Prop 30 at a meeting last week.

SSF CTA opposes Prop 32, which is marketed as "YES on 32, Stop Special Interest Money Now." Speller calls this bill a "union-busting proposition and would deny our ability to do our work as union."

Attached to this article is analysis of Prop 32, prepared by the attorney general, and below are points from the text of the bill, from KCET's coverage here

  • Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates
  • Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them
  • Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics

Prop 32 critics say that its language is misleading, and that although it is marketed as a bill to get money out of politics, critics say it would actually serve the interests of Super PACs.

"There will be an ad war," Speller said. "The people who support Yes on 32 and No on 30 have very deep pockets. We don't have deep pockets, but I think the voters will recognize how important it is to support Prop 30."

A third state proposition that shares similar turf is 38, backed by Pasadena attorney Molly Munger.

Prop 38 would also increase income taxes to fund public education, it but would not single out individuals with higher incomes, as Prop 30 does. Also, funds generated via Prop 38 would not go in part to the state's general fund, as is the case with Prop 30.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A previous version of this story stated in the third paragraph that the SSF CTA supports Prop 32, when the association actually supports 30. Patch apologizes for this error. Also, the sentences in bold in this story were added for clarification.

Tell us in the comments if you support the SSF CTA in campaigning for Prop 30, and if you have decided which of the three propositions discussed here you will support this November.

To stay with this story, get the South City Patch daily newsletter |  Like South City Patch on Facebook | Follow South City Patch on Twitter | Blog for South City Patch

jspeller August 31, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Patch got it WRONG, really wrong: CTA and local teachers in the South San Francisco Classroom Teachers Association are urging voters to VOTE YES ON 30 and NO ON 32. As President of the SSFCTA I'm deeply disappointed that Patch published the egregious factual errors and misquotes contained in this article. #1 SSFCTA's position is NO on 32, not yes! #2 Prop 30 is the funding ballot measure CTA supports - not Prop 32 #3 Ms. Wiles misquoted me: "Now you’re cutting into fundamentally funding parts of a school district." What I stated to Ms. Wiles was that if Prop 30 fails, the subsequent mid-year and ongoing cuts to South City schools would cut into fundamental educational programs and would diminish our ability to provide the high quality education that our students and our community deserve. #4 The entire paragraph about Prop 32 contains misleading misinformation that Ms. Wiles obtained elsewhere, not from me. #5 Prop 32 does NOT ban corporations from contributing to state and local candidates but gives them a bigger edge than they have now. Corporations outspend labor unions 15 to 1 NOW on contributions to campaigns. Prop 32 is about silencing the voice of working people in our democratic society. The stakes are high in this election. Local teachers and teachers statewide urge you to vote Yes on Prop 30 and No on Prop 32. SSF Patch has a responsibility to get their facts straight and inform, not confuse South City voters. Jan Speller President, SSFCTA
Taylor Wiles August 31, 2012 at 04:56 PM
Jan, thank you for your comment. I would like to address your concerns here: -Yes, there was a typo in the third paragraph that said SSF CTA supports 32, not 30. I think the rest of the story made clear that this was a mistake, and we deeply apologize for the error. -Yes, see note above. -Yes, the quote was not intended to refer to cuts to the district’s fundamentals occurring now, but only if Prop 30 fails. I removed the quote to avoid confusion. -The points regarding Prop 32 were not attributed to you, and they are from text of the bill posted at the link added to the story. -Thank you for sharing this information. I added more info to the story for a more nuanced understanding of the issue. Patch does not take a stance on this political issue and tries to be neutral and informative in its reporting. I attached analyses of Props 30, 32, and 38 to this story, which I hope will help voters learn more. Thank you, Jan, for sharing with our readers about the SSF CTA campaign for Yes on 30 and No on 32.
Soquel Creek August 31, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Why is Proposition 30 the WRONG solution for the problems affecting California? QUESTION: Are California's taxes too low compared to the other 49 United States? -------- CHART: California State Income Tax Rates and Proposition 30 Increases Compared to the ***MAXIMUM*** Income Tax Rate in 49 Other States http://www.twitpic.com/a68drw/full CHART: California State Sales Tax Rate and Proposition 30 Increases Compared to the State Sales Tax Rate in 49 Other States http://www.twitpic.com/a68e2d/full CHART: California Gasoline Taxes Compared to Gasoline Taxes in 49 Other States http://www.twitpic.com/apbr64/full VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 30. http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2012/07/california-proposition-30-governor.html
Soquel Creek August 31, 2012 at 06:34 PM
I have no doubt that there will be "devastating cuts" to California public education if Proposition 30 does not pass. This is EXACTLY what Governor Brown and the Legislature intended when they "electioneered" Proposition 30 as part of their sham "balanced" budget. The budget "balances" but only if voters approve Proposition 30 tax hikes. It was the Governor and the Legislature that included "trigger cuts" to public education instead of exercising actual leadership and prioritizing critical spending. In effect, the Governor and the Legislature are using public education and public safety as a "human shield" to extort higher taxes without the much-needed spending and pension reforms. Proposition 30 is bad public policy, horrible tax policy, and an abuse of the democratic initiative process. VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 30. http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2012/07/california-proposition-30-governor.html
carol velez August 31, 2012 at 06:45 PM
Support our schools, teachers and students with a yes vote on Prop 30!
Soquel Creek August 31, 2012 at 09:05 PM
Check out the Legislative Analysts' Office review of Proposition 30. My emphasis is added. The public is being played and schools are used as the "human shield" in this political kabuki. This isn't about schools; it's about how to raise taxes without actual implementing any spending or pension reform. Don't fall for it. LAO's Analysis of Proposition 30 http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2012/120208.aspx "Summary of Fiscal Effect "This measure would have the following major fiscal effects: "Increased state revenues over the next seven fiscal years. Estimates of the revenue increases vary—from $6.8 billion to $9 billion for 2012-13 and from $5.4 billion to $7.6 billion, on average, in the following five fiscal years, with lesser amounts in 2018-19. "These revenues would be available to (1) pay for the state’s school and community college funding requirements, as increased by this measure, and (2) ADDRESS THE STATE’S BUDGETARY PROBLEM BY PAYING FOR OTHER SPENDING COMMITMENTS."


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »