t
the telescope Palomar College’s Independent Newspaper Vol. 66, No. 5 • Monday, Oct. 22, 2012 1140 W. Mission Rd, San Marcos, Calif.
ELECTIONS
PROPS APPROACH EDUCATION WITH TAXATION APRIL TESTERMAN THE TELESCOPE
This November, there are two initiatives on the ballot that could potentially affect public schools monetarily over the next four years. Proposition 30 and Proposition 38 both address the issues of budget deficits that public education are facing, but approach them in somewhat similar, yet contrasting ways. And if Prop. 30 doesn’t pass, up to $6 billion in cuts will have to be made on public schools. Prop. 30, a measure introduced by Gov. Jerry Brown, would ultimately increase the state tax by one-fourth of a percent, bumping the tax rate to 7.5 percent. It will also set four new tax brackets for those making at least $250,000 a year. The measure would generate between $6-7 billion a year. The funds are to go to K-12 schools, community colleges, California State Universities, and Universities of California, according to the Official Voter Information Guide. Approximately 11 percent will go to community colleges. For higher education, it is crucial that Prop. 30 TOP: Molly Munger/Courtesy of passes. inlandpolitics.com “When the legislature BOTTOM: Jerry Brown/Courtesy and governor put toof sdrostra.com gether the state budget for 2012-2013, they allocated $6 billion to k-12 schools, community colleges, and public safety, but that was contingent upon voters passing an initiative that calls for more tax revenue,” said Political Science professor Peter Bowman. Proposition 38, on the other hand, proposed by Molly Munger, takes a much different approach on taxation. Prop. 38, if passed, would enact an acrossthe-board income tax increase. Generated funds of about $10 billion annually would go to “schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments,” as stated in the voter guide.
TURN TO PROPS, PAGE 3
WHAT’S INSIDE
3
STUDENT SUCCESS TASK FORCE
STRAIGHTENING THE LONG ROAD TO SUCCESS Photo illustration •Brian Korec/Telescope Editor’s note: The Student Success Task Force recommendations have many facets that even administrators struggle to fully understand the implications of. This is the fourth part in a series that began last semester that aims to make sense of the task force and its impact to Palomar.
IAN HANNER THE TELESCOPE
Schools are bracing themselves for the potential impact of sweeping college reform passed down from the state legislature. Moving forward from roughly a year of hypothetical planning, community colleges across California are now scrambling to implement legislation approved by Governor Jerry Brown on Sept. 27. SB 1456, colloquially referred to as the Student Success Task Force Recommendations (SSTF), has saddled administrators and faculty with greater responsibility, but no additional funds necessary to achieve the mandated changes. Last year, the state formed a task force to study the problems commu-
nity colleges were facing and devise a list of recommended solutions. The resulting list of eight recommendations, 22 subdivisions, sought to fix primarily the problems of students who linger in college without a clear plan for moving forward and schools who do little to mitigate this. “My understanding of the Student Success recommendations is that they’re part of the move for accountability that’s coming down from the state,” said Haydn Davis, the chairman of behavioral sciences and psychology professor at Palomar. “As the budgets shrink the state is asking for more documentation and more accountability to validate that, basically, we’re doing a good job. They cover a lot of different things, but essentially they’re all geared to documenting, verifying and validating that students are succeeding.” Davis is a member of the Faculty Senate at Palomar, a body of faculty members who look into matters affecting the school as part of a shared governance plan. With the passage of SB 1456, the Senate appointed Davis as a liaison to other departments at Palomar to figure out how the SSTF
recommendations will need to be implemented. Davis says he believes ultimately the introduction of this legislation is a good thing because it helps place students in environments where they won’t feel overwhelmed, but added that the recommendations do not comes without drawbacks. “We used to have a whole area of courses we offered called lifelong learning,” Davis said. “These were all sorts of things that didn’t necessarily have an academic or vocational emphasis, but they were valuable for members of the community. A lot of it was in the arts, a lot of it was in specialty classes that we’re not offering here anymore, whether it’s special philosophy or psychology courses; kind of a niche class. Those things have all pretty much gone away.” Davis said the reason for the state no longer allowing students to dwell in school is a belief that perpetual students are a drain on state resources. This is one of the major concerns that the drafters of SSTF sought to address.
TURN TO SSTF, PAGE 3
INITIATIVES
Debate heating up over Prop. 32 DANIELLE TAYLOR THE TELESCOPE
With the 2012 election nearing, the debate is heating up over Proposition 32. Prop. 32 was put on the ballot by petition signatures and prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes, according to the California Election Guide. The expected fiscal impact is an increase to state and local government, potentially exceeding $1 million yearly for enforcement. “One of the best ways to do research on the propositions that students often forget is to read the actual proposition in the election guide book.” said Teresa Laughlin, professor of political sciences at Palomar. “For example, on
RAPE DEFENSE CLASS OFFERED NEWS / The hands-on defense class is free of charge and open to the public.
5
Prop. 32, the League of Women Voters, which is a pretty middle of the road organization, is against Prop. 32.” One of the main financial contributors to the support of Prop. 32 is businessman and lawyer Charles Munger. According to a public contribution record filed with the Secretary of State’s office, Munger has contributed nearly $10 million to the Small Business Action Committee PAC, No on 30/Yes on 32 campaigns. The largest financial contributor against Prop. 32 is the California Teachers Association donating almost $19 million to the campaign. According to the website, most of the money contributed comes from membership dues. “I look at an election like a debate.
CELEBRATING HALLOWEEN LIFE / Students plan to wear costumes and go to parties even though Halloween is on a school night.
8
You have one group of people saying one thing, and another group of people saying another thing, and you do your own research and you come up with your own vote,” Laughlin said. “And what they are trying to do with this proposition is to silence one side of the debate.” A yes on 32 would mean that unions and corporations could not use money deducted from payroll for political purposes. Currently, Super PACs and other exempt businesses have no restrictions on political spending, but this proposition would not apply to them. Instead, it would apply to unions and other corporations that are not exempt from these laws.
TURN TO PROP. 32, PAGE 2
FOOTBALL DOMINATION SPORTS / Runningback Chad Dobbins leads Comets in running game with 672 yards.