With California facing an estimated $14 billion budget deficit, a Feb. 5 ballot measure that would provide more state money to community colleges has even educators pitted against each other.

Opponents of Proposition 92 argue that while the measure guarantees additional funding for community colleges, it offers no way to pay for the increase in spending. This could result in cuts to health care, public safety and education for K-12 and public universities, opponents say.

Supporters argue that funding for community colleges makes up a relatively small portion of the state budget and is an investment in the future of California's economy.

Proposition 92 would lower student fees from $20 to $15 per unit and limit the state's authority to increase fees in future years. California's community college fees have consistently been the lowest in the country.

The measure would also change the minimum funding requirements for K-12 and community colleges by calculating the two independently of each other. The measure would not change the existing requirement that 40 percent of the state General Fund be spent on K-12 and community college education, but would calculate K-12 funding primarily based on student population, and community college funding separately based on the young adult population -- not actual student enrollment.

In the next few years, the young adult population is expected to grow, while K-12 attendance is forecast to decline.

Proposition 92 is expected to increase state spending from 2007-08 through 2009-10 by $300 million per year. It would also result in a $70 million loss of student fee revenues a year.

Teacher vs. teacher

The state's two largest teachers unions are squaring off against each other over the measure. The California Federation of Teachers, the second-largest teachers union in California, claims Proposition 92 would assure access to higher education for all. The California Teachers Association, the state's largest teachers union, claims Proposition 92 is flawed.

The Napa Valley College board of trustees endorses the measure, with NVC President Chris McCarthy citing an estimated $2 million increase to the college's base budget in the next two years if the measure were to pass. "This money would be used to support instruction, partnerships with local businesses, schools and agencies, and improve the learning environment," said McCarthy.

But Napa County Office of Education Superintendent Barbara Nemko said that while she supports the community college system, Californians can't afford to pass Proposition 92.

"I think that the state's budget crisis means that we need to look at the long-term fiscal issues," she said. "Tuition at California's community colleges is proportionally lower, compared to the cost of four-year colleges, than in most other states. While it would be wonderful to be able to lock in tuition at $15 per credit, the money to keep the colleges operating needs to come from somewhere. If we reduce student fees, it will mean more money that needs to go to community colleges from the state's General Fund, which already has a multi-billion dollar deficit, and the projection of even greater deficits in the future."

State Sen. Pat Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, who attended community college, said she is "still neutral" but is "going to have a hard time supporting" Proposition 92. "We have a $14 billion deficit, and in lieu of governor's refusal to sign any taxing, the Legislature is required to make drastic cuts to balance the budget. K-12 will be part of that," she said. "If this initiative passes, K-12 will receive far more than $300 million in cuts next year," she said.

"The other downside," said Wiggins, "is it further restricts the flexibility of the Legislature to balance the budget. Š The bottom line is that we need to be really cautious of ballot box budgeting initiatives. Nearly all have created a budget that is on auto-pilot spending. As a result, a significant portion of the budget deficit is attributed to this."

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, who attended Napa Valley College, agrees the measure would take flexibility away from legislators. "I don't think it makes good fiscal sense," he said, because "our legislators need to make decisions as to how money is budgeted at the state level." Locking funding into the state budget, he said, "hamstrings our elected legislators" and "makes our system of representative government inflexible."

"I am going to vote against that," he said.

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, said that while she shares that frustration with ballot box initiatives, she supports Proposition 92 because she is a "strong supporter of community colleges in general."

"They are the most efficient, most effective and least expensive way we have to provide higher education to the majority of Californians," she said, adding, "Proposition 92 will go a long way towards reinvesting in our community college system."

As for the potential cuts to other programs, said Evans, "that potentially is always true and we are seeing significant cuts already even without Proposition 92."