Whereas the Legislative Analyst Office and Department of Finance have concluded that the net impact of Proposition 9 on state government revenues would be annual reductions in the range of $100 million per year from 1998-99 through 2001-02, meaning that under Proposition 98 the minimum funding guarantee for K-14 education could decline by about one-half of the amount of annual revenue reductions, and
Whereas Proposition 9 could also create a $6 billion hole in the state budget, resulting in significant reductions in funding to local government and other critical services including education and impairing the ability to secure low-cost financing for local education bonds, and
Whereas Proposition 9 would have a devastating effect on those services and programs dependent upon State General Fund revenues, reducing revenues available to public education, and
Whereas Proposition 9 is poorly written, misguided, misleading, flawed, and costly and will only serve to eliminate choice and competition and will negatively affect the funding of public education,
Resolved that the Academic Senate oppose Proposition 9(the 1998 Electric Utility Proposition), and
Resolved that the Academic Senate urge other public education organizations and entities (such as Community College Council/California Federation of Teachers, Association of California Community College Administrators, Community College League of California, Community College Association/California Teachers Association, the California State University, and the University of California) to also oppose Proposition 9.
Proposition 9was defeated.