The California State University board of trustees voted Wednesday to stand for controversial propositions that will appear on the May 19 primary election ballot.
The board of trustees discussed Propositions 1A through 1F at Wednesday’s meeting at the Office of the Chancellor in downtown Long Beach.
(Click here for summaries of Propositions 1A through 1F, written by The Associated Press.)
According to the board, 1A through 1E will all have a significant impact on the state budget, which will in turn affect the CSU.
Trustee William Hauck wanted to motion that the trustees stand for 1A through 1E, but to not take a stand for or against 1F, which would prevent salary increases for elected officials.
“I don’t think it’s relevant to these purposes,” Hauck said of the proposition’s relation to the motion.
Hauck said that, due to the circumstances of the recession and the state budget, the trustees needed to take a stand for the propositions to help the future of the CSU.
Hauck said that he supported Proposition 1A, the Budget Stabilization Act, which would modify the state’s “Rainy Day” fund. The goal of the measure is to increase the total of general fund monies in the “Rainy Day” fund from 5 percent to 12.5 percent through various avenues, including extending increased taxes on Californians an additional two years.
“I believe that Prop 1A will serve the CSU system well,” Hauck said. “We need the additional tax revenue coming into the state to get us out of the severe recession.”
Committee Chair Carol Chandler pointed out that Hauck was not a voting member of the board, and therefore could not make a motion. Trustee Peter G. Mehas made the same motion to the board and trustee A. Robert Linscheid seconded it.
Mehas said he resented being put in the position to take a stand for the five propositions.
“Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and do what’s best for the institution,” Mehas said.
Cal State Long Beach President F. King Alexander said that he understands why the board made the decision that it did.
“I’m supportive of those propositions. Unfortunately its not exactly a win-win situation, but under the circumstances I think it’s the best we can do to avoid more serious budget cuts,” Alexander said.
Chris Garland, political director for the California Faculty Association, condemned the motion.
Garland said the trustees were “punting it down the road for someone else to fix,” by taking their stand on the propositions.
“It is ultimately a disappointment that you are taking this position,” Garland told the trustees.
The CFA has taken a stand against Proposition 1A. According to the CFA website, the association decided to oppose 1A because it will give the director of finance the authority to decide which revenues are excessive and which ones could be put into a slush fund, “with no check and balances from the legislature.”
Hauck defended the motion to stand for the propositions, explaining that the board needed to make a decision on these issues.
“This is a case of playing the hand that we’re dealt, and nobody’s happy about it,” Hauck said.