n the previous journal I shared my thinking about two of the propositions on which we Californians will be voting on Tuesday, November 8th. The responses, pro and con, were passionate and compelling. I only wish that a sufficient number of registered voters would share the enthusiasm and feel impelled to vote. We seldom do. Here's my thinking on two more of the propositions on which so many tens of millions of dollars have been spent.

PROPOSITION 74:
Gov. Schwarzenegger is promoting Proposition 74. It is intended to make it simpler to fire bad teachers. Frankly state rules and teachers unions make it extremely difficult to dismiss inept teachers. The unions argue that if job security is reduced, then it would discourage young people from entering the profession. I've never met anyone who entered the teaching profession because they knew that if they were ill-equipped for the job they could fall back on tenure protection. They want to be teachers because they want to teach ...well.
This proposition is not the complete answer to the problems we face in education, but it would expand the probationary period for new teachers. who can be fired for any reason for up to five years, at which time they then would receive tenure. (Current law is far too short, with the probation period being just 2 years).
The writers have tried to make it easier to fire teachers who have gained tenure . The initiative eliminates the requirement that principals go through two lengthy periods of documentation of problem teachers. And it requires two consecutive "unsatisfactory" evaluations, a year apart, for dismissal.
Teachers would retain their right to appeal for an administrative hearing - We never said that Prop 74 would do anything to lower legal costs and delays.
It's easy to criticize the writers of Proposition 74 on several grounds; particularly because this is not a true reform package, but it is worth supporting.
Governor Schwarzenegger, we are on the same side on this one, but I do have a question for you: Why did you renege on your promise to restore funding cut from last year and claim that the real problem with schools was bad teaching?
For me it is "YES" on Proposition 74.

PROPOSITION 76
I'm voting "NO" on this one which is, understandably, close to the Governor's heart. Remember, we have a strong chief executive office in this state and along with the Legislature they have the power to make the Golden State live within its means. He can veto or reduce almost any spending item that is sent to him by the law makers. The initiative has been named by the governor's people the "Live within our means act." It was drafted by pro business and anti-tax political interests. Passage would allow the governor to cut virtually any spending he wanted if the Legislature failed to agree on how to address revenue shortfalls.As it says on page 22 of the ballot pamphlet ...this grants the governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending." The Los Angeles Times recently wrote "When they drafted the Constitution, the nation's founders warned against the tyranny of the majority. But California has also been held hostage repeatedly by the tyranny of the minority, as legislators withhold votes for the budget in exchange for pork-barrel projects in their districts." That's why it is so important to avoid empowering the minority any further. Proposition 76 would, in effect, give the governor and one third of the Legislature final say over spending decisions. If we pass his proposition we are most likely to see more and more deadlock and greater partisanship.
P.S. According to the Legislative Analyst's office, Proposition 76 isn't likely to have any effect on state budgeting for the next fiscal year because revenues are running ahead of forecasts.
We don't need the governor to have increased power.
I'm voting "NO" on Proposition 76.