Executive director's note: Local governments’ task: Look beyond the abyss to envision a new future for California 

In my address to CSBA’s Delegate Assembly in May, I spoke of California peering into an abyss, one that threatened to fundamentally alter the character of the state. That was two days before the May 19 special election. Since then, the news has been unceasingly bad; as I write this column on the last day of May, it is difficult to muster the slightest bit of optimism about the future of California.

You don’t need me to tell you how bad the situation is in your local school districts and county offices of education. You’ve already made difficult choices, but the ones you’re faced with now will make those seem like a walk in the park. It’s no consolation, but our K-12 schools are not alone in this crisis. To wit:

• University of California President Mark Yudof has stated that the proposed budget reductions to the UC system would have a “devastating effect on students … and ultimately on the service we provide to the state.”
• California State University Chancellor Charlie Reed stated, “Reductions of the magnitude being proposed are unprecedented and unfathomable. This will have permanent and devastating consequences on student access to our universities, and on the CSU’s ability to facilitate the state’s economic recovery and future prosperity.”
• California Community Colleges Chancellor Jack Scott, a veteran of the legislative wars as a member of the Assembly and state Senate, noted that community colleges “have added more than 150,000 additional students this year alone, and it is my job to inform state leaders we simply cannot continue to be an effective safety net for displaced workers, train our nation’s nurses and firefighters and retool workers to serve in green jobs if the proposed cuts are enacted.”

And it won’t just be public education and students that suffer if the cuts currently before the Legislature become reality. According to the California Budget Project, more than 940,000 children would lose health coverage under proposals included in the Governor’s May Revision, and more than 1.9 million Californians could lose access to health coverage within three years. And I can assure you from conversations I’ve had with Chris McKenzie and Paul McIntosh, my counterparts at the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties—CSBA’s partners in the Cities, Counties and Schools Partnership—that their members will be as devastated and ill-equipped as schools to provide the services that their constituents expect.

In my last column, I wrote about the fiscal and budget reform efforts that have gained momentum this year—groups such as California Forward and the Bay Area Council, which take different approaches to the problem but agree that the status quo in California cannot be allowed to stand.

I also briefly mentioned the CCS Partnership’s Joint Task Force on State Budget and Fiscal Reform. That joint task force has been meeting on a regular basis since February and is close to adopting a set of common-sense, joint principles which the partners can use to guide their collective and individual efforts to secure meaningful reform. The principles are designed to be a framework for changes that would return to local government entities—to cities, counties and schools—the autonomy, flexibility and fiscal tools they need to fund local priorities and be held accountable to the voters for them.

They address such issues as:

• alignment of resources, responsibility and accountability
• responsive and accountable local governments
• enhanced protection from state mandates
• focus on outcomes in state funding of locally delivered services
• modernization of state budgeting
• diverse, stable and broad revenues
• pay-as-you-go for new state ballot initiatives
• oversight and reauthorization of existing programs

There has been healthy debate on whether to include “majority rule”—the two-thirds vote requirements for new taxes at the state and local levels—in the joint principles the task force is developing. This obviously is a controversial topic, and there is no doubt in my mind that opinion on it among CSBA members is wide and varied. It is important to recognize that the majority rule notion within the principles is accompanied by strong language about how the state budgeting process should be reformed—concepts such as performance-based approaches to budgeting that would demand the achievement of measurable and reportable public outcomes.

The next step in the process to forge a powerful local government coalition will take place in July, when the leaders of the CCS partners will convene in Sacramento to discuss the principles and what strategies and tactics will most effectively turn the anger that everyone is feeling into a powerful wave that can break the logjam that has gripped Sacramento for so long. Members of CSBA’s Delegate Assembly have been invited to participate, and I am hopeful that the energy from their meeting in May can be channeled to make us a powerful presence in the discussions.

If our state leaders can no longer be counted on to provide the support that local communities need and desire, then that power should be turned over to those closest to the communities—members of school boards, city councils and county boards of supervisors. We are fast approaching a time when it will no longer be possible to achieve the vision of CSBA—a state where the futures of all children are driven by their aspirations, not bounded by their circumstances.

I have no desire for that to be the legacy of my generation. I invite you to join me, and join CSBA, in an effort to ensure that the promise of California is maintained.

Scott P. Plotkin is the executive director of the California School Boards Association.