Governor's allies drop teacher pay initiative - Merit proposal 'lagging'

Sacramento -- The committee supporting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's package of ballot initiatives said Friday that it will not have enough signatures to put a proposal for teacher merit pay on a November special election ballot.

Allan Zaremberg, co-chairman of Citizens to Save California, said the idea to pay teachers based on merit instead of seniority is "lagging behind a little bit."

Zaremberg did announce that the committee began turning in signatures for the governor's budget reform proposal Friday. Signatures for the governor's two other initiatives -- changing when a teacher can receive tenure and how legislative districts are drawn -- were in the process of being submitted earlier this week.

"We concentrated on the other three," Zaremberg said in explaining why the merit pay proposal would not make it to a special election. The committee plans to turn in the signatures in the future, putting the measure on the June 2006 ballot.

With Schwarzenegger's team moving ahead, a coalition opposing the governor said it will also turn in signatures early next week for two ballot initiatives it is pushing.

One theory on why the merit pay was aborted (from Sac Bee, Dan Weintraub's Blog, May 3, 2005)

Another goof?

The governor seems to be soft-pedaling his merit pay initiative lately, despite consistently robust polling numbers. Is this why?
The labor coalition opposing his measures and the California Teachers Assn. are circulating a legal analysis that says Schwarzenegger’s measure would inadvertently gut current provisions that prohibit school districts from hiring convicted felons, sex offenders, drug users or teachers who have yet to pass a minimum competency exam.
The merit pay proposal is a constitutional amendment. The proposed amendment says that “any employment decision shall be based solely on employee performance, as assessed annually, and on the needs of the school district and its pupils, as determined by the governing board of the school district…” It further defines “employment decision” to mean hiring, compensating, promoting, demoting, or terminating” an employee. This was meant to take seniority out of the equation.

And, a subsequent entry, May 4, 2005:

More on merit pay measure

The governor's folks respond on the alleged goof in the merit pay proposal:
The facts are clear: The initiative gives school districts MORE authority to dismiss an employee under ALL OF THOSE REASONS SPECIFIED IN CURRENT LAW, plus address performance issues. Currently, a school district can dismiss an employee based on a variety of grounds, including immoral or unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, unsatisfactory performance, conviction of a felony, etc. The initiative does not weaken this authority. It simply gives school districts the ability to evaluate and reward outstanding performance.
I still think it's more than open to debate. And it's curious that the response only refers to dismissing employees. What about hiring them? The initiative says that "any employment decision" must be based "solely" on the factors listed, and the applicant's criminal record is not among them.

Oops. I should have also snipped this part from Weintraub's May 3 entry:

I’m no lawyer, but I think they have a point. When your proposal says “any employment decision” shall be based “solely” on certain factors, I’ve got to assume you mean what you say. Especially when you want to put that standard into the constitution. At a minimum, if this measure ever does make it to the ballot, the opponents would have a killer argument to use against it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.