Replies

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.