NORTH COUNTY - Opposition has formed against an initiative that would reduce fees at California community colleges, increase their political clout, and break financial ties to public school enrollment. In response, more vocal support is coming from local community college officials.

On Thursday, the California Taxpayers' Association, California Teachers Association, California Faculty Association, California Chamber of Commerce and California Business Roundtable joined forces under "Californians for Fair Education Funding" to launch a "No on Prop. 92" campaign.

Proposition 92 would cut tuition from $20 to $15 per class unit, establish a minimum level of state funding and grant the state community college chancellor more autonomy from the governor.

"Historically, we've been major supporters of community colleges, but we believe (Prop. 92) would cause more problems than it would solve," said David Kline, spokesman for the California Taxpayers' Association.

Critics say the initiative locks in huge new state spending with no plan to pay for it, worsens California's budget deficit and expands bureaucracy with no independent oversight.

Local community college officials disagree.

"We're doing everything we can to get this passed," said trustee Nancy Chadwick of Palomar College in San Marcos. "People at the local level need to constantly talk about it and what it means for student access."

Chadwick said supporters of Prop. 92 - the Community College Governance, Funding Stabilization and Student Fee Reduction Act - must band together to get the measure passed.

A coalition of community college leaders, students and employees submitted more than 900,000 signatures in January to place the initiative on the ballot Feb. 5 and have since collected more than $1 million in donations, said Andrew Acosta, campaign spokesman for "Yes on Prop. 92."

Palomar student and faculty groups are planning to raise about $50,000 to back the initiative campaign, leaders said, and MiraCosta College trustees in Oceanside officially endorsed the initiative last month.

"The California community college system is the largest provider of higher education in the nation, yet we're funded at about 45th of 49 states that offer such a system," said MiraCosta Interim President John Hendrickson.

Changing the system

Community college officials believe a boost in enrollment this year was directly related to a reduction in fees per class unit from $26 to $20 in January.

Conversely, a 136 percent increase in tuition between fall 2003 and fall 2004 helped cause a nearly 20 percent decline in enrollment, they said. The hike meant 314,000 fewer students between spring 2003 and spring 2005, with overall enrollment dropping from 1.75 million to 1.44 million.

"Now, fees are starting to stabilize and we're starting to see growth in enrollment across the state," said Acosta. "Our goal is to try to keep fees at a place where students can plan for those (increases) and not have it fluctuate wildly from one year to the next."

The initiative ties future fee hikes to no more than the cost of living and guarantees that students have at least 60 days notice before any fee increase takes effect, he said.

However, at the heart of the initiative is the stability it would create by designating a funding pot for community colleges, said Acosta.

Community college funding, under Proposition 98, is based in part on public school enrollment, so if enrollment declines in K-12, community colleges are starved of money, Chadwick said.

The new initiative is an attempt to put community colleges outside of the K-12 system, which is facing declining enrollment, while strong growth is projected at community colleges, Acosta said.

"Our goal is to allow both systems to grow at their own level," he said.

Currently, all fees received by any community college go directly to the state and come back to the college in the form of state apportionment, Chadwick said. However, funding has swayed during state budget wrangling, she said.

"Over the last 10 to 15 years, community colleges have been shorted more than $4 billion," Acosta said.

Differing views on approach

Though opponents agree that community colleges are a valuable part of the economy, they say Prop. 92 is not the way to go about increasing funding.

"We would have liked to have seen a more inclusive process and not ballot-box budgeting," said John Hooper, policy advocate for the California Chamber of Commerce.

Kline said the initiative would amend the state constitution by locking in a huge amount of state funding with no plan for how to pay for it. The initiative is expected to cost state taxpayers $135 million in the first year of operation, $275 million in the second year and $470 million in the third year, leaving politicians to decide how to fund the measure, he said.

"The cuts are going to have to come from somewhere," said Hopper, adding that the cost of the initiative would put pressure on programs such as public safety, health care or university systems.

"It ties the hands of legislators in lean budget times," he said.

However, Chadwick said there is nothing in Prop. 92 that requires tax increases or takes away any money from K-12.

"I don't think the state should try to balance the budget on the backs of community college students," said Acosta.

Other groups, such as the California Teachers Association, object to a provision that would require a four-fifths legislative vote to alter the new funding method.

"It's highly undemocratic because it allows little over 20 percent to determine what the democratic majority could or couldn't do," said association board member Dian Hasson. "We're strongly in support of more funding for community colleges, but we have a different vision on what's the best way to approach it."

The association plans to propose legislation in January that would enforce the funding split of Prop. 98 at 89 percent for grades K-12 and 11 percent for community colleges, she said. State funding has ranged from nine to 11 percent for community colleges in the past, as Prop. 98 did not establish an exact split, she said.

Another concern with the initiative is that it expands bureaucracy - by granting the state community college chancellor more autonomy, including the ability to hire his own senior staff, as UC and CSU systems do - but contains no requirement for accountability, said Kline.

"The taxpayers won't have an opportunity to have oversight on where the money is being spent," he said.

Critics are worried funding could be "squandered on things that don't help the community college student," including administrators' salaries and "overhead," Kline said.

'We've seen many examples of administrators misusing money instead of putting it toward the education of students," he said, referring to the UC and CSU systems.

Acosta disagreed, saying that all community colleges are required to file yearly accountability reports with the state chancellor's office.

"You can see exactly where the money is going," he said. "Current law already mandates that money goes into the classroom."

Contact staff writer Noelle Ibrahim at (760) 740-3517 or nibrahim@nctimes.com.