San Diego County Sues State Over First 5 Funding
First 5 San Diego says a bill signed by the governor in March is illegal because it redirects funds in a way that is not consistent with Proposition 10.
Photos
San Diego County filed a lawsuit against the state of California seeking to overturn AB 99, a bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in March that would take $1 billion from early childhood programs to fill the state’s budget gap, a county commission announced Saturday.
First 5 San Diego handles spending on childhood health programs funded by Proposition 10, which was approved by voters in 1998. Also known as the Children and Families First Act of 1998, it imposed a tax on tobacco products and mandated that the funds be used exclusively to support comprehensive programs for early childhood development, according Barbara Jimenez of First 5 San Diego.
“The intent of Proposition 10, as approved by the voters, is local control of funds to meet local needs for early childhood development,” said Supervisor Pam Slater-Price, chairwoman of the First 5 Commission of San Diego.
“AB 99 will result in a loss of $88.3 million in local funds, these funds are designated for services to children and families in San Diego County,” Slater-Price said.
Eighty percent of the tobacco tax goes to local First 5 commissions for the express purpose of funding local programs and services that support the healthy development of children from the prenatal stage through age 5.
Gov. Brown’s recently revised 2011-2012 budget, released on May 16, does not include the $1 billion the state had planned to take from First 5 commissions through AB 99; however, it does indicate that the state will defend legal challenges against the move, according to First 5 San Diego.
“It is encouraging that Prop 10 revenues are no longer counted on to backfill the state’s budget shortfall for this coming year,” said Slater-Price. “I ask the Governor to rescind the cut outlined in AB 99 so that precious dollars can go to local services for children and families rather than in pursuing litigation.”
City News Service contributed to this report.
Ruben
1:30 pm on Monday, May 23, 2011
First 5 already gave them $133 million last year, and Medi-Cal is spent LOCALLY!
But here's what every voter should know about First 5:
Unlike EVERY OTHER organization in CA, First 5 has a legal exception to the conflict of interest law - that means people sitting on their Commission Boards can and generally DO receive the lion's share of the funds (Oh yes they DO!!!). That's why they are suing. It's not to preserve what they claim the voters intended, it's to preserve their own personal pet programs.
"Karen Scott, executive director of First 5 San Bernardino, said her commission has no litigation plans." Why? one might ask... perhaps this quote from another Executive Director is why: From Contra Costa's February minutes: " Sean Casey: We don’t have any real argument against it which is why we’re really stressing the other piece. Sure, take the money..."
So add to that Rob Reiner, the originator of Prop 10, supports the $1 billion move - if he thought it were illegal, he'd be up in arms (and he is not) so why sue since the law allows the move?
Well, this way the commissioners get to spend as much OF THE TAXPAYERS' money as they want to try to save funds for mainly THEIR OWN agencies.
This IS what happens when you write into a law that the foxes can guard and eat from the hen house - and the Prop 10 law does just that. At least the state is not willing to let poor kids DIE. The First 5 Commissioners, on the other hand, are fighting to do just that.
ib aware
7:19 pm on Monday, May 23, 2011
This is actually a good reason for not signing ANY petition for a referendum. There is no debate, no opportunity to consider alternative approaches, just take it or leave it - no matter how well-intentioned the authors may be.
Gary Hjelm
9:24 pm on Saturday, July 2, 2011
In the State of California we should have one last proposition. In that proposition our state would nullify the previous propositions. Our proposition structure would be eliminated so that representative government would have do it's job in Sacramento. Running government by proposition is not only inefficient, but is run in place of the people we voted to do that job. Every time something becomes controversial, our elected leader's, in the State of California, abstain in favor of the proposition process. American Government was not founded on deciding issues by a popular vote, and neither should the issues in the State of California.