96.5 F
San Fernando
Friday, Mar 29, 2024

Business Groups Mostly Agree on Propositions

Local and state business organizations are generally in agreement about which propositions on the Nov. 4 ballot they support and which they oppose. The Valley Industry & Commerce Association, the United Chambers of Commerce and the California Business Roundtable voted for the most part to oppose bond measures that would increase the state’s indebtedness. Measure J for the Los Angeles Community College District was one of the exceptions, with both VICA and United Chambers voting to support the measure. (Since it’s a local measure, the CBR did not address it.) “One of the reasons the Board made that decision was that, first, the Community Colleges have been a great partner for business in the Valley,” said VICA Chair Greg Lippe, “and two, that there are no added taxes associated with the bond measure.” The organization also decided at its Sept. 25 meeting to reconsider an earlier position taken on Proposition 1A, the $9.95 billion high-speed rail bond measure, which none of the other groups took a position on. Originally, VICA’s government affairs committee recommended that the organization oppose the measure. The entire board then voted on Aug. 28 to accept that recommendation. “How it got back into consideration, I don’t know,” said Jan Sobel, co-chair of the government affairs committee, “because I was not at the second board meeting (on Sept. 25).” She said that the government affairs committee opposed the $9.95 billion bond measure for the same reasons that most of the bond measures were opposed by all groups: with California’s debt increasing daily: 1) it’s not the right time to add more indebtedness; and 2) “We believed there are other bond measures that were of greater good to more people,” said Sobel. When asked about how the reconsideration came about, committee chair Sandy Goldman said, “I don’t think government affairs ever took a position on it. I think it went right to the board.” VICA Chair Greg Lippe said that Goldman came to him after she learned of the vote by the entire board at their Aug. 28 meeting, and asked for reconsideration. Goldman, who represents the California High Speed Rail Commission as a public affairs consultant, said she was not in attendance at either the committee meeting nor at the general board meeting when the group initially voted to oppose. “What happened was, one of our members approached us after the committee meeting who was unable to be there at the committee, Sandy Goldman, and said it didn’t get its day in court,” said Lippe. “Because she wasn’t there and the meetings were held during a time of vacation for a lot of people, she felt it deserved a vetting.” As chair, Lippe said his position is to let any member who is unhappy with any committee decision bring it to the board for further discussion. He said he was aware she had an interest in the proposition and added that it was his recollection that she recused herself from voting on the matter. Further, he said, the vote at the Sept. 25 meeting to change their position was 24 to 4, with one abstention. That put it five votes ahead of the two-thirds majority required for passage. There was no one at the meeting to specifically speak against the proposition, said Lippe, partly because time was short and also because the negative side had been adequately addressed in the government affairs committee’s position paper. “We felt the negative side had been adequately presented,” he explained, “but that the positive side hadn’t been.” One of the key elements that swayed the board to change its position, said Lippe, was learning that the funding would come equally from three sources: 1/3 from the federal government, 1/3 from the state and 1/3 from private enterprise. Another, he added, “Was that not one dime could be spent until the commitment was there from all three parties.” Proposition 8 VICA was the only one of the three organizations to take a position on Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage. That was surprising, given that the measure doesn’t, on the face of it, seem to have much to do with business. The group voted to oppose the measure. “It was an interesting discussion,” said Stuart Waldman, executive director of VICA, “and it really only focused on whether it was a business issue or not.” He went on to say that one VICA member with more than 500 employees made a case that companies extending health and other benefits to domestic partners incur significant expenses in dealing with additional reporting and accounting requirements. “The regulations and the paperwork are so onerous to provide those benefits,” said Waldman, “that they had to hire an additional human resources person, and I think that really hit home to all the business owners.” Other business-related factors that caused the organization to take the position to oppose Prop. 8 included the increased tourism dollars that could accrue, and the benefits it could have in corporate recruiting. “If you think about all the places that a company can go to get high quality employees, we need to do everything we can to keep business in California,” said Waldman.

Featured Articles

Related Articles