SACRAMENTO / BRADLEY INMAN : Business Discovers the Benefits of Tapping Community College Network

Once the butt of jokes about their irrelevance, the state’s 107 community colleges are now considered a serious alternative for California business firms that need to retrain existing employees and recruit skilled workers.

Throughout the state, partnerships are being formed between private companies and community colleges, where customized training is being provided on and off campus. In some cases, college faculty are setting up classrooms inside business firms and training people on company-owned equipment.

* Members of the faculty at the San Jose-Evergreen Community College District spend 20 hours a week at an International Business Machines Corp. plant in San Jose. Lois Lund of the community college district referred to the project as “essentially an annex of the college on-site at IBM.”

* Kaiser Permanente has launched specialized programs with community colleges up and down the state to offer training in ultrasound technology, radiology and surgical assistance.

* When U.S. Steel upgraded its 80-year-old plant in Pittsburg, Calif., the company turned to Los Medanos College for help in training its workers to switch from outdated manual systems to electronic video controls.

In the 1970s, when public funds were plentiful, community colleges were criticized for offering trivial courses. Then, course catalogues touted tennis instruction, macrame workshops and meditation sessions, with scant attention to hard-core vocational skills that prepared students for employment.

The curriculum in many community colleges today includes courses in areas such as robotics, electronics and computer-aided design.

“Community colleges had veered off course and were out of touch with the economic needs of the state and the training needs of the work force,” said Robert Rivinius, a member of the statewide community college governing board. “Today, they provide an ideal setting for companies to retrain their work force and a place to find new people with real skills.”

Business has discovered the benefits of tapping the state’s vast community college network. Since 1985, more than 550 companies have launched specialized training programs with community colleges. The partnerships have cost the state $21 million but have been offset by $50 million in private resources.

“The business community is starting to believe that training is important and that investing in employee skills will pay off as much as investing in plant and technology,” said Stephen Glick, vice president of the Bay Area Council, a business-sponsored public policy group.

In this new environment, “community colleges are the biggest retraining ground in the state,” he said.

For industry, the alternative is to contract with private consulting firms to conduct training classes or to develop in-house capabilities, Chancellor David Mertes

which is common among large firms. But both options are often more expensive.

In cases where individual companies contract and pay community colleges to carry on customized training programs, the state enjoys short- and long-term benefits.

First, there are the economic pluses of a skilled labor force.

Also, “we are transferring the cost of education to private firms and saving taxpayer dollars,” according to David Mertes, chancellor of the community college system. And “it gives new and varied experiences to our faculty in the real world,” he said.

The state Legislature approved a community college reform measure in 1989, which made it clear what the goals of a two-year community college education should be. Many students later transfer to another institution for a four-year degree.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien recently said “the best way to get into Berkeley is to go through a community college.”

But the 1989 legislation gave equal weight to another goal of the state’s community colleges: The system should “train Californians for work.”

Initiative Process Comes Under Scrutiny

Lawmakers are considering several measures that would reform the 84-year-old ballot initiative process in California.

Los Angeles Assemblywoman Gwen Moore has introduced AB 441, which would prohibit proponents of a ballot measure from paying people to gather signatures for the proposed proposition.

Sen. David Roberti (D-Los Angeles) has introduced a bill that would prohibit putting an initiative on the ballot that creates a new state program without a financing mechanism to cover its full costs.

Sen. Lucy Killea (D-San Diego) goes even further with a proposed constitutional amendment that would prevent a measure that incurs debt from going on the ballot. This would prohibit bond measures from being put before the voters.

In the past, initiative reform has been soundly defeated in Sacramento. But the state budget deficit is forcing lawmakers to consider the financial consequences.

Bill Ties Sales Tax to Level of Auto Emission

The amount of money that consumers pay in automobile sales tax should be linked to how much pollution their newly purchased cars emit, according to a measure introduced by state Sen. Gary Hart (D-Santa Barbara).

The Hart measure calls for a lower sales tax rate on low-polluting cars and a higher rate on automobiles that have higher emissions.

A person could save as much as $700 in sales tax on a low-polluting medium-priced car, according to the proposed bill.