Did Fresno State Break Law With Pro-Prop. 30 Letter?

With less than 3 weeks to go till Election Day the push is on by special interest groups to get their message across.

One proposition that could have a major effect on public schools and universities is proposition 30.

It would increase taxes and generate money for schools, community colleges, and universities.

But in a letter sent out to nearly 10,000 parents of Fresno State students, University President Dr. John Welty spells out the consequences if proposition 30 fails.

The letter states, "Failure to approve proposition 30 will automatically trigger a mid-year, $250 million reduction in the state budget support for the California State University."

The letter also states, "It also would mean a reduction in Fresno State's current budget of $7 million - $8 million."

But, did Fresno State break any laws by sending out the letter?

Shirley Armbruster with Fresno State Communications states, "We have not received an invoice yet from our printing and mailing office so we don't have a total cost. The letter does not endorse any position, but written to educate and inform parents about a matter of importance to the university. The CSU Chancellor's Office has advised that it is appropriate to provide such materials, as well as urging people to register and vote."

But what do Fresno State students think about it.

Cris Mendoza says, "Proposition 30 does have to deal with school and faculty for the schools."

Reporter asks, "So as long as it benefits the schools, then you're okay with you tax dollars being used to send out propaganda?"

Mendoza says, "Correct, but when you put it like that, it does change."

Yasman Cossio says, "It will definitely help us out."

Reporter asks, "But what if it's an issue that you don't agree with?"

{}She says, "I see what you mean."

So does the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the anti-tax group is suing Cal State Monterey Bay over an email written by a professor.

The professor urged some 360 students to vote yes on proposition 30.

The group claims it would have been legal if the professor used his personal email, but he sent it out using his work email.