Teachers Ease Opposition to Gas Tax Hike : Legislation: Educators gain assurances that schools will not suffer from proposal linked to state finances.

California Teachers Assn. officials, who were gearing up to oppose a gasoline tax increase and changes in the state spending limit, appeared to be backing off Monday after getting assurances from legislative leaders that education would not be harmed by the proposals.

Association President Ed Foglia said that he has been talking with Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) “and I feel much more encouraged than I did, let’s say, a month ago.”

A few minutes later, Roberti told a news conference, “I think we are coming to a meeting of the minds.”

A month ago the 200,000-member teachers organization threatened to mount a campaign to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment to modify the state spending limit, believing that it could erase many of the gains education won by the passage of Proposition 98, the school finance initiative.

The threatened opposition was a severe blow for Gov. George Deukmejian and legislative leaders who are pushing hard for a 9-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase to improve transportation and ease congestion. The tax hike is tied to the constitutional amendment on state spending and cannot go into effect unless voters approve the spending limit modifications next June.

The announcement from the teachers group came at a time when officials had already been advised by political consultants that any well-financed opposition from a large interest group could defeat both the spending measure and the gas tax increase.

The teachers contended that the changes in the spending limitation were crafted so that schools would lose some of the tax dollars they were guaranteed by the 1988 passage of Proposition 98. The initiative provides that 40% of the state budget must go to education.

The teachers argued that the proposed constitutional amendment contained a loophole which provided that funds spent by the state for capital outlay would be outside the spending limit. If those funds also were not considered in determining education’s 40% of the state budget, they contended, schools would lose substantially.

Roberti said he disagrees with the teachers’ analysis and thinks a legal opinion from legislative lawyers would prove him correct and “satisfy their concerns.” Specifically, he said he believes it would show that capital outlay funds would be included in the calculation of the 40% funding for education.

“I did what I could to assuage their concerns. . . . Based on our projections the teachers will come out very, very well. That’s what was intended,” Roberti said.

If the lawyers’ opinion proves him right, Foglia said, he may feel comfortable enough to ask his membership to support the proposals.

“In other words, if the legislative counsel comes in on one side, we could very well be in agreement and say, ‘Hey, that’s fine, we could live with that.’ But if it comes out on the other side . . . and shows there’s truly a loophole, then we have a problem,” he said.