Beginning February 1, the California state Legislature intends to convert its east entrance from public to “employee and lobbyist only,” according to an internal security memo from the Joint Rules Committee obtained by CalWatchdog.com.

“The East door to the Capitol will be designated an ’employee and lobbyist only (with ID)’entrance,” the January 14 memo from the Joint Rules Committee states. “Entry into the Capitol from the North and South doors will still be available, however, only the East door will provide an expedited entry.”

Citizens Wait in Line, Lobbyists Speed Through the Queue

That means average citizens lobbying the state Legislature will be forced to wait in longer lines, while lobbyists are sped through the queue.

Debra Gravert, chief administrative officer of the Joint Rules Committee, confirmed the memo and policy change, saying it’s part of enhanced security measures.

“That door poses a huge security risk to the building,” she said. “Our only alternative was to close that door altogether.”

If security was the primary concern, why allow lobbyists special access to the entrance?

“They’re given special access to jump the line now,” Gravert told CalWatchdog.com. “The only lobbyists that can go through, have ID.”

De Leon, Atkins Promise Public Access to People’s House

Neither Speaker of the Assembly Toni Atkins nor State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon responded to CalWatchdog.com’s email requests for comment. However, both legislative leaders have vowed to make the Capitol building open and accessible to the public.

“Welcome to the California State Assembly — the people’s house,” Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, writes in a brochure on the state Assembly. “I hope your visit to the State Capitol is a reminder that your voice has an impact on crafting California’s laws.”

De Leon, meanwhile, claims citizens are integral to the legislative process.

“An engaged citizenry is the bedrock of a thriving democracy,” de Leon promises on the state Senate’s homepage. “We recognize not everyone can get to Sacramento to participate in the legislative process, so we’ll bring those hearings to you.”

Expedite Lobbyists, Press on Deadline

Gravert said that, for as long as she can remember, it has been a long-standing policy of the California state Legislature to provide special access to lobbyists.

Although the January 14 memo singled out lobbyists, Gravert says that credentialed members of approved media outlets will also be provided access to the east entrance. She said that special access is provided to lobbyists and credentialed members of approved media sources because they have already gone through a vetting process and are frequently on deadline.

That reason would contradict an unsigned letter from “Your State Senator.”

“While it is important that government be efficient,” promises “Your State Senator” in an unsigned letter in a State Senate promotional pamphlet, “it is paramount that the laws of the state be fair and effective.”

Previous legislative leaders have extolled the virtues of citizen lobbying and decried special treatment for lobbyists.

“In order to truly serve the people they were elected to represent, legislators need to hear from their constituents about important issues affecting their lives,” then-Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez explained in a 2006 pamphlet, How to
Lobby the California State Legislature. “This activity, commonly known as ‘lobbying,’ is all too often associated with paid professionals or Capitol ‘insiders.’ The most common form of lobbying, however, is undertaken by average citizens.”

State Legislature’s War on Transparency

The state Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to hold their legislators accountable.” But, this isn’t the first time that the Joint Rules Committee has restricted access to the Capitol.

Amid last year’s debate over a controversial bill to require mandatory vaccinations, the Joint Rules Committee designated the north and south entrances as lobbyist and staff only.

“Due to the high volume of people expected to be entering the Capitol on Wednesday, April 22nd, the North and South entrances to the Capitol will have a designated staff/lobbyist line,” stated a memo, according the Sacramento Bee. “You will need a legislative identification card to access these lines.”

In 2014, as first reported by CalNewsroom.com, the California state Senate scrubbed its website and deleted the online archives of three Democratic state Senators, who were facing criminal charges, ranging from weapons trafficking to public corruption.

In 2015, the state Assembly denied a Legislative Open Records Act request for attendance records for Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles. Gomez called in sick to the Assembly’s floor session to attend the L.A. Dodgers’ opening day, an excuse that would have entitled Gomez to his taxpayer-funded per diem.

Ironically, the Joint Rules Committee concluded its memo by thanking staff for “making a more secure Capitol for everyone.”

Joint Rules Committee Memo: Enhanced Safety and Security Measures

DATE: January 14, 2016

TO: All Assembly and Senate Employees

FROM: Joint Rules Committee

SUBJECT: Enhanced Safety & Security Measures for the Capitol & the Legislative Office Building
——————————————————————————————————————– (5) ———–

Effective February 1, 2016, the following new security procedures will be implemented. These new procedures are being put in place for the safety and security of the Members, Capitol employees, visitors and guests to the Capitol building.

Entering During Regular Business Hours (7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)

• Your Capitol ID badge should be in your possession and displayed at all times while you are at work.
• The East door to the Capitol will be designated an “employee and lobbyist only (with ID)” entrance. Entry into the Capitol from the North and South doors will still be available, however, only the East door will provide an expedited entry.

Entering After Regular Business Hours

• The East door will be inaccessible to employees after 6:00 p.m.
• The North and South doors will be accessible to employees with a Capitol ID badge.

As a reminder, employees should not allow others into the building as they are entering or exiting after regular business hours. If you are not comfortable with confronting individuals who ask you to hold the door open or swipe them in, please call CHP dispatch at 445-2895 to report it. It is strongly recommended that you program this number into your cell phone. Please be prepared to provide a detailed description of the individual(s) and/or any other information you think is relevant.

Legislative Office Building (LOB)

• The rear door of the LOB will be permanently closed for entry or exit. This door will now be for emergency exits only.
• More security cameras have been placed in the building, along with door alarms for the rear and two side emergency exit doors.
• All employees and visitors will now be required to enter using the front door and must be processed through the screening process. This will make the security protocols at the LOB consistent with those at the Capitol.

Access to the Capitol Basement Garage

• You will no longer be able to access the Capitol basement garage from the main bank elevators or the freight elevator without your Capitol ID badge.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Department at 651-4184 or the Assembly Sergeants-at-Arms Department at 319-2808.

Thank you for your cooperation in making a more secure Capitol for everyone.

Effective January 1, the state’s minimum wage increased from $9 to $10 an hour. But, not all workers in the state benefited from that minimum wage increase.

It’s legal in California to pay some workers less than the minimum wage. As CalWatchdog.com has reported for years, a Depression-era loophole in federal law, Section 14 (c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, allows employers to obtain a special wage certificate to pay workers with disabilities less than the minimum wage.

Critics say that the law allows for the legal exploitation of people with disabilities, creates a separate system of worker rights for the disabled and is “humiliating,” “degrading” and makes people with disabilities feel like “second-class citizens.”

A 2012 CalWatchdog.com investigation first reported that five California-based Goodwill charities used the special wage certificate program to pay hundreds of employees less than minimum wage, while also providing lucrative compensation packages to top executives.

“Anyone who believes that all work is dignified and all workers deserve fair treatment, has to be outraged by these practices,” Lorena Gonzalez, then secretary-treasurer of the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, told CalWatchdog.com in 2012.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez leads on minimum wage equity

Now a member of the state Legislature, Gonzalez is doing something about that injustice — by advancing legislation that would end the practice completely in California.

Assembly Bill 488 would eliminate an exemption for employees of sheltered workshops and rehabilitation centers with special minimum wage licenses under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, extending the law’s protections against discrimination and harassment to workers in those environments.

“This bill guarantees these employees the same civil rights that all other workers, including interns, already receive,” Gonzalez said. “There’s no reason these workers should receive less protection from discrimination or harassment on the job.”

On Wednesday, the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment passed AB488 on a 5-0 vote. Republican Assemblyman Matthew Harper of Huntington Beach joined Democratic Assembly members Roger Hernández of West Covina, Evan Low of Campbell, Kevin McCarty of San Diego, and Tony Thurmond of Richmond in backing the bill.

Goodwill Industries: Biggest Name in Special Wage Program

In recent years, Goodwill Industries has become the poster-child for exploitation of workers with disabilities. More than 100 Goodwill entities nationwide have employed workers through the Special Wage Certificate program. A 2013 Watchdog.org investigation revealed that these same Goodwill entities that use the special wage program simultaneously spent $53.7 million in total executive compensation.

“Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act authorizes employers, after receiving a certificate from the Wage and Hour Division, to pay special minimum wages — wages less than the Federal minimum wage — to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed,” the Department of Labor explains on its website.

Goodwill justifies the practice as a tool to hire people with severe disabilities, who would otherwise be unable to find work. Other supporters of the special wage certificate program contend that people with disabilities are not as productive as able-bodied individuals.

However, labor experts dispute those claims. Samuel R. Bagenstos, a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and a former deputy attorney general for civil rights, has detailed numerous examples of how workshop employers automatically assigned jobs “without any connection to the abilities and background of the individuals.”

In 2014, Gonzalez and State Senator Ben Hueso introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 36 to increase pressure on Congress to repeal the Depression-era law.

A surge of last-minute callers inundated the state’s health insurance exchange for the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, forcing the agency to extend its hours of operation and the sign-up deadline for obtaining federally mandated health insurance.

The December 15 deadline for signing up with Covered California for coverage beginning on January 1 was temporarily extended to December 17 in order to accommodate customers frustrated by longer than normal waits.

“The spike in interest we are seeing in the last few days tells us there is continued demand for quality, affordable coverage,” Peter V. Lee, the executive director for Covered California, said in a press release. “We already have enrolled more consumers this year for Jan. 1 coverage than we did last year.”

Residents can still avoid the 2016 Obamacare health care tax penalty by obtaining health insurance by January 31, 2016.

Covered CA Chaos: English callers disconnected, hour wait for procrastinators

When CalWatchdog.com tried contacting Covered California the morning of the signup deadline, the average wait for an online chat with a customer service representative was more than an hour.

That was better than phone service. English-language callers were told to call back later, before being hung up on. Callers that selected the Spanish language option were able to reach a bilingual customer service agent in a fraction of the time.

“We are experiencing high call volumes today because of the Dec. 15 deadline to have coverage starting Jan. 1,” Covered California spokesperson Lizelda Lopez told CalWatchdog.com. “In some instances, callers may have gotten a message to call back later.”

Covered California responded to the high call volume by extending the service center’s hours of operation from 8 p.m. to midnight.

Lopez said that the average wait on December 14  and 15 was nearly five times longer than normal. From November 1 to December 13, callers to Covered California’s customer service line experienced an average wait time of less than 3 minutes. But, the day before and day of the signup deadline that increased to 14 minutes.

“Average wait time today is back to less than 3 minutes,” Lopez told CalWatchdog.com on December 16.

Although the agency didn’t provide data on the average wait by language, the overwhelming majority of its customer service agents provide English-language support. Covered California has 1,100 English-language telephone support employees, compared to just 190 Spanish-language telephone support staff and 80 employees for all other languages.

Record Number of Signups in 2015

The flip side of longer waits: more people signing up. Covered California says that more than 55,000 people signed up in the final two days before the originally scheduled deadline.

In total, more than 197,000 people had enrolled in health care coverage by the end of Tuesday, Dec. 15, including more than 22,000 on Monday, December 14 and more than 32,000 on Tuesday, December 15. That’s a 57 percent increase over last year, when approximately 35,000 people signed up for coverage on Dec. 14-15, 2014.

“The interest we have seen over the last two days is further proof of the continued demand that Californians have for quality, affordable health care coverage,” Lee, Covered California’s executive director, said in a statement. “We want to make sure that everyone who is working to get in the door has the time they need to get the coverage they deserve.”

750,000 Uninsured California Residents

According to Covered California’s estimates, as many as 750,000 Californians that lack health insurance are eligible for Obamacare health care subsidies. Additionally, 1.4 million California residents are eligible for free or low-cost health care under Medi-Cal, the state’s welfare program serving low-income residents.

Uninsured California residents can still enroll during Covered California’s open enrollment period by calling (800) 300-1506, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

“Of course, individuals and families can sign up in a multitude of ways, including: online, at a storefront, with an enroller,” Lopes reminded customers.

To sign up online, visit the agency’s website: CoveredCA.com. To find the nearest in-person enrollment center, visit CoveredCA.com/get-help/local. Enrollment assistance is free, confidential and available in a variety of languages.

State law bans the Fresno Democrat from lobbying his former colleagues for one year following his tenure in the state Assembly. Yet, the state’s ban on influence-peddling hasn’t stopped the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America from hiring Perea as a senior director of state advocacy. Perea, according to published reports, began talking job prospects with the industry group in September.

Beginning on January 4, Perea will direct political operations in California, Arizona and Nevada for the group known around the Capitol by the acronym PhRMA. The group represents the country’s biggest pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Pfizer.

“They innovate, they discover cures, they represent a lot of California employers,” Perea said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “The debate in health care, especially after the Affordable Care Act, is going to be very robust over the next decade or two and I look forward to being a part of that.”

PhRMA’s Robust Lobbying Operation

Since Perea’s first term in the state Assembly in 2010, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America has spent big money to lobby the governor, state lawmakers and other state government officials.

A CalWatchdog.com analysis of state lobbying disclosure forms found that Perea’s new employer has spent more than $2.59 million in state lobbying over the past five years. That half-million dollars per year in annual lobbying fees doesn’t include money spent by PhRMA’s member organizations.

Just one PhRMA member, the multinational pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, spent more than $3.18 million in lobbying over the same period, according to CalWatchdog.com’s review of disclosure reports.

Perea’s Campaign Contributions from PhRMA

The pharmaceutical industry’s robust lobbying operation in Sacramento has frequently crossed paths with Perea. Over the course of his career, Perea has accepted $157,144 in campaign contributions from the industry, according to FollowtheMoney.org’s analysis of campaign contributions. That ranks him 119th of every politician in the country and, according to FollowtheMoney.org, means he’s accepted more pharma money than Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, Speaker of the Assembly Toni Atkins and former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.

During the 2011-2012 legislative session, the pharmaceutical industry contributed more than $74,000 to Perea’s campaign accounts, making it the second largest industrywide contributor to Perea’s campaign, according to an independent analysis by the transparency group MapLight.

Perea’s multiple campaign committees also appear frequently on campaign finance disclosure reports and political action committee summaries filed by pharmaceutical companies. Earlier this year, his campaign committee for a 2018 Insurance Commissioner campaign accepted $2,000 from Amgen. In 2014, Pfizer gave Perea $3,500 and counted his re-election among its important wins.

“We continue to face significant legislative and regulatory challenges and each election cycle is critical to our industry,” Sally Susman, chair of Pfizer PAC, wrote in its 2014 Pfizer PAC annual report, a 102-page report detailing the company’s effort to build “positive public will.”

Perea’s history of luxury gifts, trips

Although Perea has refused to disclose his new salary, it’s likely to be more than the $97,197 annual salary and $33,000 in annual tax-free per diem payments he received as a member of the state Legislature.

Over the course of his career, Perea supplemented his income with tens of thousands of dollars in luxury goods, entertainment and travel, according to his economic disclosure reports.

In 2011, Perea accepted $9,397 worth of lodging, meals and transportation for a junket to Italy sponsored by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, “a San Francisco-based nonprofit made up of oil companies, utilities and environmental groups.” Two years later, Perea again accompanied the group on its junket to Eastern Europe – a trip valued at $9,984.

Perea’s biggest haul came last year, when he accepted $16,090 from the group, including a $10,221 trip to Chile. He also traveled to: Maui on a $2,148 trip paid for by the Independent Voter Project, Israel on a $11,550 trip paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Central America on a $1,500 trip paid for by the government of El Salvador.

3rd lawmaker resignation since 2013

Perea will become the third California lawmaker in two years to quit in the middle of a term in order to take a job with a Capitol interest group. In 2013, Democrat State Senator Michael Rubio abruptly quit his position to take a job with Chevron’s government affairs unit. That same year, Republican State Senator Bill Emmerson quit mid-term for a high-paying job with the California Hospital Association.

Perea’s resignation will trigger a 2016 special election that is expected to cost Fresno taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars. The March 2014 special election to fill Emmerson’s seat cost Riverside County taxpayers $415,000, according to the Press-Enterprise.

Two candidates had already announced their intentions to run for the 31st Assembly District: Democrat Joaquin Arambula and Republican Fresno City Councilman Clint Olivier.

State Controller Betty T. Yee disclosed the 2014 payroll data from 54 counties and 468 cities, which included information on more than 600,000 employees. The disclosure is part of the controller’s latest update to the “Government Compensation in California” website.

The open government online portal allows users to map compensation levels throughout the state, assemble charts, evaluate payroll trends and export data for in-depth statistical analysis.

Vernon: Smallest City, Biggest Pay

The state controller’s public employee payroll website has become a powerful tool for journalists and citizen watchdogs to identify wasteful spending and corruption in local government.

Among the municipalities with questionable payroll data from 2014: the city of Vernon. Although it is the least populous city in California, with just 123 residents, Vernon has double number of employees. And those employees earn $103,601 per year in salary — the highest average salary in the state. Vernon employees also take home, on average, another $32,462 per year in health and retirement benefits.

Vernon’s top salary is followed by the city of Hayward with $94,041 average salary, and Palm Desert at $89,582 in average salary. The state controller’s office notes that the average wages for city governments overall fell by 3 percent to $59,614.

In 2014, the average salary for county employees increased by approximately 3 percent to $60,993. At the county level, the nearly 19,000 employees at Santa Clara County received the highest average wage, earning $78,486 per year in wages and $27,655 in retirement and health benefits.

9 Local Governments Fail to Disclose Data

The controller’s office classified six cities as non-compliant entities for having “filed a compensation report that was incomplete, was in a format different than the one requested by the Controller’s Office, or was submitted after the reporting deadline.” San Francisco, the largest non-compliant entity joined the cities of Bell, Compton, Covina, Dana Point and Santa Ana on the list of non-compliant entities.

The counties of Modoc, Monterey and Riverside were the three counties, or 5.3 percent, that failed to file.

The city and county of Los Angeles remain the largest local government agencies. Los Angeles County employs 103,338 people with a cumulative wage of $7.2 billion in annual salary and $2.76 billion in health and retirement benefits. The city of Los Angeles paid out $4.5 billion in wages and $703 million in health and retirement benefits.

Yee’s latest disclosure builds on the work of her predecessor. In 2010, following the high-profile corruption case at the city of Bell, then-Controller John Chiang didn’t wait around for local governments to clean up their act. He ordered cities, counties and special districts, under Government Code sections 12463 and 53892, to share salary and other wage information with his office. Initially, some local governments balked, then dragged their feet in disclosing the payroll data.

To access State Controller Betty Yee’s payroll database, go to publicpay.ca.gov.

Top 10 Highest County Employees in California

1. Faculty Physician-Contract: $1,360,744
Kern County

2.Faculty Physician-Contract: $1,295,929
Kern County

3.Orthopedic Surgeon-Contract: $1,092,651
Kern County

4. Chairman, Department of Surgery: $851,665
Kern County

5. Medical Director II: $775,999
Los Angeles County

6.Physician – VMC: $760,461
Santa Clara County

7. Chief Physician III Surgery-Neurological: $728,489
Los Angeles County

8. Physician: $727,864
San Joaquin County

9. Physician – VMC: $684,365
Santa Clara County

10. Physician – VMC: $658,745
Santa Clara County

Top 10 Highest City Employees in California

1. Police Sergeant: $592,652
City of Burbank

2. Fire Chief: $487,871
City of Richmond

3. Chief Of Police: $487,644
City of El Monte

4. City Manager: $470,249
City of Lincoln

5. City Manager: $419,840
City of West Covina

6. City Attorney: $412,211
City of Escondido

7. Power Engineering Manager: $403,271
City of Los Angeles

8. Assistant City Manager:
$396,548
City of Oxnard

9.City Manager: $395,501
City of Escondido

10. Police Officer (PERS): $393,573
City of Oakland

Denise Cross / flickr

A tenfold increase in the initiative filing fee was supposed to reduce the number of long-shot proposals in circulation.

“The updated filing fee set by this bill will deter frivolous submissions,” Assemblyman Evan Low, author the new initiative fee increase, said in a September press release. “We live in California, the cradle of direct democracy, but we also need a threshold for reasonableness. And this bill will do just that.”

It’s had the opposite effect, as dozens of proponents of unconventional ideas rush to file their initiatives before the end of the year.

Among this year’s unconventional proposals: a 1,000 percent tax on political advertisements, a 5-cent tax on bottled water, a statewide ban on shellfish and a plan for California to declare independence from the United States.

“For the privilege of influencing public elections and political issues, a sales tax of 1,000% (one thousand percent) is hereby imposed upon Political Advertisements,” a statewide ballot measure, proposed  by Terrance Lynn of Portola Valley, states. “The proceeds of which shall solely benefit California public education.”

And if the courts try to strike down the measure, Lynn’s prepared for that, too. “If a Federal District Court or Supreme Court of the United States find this tax to be too high, then this law shall immediately ratchet down to the highest acceptable level and remain in place,” the measure states.

10x Filing Fee Hike

On January 1, the cost of proposing a statewide ballot measure for circulation will increase from $200 to $2,000. The new law, authored by Democratic Assemblymen Evan Low of Campbell and Richard Bloom of Santa Monica, was intended to reduce the number of proposals given a ballot title and summary.

“This significant fee increase could greatly reduce the number of initiative proposals submitted for title and summary, and thus reduce the AG’s workload in this area, in addition to that of the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance, which jointly prepare a fiscal estimate of proposed initiatives,” states the state Assembly’s legislative analysis of AB1100 published in July.

Yet, the fee hike itself has likely spurred more frivolous measures. Often times, the text, title and summary are enough to generate free publicity for an idea, including outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional measures.

Subhendu Das of West Hills wants to see California lawmakers adopt a secret ballot for legislative business. Joe Decker believes the state should make “the sale or consumption of shellfish a serious felony punishable by a $666,000 fine per occurrence and/or prison sentence of up to six years, six months, and six days.”

Citing Aristotle’s philosophy of human association, Louis Marinelli of San Diego wants California to declare its independence from the United States.

“Do you agree that California should acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish its own relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with United States an economic, political, and military partnership?” he proposes in the “California Nationhood” initiative.

If that idea fails to gain support, he’s also asking California residents to impose a 5-cent tax on bottled water

Fee Hike to Deter Frivolous Submissions

Since 1943, any Californian with $200 has been able to obtain the necessary paperwork to begin collecting signatures to put their proposal on the ballot. The reasonable filing fee has allowed average citizens and grassroots organizations to shape the political debate.

From 2009 to 2013, the state Attorney General’s Office has drafted titles and summaries for 315 measures. Just 27 ultimately qualified for the ballot.

Low’s office noted that, as of August 2015, 58 proposals had been submitted for the 2016 November ballot. By December 14, that figure had doubled. The California State Attorney General’s Office has received 118 requests for a ballot title and summary — double the average number of initiatives from the previous decade.

State legislative analysts say that the number of initiative petitions have been gradually increasing. Over the last half century, proponents filed the following number of initiatives:

• 47 from 1960 to 1969
• 180 from 1970 to 1979
• 282 from 1980 to 1989
• 391 from 1990 to 1999
• 647 from 2000 to 2009
• 240 from 2010 to April 21, 2015

Proponents of the new higher filing fee say that it will help offset the cost to taxpayers. The AG’s office estimates that it takes 56 hours of staff time to prepare each ballot measure, at a cost of $8,000. Under the new state law, proponents get their money back only if the measure qualifies for the ballot.

Some state political observers say the filing fee hike undermines citizen engagement in the process.

“The initiative game in California is entirely for the rich and powerful,” argues columnist Joe Mathews, who also serves as a board member of Democracy International. “What we need are alternative ways to get measures on the ballot that are based on the quality of the idea and on public support.”

In recent months, sponsors of tax increases have filed the necessary paperwork to obtain a ballot title and summary for multiple tax increases, including two versions of a Prop. 30 tax extension. Critics of higher taxes say that an extension of Prop. 30 violates the promise made in 2012.

“Prop. 30 was creatively advertised and sold to the voters by a union, the California Teachers Association, which depicted it as a ‘temporary’ tax to support public schools,” contends former Democratic State Senator Gloria Romero. “But even while Prop. 30 was being pitched to voters as a temporary tax increase, no one in the political world actually believed it. In fact, discussions were already underway before its passage about extending Prop. 30 tax increases beyond the two expiration dates.”

Version 1: Prop. 30 Tax Extension

In September, attorneys on behalf of the Alliance for a Better California, a coalition of education unions, organized labor and health care providers, introduced the “School Funding and Budget Stability Act,” which would impose higher income taxes on high-wealth earners for the next 12 years. The $9 billion in anticipated higher tax proceeds would go towards schools. That also explains why the California Teachers Association is among the proposal’s biggest supporters.

“Temporarily extending these critical revenues will help keep our state budget balanced, and prevent devastating cuts to programs affecting students, seniors, working families and health care,” Gale Kaufman, a longtime Democratic strategist and representative of the coalition, told the Educator, the CTA’s monthly magazine.

Under the plan, California residents earning more than a half-million dollars per year would continue to pay Prop. 30’s higher income taxes until 2030. The quarter-cent sales tax increase would expire next year as scheduled.

Version 2: Prop. 30 Tax Extension

Not content with one tax hike, the same group introduced a second Prop. 30 tax extension in December. The measure would impose Prop. 30’s higher tax rates on those earning more than $250,000 per year — with the proceeds allocated in a slightly different manner.

In an apparent bid to gain support from California’s hospitals, “The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016” would allocate up to $2 billion towards Medi-Cal spending.

“Whether this version truly represents a joint teachers union/health care effort remains to be seen,” explains Loren Kaye, president of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education. “The health care union has not indicated its position on this approach; indeed, in a bizarre twist, it recently sued the CHA for entering into negotiations with CTA in the first place.”

“Amid this uncertainty, one fact remains unassailable: the CTA has a measure ‘on the street’ for which they can begin collecting signatures. Everything else for now is speculation,” he added.

Sponsors of the tax increase say it is desperately needed to avoid catastrophic cuts to schools and other public services.

“Unless we act now to temporarily extend the current income tax rates on the wealthiest Californians, our public schools will soon face another devastating round of cuts due to lost revenue of billions of dollars a year,” the sponsors of the ballot measure wrote in a draft initiative. “We can let the temporary sales tax increase expire to help working families, but this is not the time to be giving the wealthiest people in California a tax cut that they don’t need and that our schools can’t afford.”

Prop. 30 Tax Extension Could Backfire

Many economists fear that any Prop. 30 income tax extension could backfire and further drive high-income earners out-of-state. California’s $115 billion General Fund budget has become increasingly dependent on income tax revenue, which frequently fluctuates based on the stock market.

“(T)he initiative to extend Prop. 30 taxes, rather than solving a problem, creates a worse one,” writes Jerry Nickelsburg, a senior economist for the UCLA Anderson Forecast. “Our current greater dependence on high-income earners to balance the state budget makes us more vulnerable.”

Nevertheless, many state political observers say that a tax extension, which could generate upwards of $11 billion in revenue, is likely to pass in 2016. At a recent economic summit, “Controller Betty Yee predicted that a Proposition 30 extension and a cigarette tax will be on the 2016 ballot and both would pass.”

That assessment comes even as one-time supporters of Prop. 30 question the rationale for its extension.

“In a time of financial crisis, Prop. 30 made sense,” the Los Angeles Daily News recently editorialized. “But the state is no longer in crisis, and any ballot measure playing off the fear of a return to dark days should be seen for the political ploy it is by unionists seeking to protect their own interests.”

Assemblyman Henry T. Perea, a Central Valley Democrat, announced Tuesday his resignation from the California State Assembly, effective December 31.

“This is a bittersweet moment for me as I announce my departure from the state Legislature to pursue other career opportunities,” Perea said in a statement. “I am currently exploring these options and I expect to make a decision soon.”

3rd lawmaker resignation since 2013

Perea will become the third California lawmaker in two years to quit in the middle of their term for a job with a Capitol interest group. In 2013, Democrat State Senator Michael Rubio abruptly quit his position to take a job with Chevron’s government affairs unit. That same year, Republican State Senator Bill Emmerson quit mid-term for a high-paying job with the California Hospital Association.

The resignation will trigger a 2016 special election that is expected to cost Fresno taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars. The March 2014 special election to fill Emmerson’s seat cost Riverside County taxpayers $415,000, according to the Press-Enterprise.

During his five years in office, Perea endeared himself to the Capitol’s biggest special interest groups, unions and corporations and developed a reputation as one of the State Assembly’s primary dealmakers.

“I maximized every day to deliver on the most pressing issues facing our state,” Perea said in a statement.

In 2013, Perea authored legislation that brought about “sweeping changes to the way most of the state’s residents pay for power.” Assembly Bill 327  granted the California Public Utilities Commission substantial power to rewrite California’s energy policy. Some of Perea’s fellow Democrats strongly criticized the legislation for raising energy rates on poor and working families.

“It’s called robbing the hood,” state Senator Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, said of AB327 when it reached the Senate floor. “This is a bad bill. You’re going to raise people’s rates.”

Perea collected luxury gifts, trips

As a state lawmaker, Perea earned $97,197 in annual salary plus $33,000 in annual tax-free per diem payments. He also maximized his opportunities to accept tens of thousands of dollars in luxury goods, entertainment and travel, according to his economic disclosure reports.

In 2011, Perea accepted $9,397 worth of lodging, meals and transportation for a junket to Italy sponsored by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, “a San Francisco-based nonprofit made up of oil companies, utilities and environmental groups.”

Two years later, Perea again accompanied the group on its junket to Eastern Europe – a trip valued at $9,984.

Perea’s biggest haul came last year – when he accepted $16,090 from the group, including a $10,221 trip to Chile. He also traveled to: Maui on a $2,148 trip paid for by the Independent Voter Project, Israel on a $11,550 trip paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Central America on a $1,500 trip paid for by the government of El Salvador.

In addition to his international junkets, Perea attended the running of the 140th Kentucky Derby, just days before redeeming $368 worth of free passes to Disneyland.

Two candidates had already announced their intentions to run for the 31st Assembly District: Democrat Joaquin Arambula and Republican Fresno City Councilman Clint Olivier.

The position has been considered so pointless that even Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom called for eliminating the post in 2012.

In spite of that image, Newsom has found a way to transform the job and establish a defining role in state politics and public policy. His flurry of activity, which has included 34 days as Acting Governor, has drawn the ire of other Democratic politicians with greater constitutional responsibilities envious of his achievements.

Just this year, Newsom has presided over a historic land exchange agreement with the federal government, launched a far-reaching statewide gun-control initiative, chaired a commission to tax and legalize marijuana and led the effort to block tuition increases at state universities.

“Gavin Newsom has destroyed that mold with an aggressive agenda of his own making,” boasts Newsom spokesman Rhys Williams, “leading on difficult issues that the state has been sometimes slow or reluctant to address.”

State Lands Commission: Newsom’s under-the-radar land exchange agreement

Among the position’s limited statutory responsibilities are serving on various state boards, including the University of California Board of Regents and California State University Board of Trustees. Those boards have given Newsom a platform to oppose tuition increases, endearing him to college students burdened by student debt.

He’s also made the most of his time on the more obscure boards, such as the State Lands Commission.

Established during the Great Depression, the independent commission presides over the 4 million acres of the state’s sovereign or public trust lands. Since he assumed the chairmanship of the State Lands Commission in February, Newsom executed the Commission’s “largest ever land exchange,” a move that Newsom says will realign the state’s energy portfolio and generate millions in state revenues.

“A strategic decision was made in 2011 to turn the state’s scattered patchwork of non-revenue generating school lands into functional contiguous parcels that reshape the State Land Commission’s revenue portfolio to include more sources of renewable energy,” Newsom said in an October press release announcing the agreement. “This exchange is a case illustration of that approach, which is projected to increase the Commission’s school land surface-lease revenue significantly and contribute to state and federal goals of environmental protection, renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction.”

Under the terms of the agreement, the state will hand over roughly 61,000 acres of non-revenue generating wilderness land in exchange for approximately 5,600 acres of federal lands with a 550 Megawatt solar facility. Although the state will receive a tenth of the acreage, it could generate $4 million in annual rent and royalties. Newsom’s office says that’s roughly half total revenues for all school land leases, including geothermal and other mineral extraction operations.

Senate President Kevin de Leon retaliates over Newsom’s gun-control proposal

Newsom’s doing so much with the lieutenant governor’s job, he’s even managed to upset fellow Democrat and Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León. Last year, the leader of the state Senate proposed wide-ranging new gun-control restrictions. After de León failed to win support from his legislative colleagues, Newsom resurrected components of the bill in a statewide initiative.

Among other restrictions, Newsom’s initiative would give government the power to confiscate all large-capacity magazines, including those privately owned by active and former law enforcement, require a Department of Justice ammunition purchase permit before ammunition purchases and create a database of ammunition purchasers.

Although he shares similar views on gun control, de León responded to the idea, according to the Los Angeles Times, by slashing Newsom’s staff by one-third.

“De León’s office is denying the connection to gun control, saying it was part of his commitment to improving ‘efficiency’ in the Senate,” writes John Phillips, an Orange County Register columnist and co-host of “The Drive Home with Jillian Barberie and John Phillips” on KABC AM 790. “Back on Planet Earth, we know that this was payback.”

While de León undercuts Newsom, Second Amendment advocates have already mobilized their grassroots advocacy campaign with plans to distribute more than 100,000 grassroots activism guides.

“We are committed to building the biggest, most-organized, and highly informed Second Amendment grassroots army ever seen in California to fight and oppose Gavin Newsom’s assault on our civil rights,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee. “We want 100,000 volunteers working on this by the end of the year. This initial deployment is just the beginning of our much larger opposition plan.”

State Controller Betty T. Yee announced earlier this month an expansion of the eClaim feature for the state’s unclaimed property program. Property owners will now be eligible to submit their claims for property valued up to $5,000 using the controller’s streamlined paperless electronic claim process.

“The eClaim process is simple, efficient, and can be completed in a couple of minutes,” Yee said in a press release. “An increased threshold of $5,000 will allow many more Californians to claim lost or forgotten property online and quickly receive a check in the mail.”

Unclaimed Property: Your Money Held by the State

Under state law, when there’s been no activity on an account for three years, financial institutions are obliged to report this unclaimed property to the California Controller’s Office. In turn, the controller holds the funds until it is claimed by the owner. The most common types of unclaimed properties are bank accounts, stocks, bonds, uncashed checks, wages, life insurance benefits and safe deposit box contents.

Among the biggest problems facing the state’s unclaimed property program: a lack of public awareness about where people can find their old property. Most people don’t realize they’re owed money from a forgotten insurance settlement or an abandoned stock dividend.

However, for those owners aware of the program, obtaining the necessary paperwork to prove ownership can be costly and time-consuming. Many find the hassle of paperwork not worth a small dollar amount.

Unclaimed Property: eClaim created by Chiang

To address the paperwork hassle problem, in January 2014, then-Controller John Chiang created the eClaim feature to expedite the return process for properties valued at less than $500. Later that year, Chaing increased the value to $1,000. In total, more than 315,000 properties have been returned through the Controller’s eClaim feature.

The state currently holds more than $8 billion in unclaimed property that rightfully belongs to more than 32 million people and businesses. More than three-quarters of unclaimed properties are estimated to be eligible for the new expanded eClaim feature. Yee says that by increasing the threshold to $5,000, she’ll be able to return another $9.4 million per year.

Among those who could benefit from the eClaim feature is billionaire hedge fund manager turned environmental activist Tom Steyer. The former hedge fund manager has three unclaimed properties, each valued at less than $50, dating back to his time as founder of the San Francisco-based Farallon Capital Management.

LAO Report: State Can Do More

For decades, the state has made it difficult for owners to obtain their property. From 1990-2007, state law prohibited the Controller’s office from contacting approximately 80 percent of owners.

Earlier this year, the state Legislative Analyst’s Office released a report critical of the state’s unclaimed property system. The state could do a better job of finding owners, the report concluded, instead of passively waiting for the cash to be claimed.

It also argued that the state has a conflict of interest in managing the program.

“In particular, because property not reunited with owners becomes state General Fund revenue, the unclaimed property law creates an incentive for the state to reunite less property with owners,” the report found. “Now generating over $400 million in annual revenue, unclaimed property is the state General Fund’s fifth-largest revenue source. This has created tension between two opposing program identities — unclaimed property as a consumer protection program and as a source of General Fund revenue.”

Unclaimed Property: How to Search for Unclaimed Property

To find out if you have unclaimed property held by the state, go to www.claimit.ca.gov.