It’s no secret that the state’s legislative leadership is less than thrilled about an open-government initiative that California voters passed in the November election, and are doing what they can to undermine its clear intent.

Yet, it’s a testament to the measure’s importance that the Legislature painstakingly followed its dictates as they passed last week a controversial bill to increase gas taxes and vehicle-license fees to fund $52.4 billion in transportation upgrades over the next decade.

Had they not followed the timelines detailed in the measure, the transportation bill would be subject to legal challenge. That reality showcases the “teeth” in Proposition 54, which passed statewide with 65 percent of the vote – and even had the rare virtue of receiving voter approval in every one of California’s 58 counties.

The proposition is simple, though arcane sounding. It mainly requires that all bills be printed in final form – and published online –72 hours prior to a final vote in either house of the Legislature. Good-government reformers had for years tried to get the Legislature to approve such a measure, but were consistently stymied.

That’s because legislators love to rush through those “gut and amend” measures at the last moments of a legislative session. That’s when the guts of a bill are stripped away and an entirely new piece of legislation is dropped into its shell. In these rush situations, most legislators are unaware of the details of what they are voting on and the public and media can’t see what’s in the bills. This situation breeds cynicism and contempt for the legislative process.

By contrast, the vote over Senate Bill 1, the transportation measure, was a model of openness, according to many observers. As observers have noted, there’s plenty of reason for criticism of the bill and other parts of the process – the size of the tax increases, the pork-barrel projects, the lack of reforms for current transportation programs – but there’s no doubt the voter-approved proposition made it easier to see what was in it, warts and all.

Prior to SB 1’s passage, an ideologically diverse group of Prop. 54 supporters, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Common Cause, sent a letter to legislative leaders expressing their “concerns with the Legislature’s implementation to date, which could inadvertently result in the invalidation of bills that the Legislature wishes to pass.”

The bill seemed like a warning: The Legislature better follow the details of Prop. 54 in its consideration of SB 1 or potentially face legal efforts to overturn the measure if it passes. Indeed, the Legislature reportedly followed the 72-hour rule with nine minutes to spare.

But the warning was timely. As the San Francisco Chronicle’s John Diaz explained in an April 7 editorial, “Of particular concern was the Assembly’s attempt to interpret the 72-hour rule more narrowly than was presented to voters.” Assembly leaders interpreted the measure – which its authors say applies to all bills – “only to bills that had previously passed the Senate and were on their last stop before the governor.” That interpretation could eventually be challenged in court.

As the letter writers explained, “Each member of the Legislature is constitutionally guaranteed the right to have at least 72 hours to review the final version of any bill prior to a floor vote, regardless of the bill’s house of origin, and your constituents have the same right. We believe the Legislature’s rules should unambiguously reflect that right.”

The proposition also allows the public to record public meetings and requires the Legislature, beginning in 2018, to post videos of all such meetings online within 24 hours. The letter argues that the Legislature, however, is improperly adopting rules regarding such recordings.

“If the Legislature wishes to regulate the placement and use of recording or broadcasting equipment, it must adopt those rules in compliance with the Constitution’s requirements: that is, by a two-thirds vote concurring in each house, or by statute,” the signers explained.

As Diaz argued, the Legislature had for years “rejected any and all such reforms.” Supporters of the status quo had maintained imposing these “sunshine” rules would restrict the ability of legislators to get things done. But with the passage of SB 1, the Legislature passed one of its major and controversial priorities, despite having to operate with a new level of openness.

Legislators still are resisting the new rules, but they face grave risks if they push their recalcitrance too far. “If the Legislature does not adopt rules consistent with Proposition 54, there is a risk that the Legislature may schedule votes in violation of the Constitution’s 72-hour notice requirements,” according to the coalition letter. “Any such vote for passage will be invalid, and that bill will be ineligible to become a law.”

Ultimately, the Legislature understood what was at risk, which is why they apparently didn’t take any chances with their transportation bill.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

The case, City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, revolves around one question: “Are writings concerning the conduct of public business beyond (the California Public Records Act’s) reach merely because they were sent or received using a nongovernmental account?”

The superior court ruled that records concerning the public’s business should be turned over to the public upon request; the appeals court, however, found that agencies do not have “an affirmative duty to produce messages stored on personal electronic devices and accounts that are inaccessible to the agency,” or to even search for them.

The case goes back to 2009, when a local citizen, Ted Smith, sought records regarding the activities of the city of San Jose’s redevelopment agency, its executive director and some elected officials including the mayor and two City Council members, as the court explained. The city produced the requested documents from official phone numbers and email accounts – but would not provide information stored on the officials’ personal accounts.

The city offered a simplistic defense. Messages created on personal accounts are not public records because they are not within the control of the city. If the city had prevailed, the ramifications would be immense. Elected officials and governmental staff working for California’s numerous government agencies could legally shield sensitive information from the public merely by conducting such business on their personal email account or cellphone.

The appeals court exempted “huge swaths” of information based on where the information was located, not based on content, explained Jim Ewert, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers’ Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case. “If the Supreme Court had not decided (this way), it would have eviscerated the California Public Records Act,” he added.

A Los Angeles Times editorial captured the likely effect had the appeals-court decision stood: “As soon as a public official realizes that his constituents have no right to look at anything he says on his personal cellphone or laptop, he’ll simply do all of his sensitive or secret communications on those devices. With a flick of the wrist, public officials will exempt themselves from accountability.”

The state high court recognized the new reality of email and other electronic communications, even though the state Constitution and the public-records act were crafted in a time before such communications were envisioned. “It requires recognition,” the Supreme Court found, “that, in today’s environment, not all employment-related activity occurs during a conventional workday, or in an employer-maintained workplace.”

The appeals court was concerned about the problems inherent in capturing and turning over records that were out of an agency’s control. But the state high court, while not mandating any particular policy in dealing with such matters, offered some possible scenarios in dealing with a public records request.

For instance, as a Lexology article explains, an agency could require employees to search their own emails for relevant records or develop a policy requiring “all emails involving agency business, sent by an employee through a private account, to be copied to the employee’s agency email account.” The main point is the court upheld the idea that the public has a right to access a public record, even if the details of obtaining it are up for debate.

In fact, the court explained that because the city did not try to search for any particular documents in its employees’ personal accounts, “the legality of a specific kind of search is not before us.” But it found that agencies are obliged to at least try to locate and disclose any such public documents on private servers “with reasonable effort.”

The decision, however, does not change the complex balancing act that exists between public access and privacy rights. Some documents are protected from public exposure, but the court’s ruling finds that the location of those documents – on a public or private server – has nothing to do with whether or not those documents are legitimate public records.

The high court quoted from the state’s public records act, which defines a public record as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” Not everything produced by a public employee is public, of course, and it might take hair-splitting to determine where to draw the line.

Here, the court used an example to illustrate the point: An employee’s email to a spouse complaining that “my coworker is an idiot,” is unlikely to be considered public, whereas “an email to a superior reporting the coworker’s mismanagement of an agency project might well be.” The court agreed that public employees do not “forfeit all rights to privacy.” But the city of San Jose claimed an exemption for all communications from personal accounts, which was an open invitation for employees to evade the clear intent of open-records laws.

The high court was not persuaded by the city’s argument that the Legislature required public access only to records “accessible to the agency as a whole.” Many genuinely public documents, it explained, are stored in “filing cabinets and ledgers” that would not be accessible to all of an agency’s employees.

The question, of course, is whether the document was produced by employees who are conducting business on behalf of the agency. It’s not a matter of where the document is stored that determines whether the public should have access to it. If, for instance, an agency contracted with a consultant to produce a report, then the agency – and therefore the public – has a right to that document even if the consultant is retaining that document, according to the court.

The recent presidential election reinforces the significance of these distinctions. “Our concerns are not fanciful,” the newspaper association’s brief explained. “For example, former Secretary of State and … presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton turned over 50,000 pages of government-related emails that she had kept on a private account, although federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system.” Many other states consider public records on private servers to be accessible to the public.

While local and state government agencies still need to come up with policies that detail exactly how such records must be maintained and disclosed, the court resolved the fundamental principle: A public document is a public document, even if it was created and stored in a private email account.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

The popular Democratic governor echoed other Democratic leaders in the state by taking shots at Republican President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans and their proposed, yet sometimes vague, agenda.

On the day Trump pushed through two controversial oil projects opposed by environmentalists, with a repeal of the Affordable Care Act slowly working through Congress and with federal action on immigration looming on the horizon, Brown pointed to the battle lines drawn between the state and the federal government.

“While no one knows what the new leaders will actually do, there are signs that are disturbing,” Brown said. “We have seen the bald assertion of ‘alternative facts.’ We have heard the blatant attacks on science. Familiar signposts of our democracy – truth, civility, working together – have been obscured or swept aside.”

Yet the tone wasn’t entirely combative, compared to legislative leaders. Brown lauded Trump’s plans for massive investment in infrastructure (“Amen to that, brother”) and highlighted bipartisan accomplishments in the state, like the creation of the rainy-day fund and the water bond.

Brown also drew a stark contrast with Hillary Clinton, who, during the campaign season, referred to half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” 

“Democrats are in the majority, but Republicans represent real Californians too,” Brown said. “We went beyond party when we reformed workers’ compensation, when we created a rainy-day fund and when we passed the water bond.”

Brown lauded accomplishments during his governorship, which included increasing education funding, passing climate-change legislation, removing a substantial budget deficit and adding millions of people to insurance plans through both Medi-Cal and private policies.

A significant portion of the speech was devoted to immigration, noting immigrants are “an integral part of who we are and what we’ve become.” Brown called attention to some of the state’s immigration initiatives, like the Trust Act and a measure issuing driver licenses to undocumented immigrants, saying “we may be called to defend those laws and defend we will.”

“Whether it’s the threat to our budget, or to undocumented Californians, or to our efforts to combat climate change – or even more global threats such as a financial meltdown or a nuclear incident or terrorist attack – this is a time which calls out for courage and for perseverance,” Brown said. “I promise you both.”

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, a Rocklin Republican, asked the California attorney general’s office on Friday whether Holder’s hiring for outside legal work in an impending battle with the incoming Trump administration violates a constitutional clause protecting against cronyism. 

“California courts have interpreted the civil service mandate of article VII of forbidding private contracting for services that are of a kind that persons selected through civil service could perform ‘adequately and competently,'” Kiley wrote, adding that there are almost 1,600 attorneys and support staff in the Legal Services Division of the state’s AG office.

Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, and Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, announced on Thursday they’d decided to contract with Holder’s law firm, Convington & Burling, for three months, at $25,000 per month. 

The hiring of Covington & Burling was another move in an ongoing effort to bolster the state’s defenses against the perceived threat of the incoming Trump administration in areas of immigration, health care and the environment. Kiley argued that defending the state against the federal government is traditionally the role of the state AG. 

“In light of these facts, I respectfully ask your legal opinion as to whether the 1,592 attorneys and legal staff at the State Attorney General’s Office can perform ‘adequately and competently’ the legal services for which Covington & Burling has been retained by the Legislature,” Kiley wrote.

“That the Senate hopes for the peaceful transition of power in the United States, that the incoming presidency will be a success, and that the president-elect will take his responsibilities seriously to ensure a strong and unified America,” according the resolution authored by Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa.

Of course, California’s electors will chose Hillary Clinton, who won the state in a landslide in a winner-take-all contest, but the majority of electors in the country will choose Donald Trump to be the next president.

Since the November election, top California Democrats have pledged to fight the Trump administration, particularly on climate change and immigration. A few weeks ago, the  Legislature passed a resolution calling on Trump to back away from tough stances on immigration taken during the campaign.

Moorlach’s resolution, however, calls on the Senate to work with Trump “to ensure that the United States remains a world leader in economics, trade and freedom.”

“The work of forming a more perfect union is neither easy nor trivial,” Moorlach said in a statement. “In a republican form of government, it requires cooperation between duly elected officials. At a time of unparalleled polarization, California now finds itself in the position of being one of the bluest states in a very red nation.”

Even as a few voices nationally have called for electors to not vote for Trump, the California Legislature’s recent resolutions acknowledge Trump as the president-elect. Moorlach said he is “pleased” by the acknowledgement and, while he expects Trump to be challenged by elected officials in California, he hopes everyone will ultimately wish for Trump’s success “for the sake of our country.”

“This peaceful transition is a hallmark of our democracy,” Moorlach said. “President Barrack Obama has called on Americans to move forward and reminded the country that we are all on the same team and reiterating the sentiments of his forbearers, that we are not enemies, but friends.”

The report, released by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office on Wednesday, identified three areas of concern. First, LAO writes the administration’s strategy “lacks basic information necessary to determine its merits, including its costs, benefits, and potential alternative approaches.” 

Second, the LAO noted the administration’s insistence on using a particular funding process that allows “the administration to establish and fund projects without legislative approval” greatly reduces legislative oversight. 

The LAO also called the construction and renovation plan “ambitious,” adding it was already behind schedule and that it is likely to become increasingly more expensive.

The LAO recommended the Legislature call for a “robust analysis” of the administration’s strategy, to closely monitor the $1.3 billion expenditure for 2016-17 and to push for further appropriations to be made through the budget process. 

“We believe these recommendations would help ensure that the state has the information it needs to move forward with the best available strategy for addressing its buildings in the Sacramento area and that any funds provided are spent with adequate legislative oversight and accountability,” wrote Helen Kerstein, an LAO analyst. 

The administration’s plan provided “badly needed” funding for the modernization effort, to maximize energy and water efficiency, to strengthen security and to make the buildings ADA compliant, said an administration spokesman. 

“We look forward to working closely with our colleagues at the LAO and within legislative leadership to make this effort a success and ensure the highest possible degree of transparency and accountability in how these projects are executed,” Brian Ferguson, a deputy director at the Department of General Services, told CalWatchdog on Thursday. 

Reeling from outrage over a costly bureaucratic misstep, the Pentagon has halted its efforts to force California National Guardsmen to personally repay salary bonuses that should not have approved in the first place. 

As some observers concluded that only Congress could clean up the accounting mess, Defense Secretary Ash Carter took matters into his own hands. “Carter ordered the military’s money managers at the Defense Finance and Accounting Services to ‘suspend all efforts to collect reimbursements from affected California National Guard members, effective as soon as practical,'” Military Times reported. “Carter also ordered the Pentagon’s top personnel official, Undersecretary of Defense Peter Levine, to review and streamline the bureaucratic process that enables service members to individually appeal debts imposed by military accountants and seek to have those debts eliminated.”

The state Guard all but asked legislators in Washington to intervene. “Amid anger over the repayment program, the California National Guard issued a statement Sunday saying that it has been acting under the Pentagon’s orders and that it couldn’t ‘unilaterally waive these debts,'” according to NPR. “The service added that it would welcome an act by Congress forgiving the debts.”

The furor around the Defense Department’s approach, which was swiftly construed as a betrayal of trust and a black eye for America, arose from a Los Angeles Times report that found immediate traction nationwide. “It is unthinkable to me that the Department of Defense’s first reaction is to punish service members who fulfilled their end of the deal,” said VFW national commander Brian Duffy in a statement quoted by the Times. “This is how you destroy all faith in a Pentagon that is supposed to have your back.”

Years of misuse

The bogus bonuses reached back years. “The National Guard struggled to fill its ranks during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, relying on bonuses to sign recruits and for re-enlistment,” USA Today noted. “National Guard recruiting has been rocked by scandal in recent years. In 2014, more than 800 of its soldiers were under criminal investigation for gaming a program that paid hundreds of millions in bonuses to guardsmen who signed up friends.”

California became a hotbed of misallocations. Six years ago, a former Guard auditor told the Sacramento Bee that “as much as $100 million has gone to soldiers who didn’t qualify for the incentives, including some who got tens of thousands of dollars more than the program allows. For years, the auditor and other Guard officials allege in interviews or internal documents obtained by The Bee, California’s incentives program was operated as a slush fund, doled out improperly to hundreds of soldiers with fabricated paperwork, scant supervision and little regard for the law.”

But the California Guardsmen targeted by the Pentagon were largely innocent. “Nearly all of the soldiers took the bonuses in good faith and were unaware of the misspending until notices arrived in the mail years later,” the New York Times reported. “Some had to repay more than $20,000 and a few more than $40,000. Many had wages garnished and racked up penalties and other debt trying to pay back the bonuses.”

An unclear path

Pending a Pentagon review, other state programs similar to California’s could come under more scrutiny, although questions remain as to how fraudulent bonuses might be adjudicated as a whole. “It’s unclear how the Pentagon’s adjusted policy might apply to veterans in states other than California,” NPR noted. High-ranking officials have cautioned that efforts to address the problem on the Hill already ran aground. “Maj. Gen. Matthew Beevers, the No. 2 officer in the California Army National Guard, said Monday that Guard leaders attempted to resolve the problem through Congress two years ago, and the effort stalled,” according to the Washington Post. “Beevers said that an effort to pass legislation that would have provided relief to affected soldiers did not find favor with the Congressional Budget Office because it would have added spending at a time when the U.S. government was attempting to cut back.”

While her ascendancy will need to be formalized with a vote of caucus members after November’s election, the vice chair, which Garcia is, has almost always become chair. The position already wields great power from its bully pulpit, but the bipartisan caucus appears set for a makeover after November sweeps in a large voting bloc of Democratic women to consolidate power in the Assembly.

Exactly how many women is unknown until the votes are counted. But a conservative estimate, based on a CalWatchdog analysis, suggests Democratic women will likely occupy between 16 and 28 seats in the Legislature next session, compared to 19 now.

The biggest gains will be in the Assembly where Democratic women could control at least 25 percent of the votes, with Garcia taking a lead role in the recruitment efforts.

In the four years since being elected — and after surviving a sharp learning curve having come from no background in elected office — the Bell Gardens Democrat rose in stature by focusing largely on ethics and women’s issues, with a knack for forcing to the forefront what she says are taboo topics.

Garcia made recent headlines for calling out a male colleague accused of domestic violence and for championing a bill redefining rape in the aftermath of the controversial sentencing of a former Stanford swimmer who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman and another eliminating sales tax on tampons and other feminine hygiene products. 

Both bills passed the Legislature and await a final decision from Gov. Jerry Brown. But to her, the legislative victories are just as important as the cultural changes. 

“I’ve been talking about periods the whole year,” Garcia told CalWatchdog in August over ice cream in Sacramento. “Why does it have to be taboo? It’s women’s health.”

Queenmaker

One of Garcia’s biggest goals with the women’s caucus outside of policy will be to build a bench of viable Democratic women candidates, particularly women of color, to compete for governor. There are only 11 women of color in the Legislature at the moment (several of whom are termed out in November), but many of the presumptive newcomers are Latinas.  

There’s no reason the first female governor in the state’s history would need to come through the Legislature, but it’s not a bad launch pad. Garcia didn’t dispel the notion she may make a run for governor at some point, but she said she’s satisfied doing what it takes to make a female Democratic governor possible. 

“If we don’t have a farm, we’re never going to climb,” Garcia said. “The men aren’t doing it for us, so we have to do it for ourselves.”

The 2018 gubernatorial field is quickly filling with men, so Garcia is looking to future elections to break the glass ceiling. Garcia knows gubernatorial candidates will want the women’s caucus’ support, but it would come with a price.

“I’ll help you now because I want something later,” Garcia said. “And that something is a woman governor after you.”

Background

In 2012, the unassuming math teacher was sent to Sacramento by voters in an underprivileged district in southeastern Los Angeles County — her only prior political experience was forming a community group in response to widespread corruption in Bell Gardens.

In her first primary, she bested a member of a political dynasty, then-former Assemblyman Tom Calderon. After defeating Calderon, she handily beat her Republican opponent in the general election and has run officially unopposed ever since.

Garcia is quick to condemn what she sees as immoral or unethical actions. A few months ago, she was one of the first legislators to demand the resignation of fellow Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez after allegations of domestic violence surfaced.

In 2013, she was the first sitting legislator to speak out and organize protests against Ron Calderon, a sitting senator, calling for his resignation after allegations surfaced the FBI suspected him of bribery. Calderon would later plead guilty to mail fraud, while his brother, Tom (Garcia’s former opponent), pleaded guilty to money laundering.

When the Kevin Sloat lobbying scandal ripped through the Legislature, Garcia responded with a sweeping ethics package. And currently waiting for Gov. Brown’s signature is a measure to overhaul the Central Basin Municipal Water District amid allegations of wrongdoing. 

But Garcia has had her own ethical faux pas. During her first run for the Assembly, she claimed she had a Ph.D. when she had only completed coursework. She has since admitted the mistake and will defend her dissertation in December.

Chair

Above all, Garcia’s time as chair will be about women and women’s issues, and she’ll have tremendous influence over the legislative focus of the caucus. Her recruitment efforts with the 2016 crop of women candidates will engender a base of loyalists. 

Garcia plans to personally push for early childhood education, but rather than having members support the caucus’ agenda, Garcia plans to have the caucus support members’ agendas — hence the emphasis on electing more Democratic women.

Naturally, Democratic women are more likely to stick together than a bipartisan group would. Plus, Republican women in the Legislature will drop from 12 seats to between five and eight.

Garcia understands power in the Legislature is held in numbers — the tighter and larger the voting bloc, the better — and wants to use it to enable women to accomplish their goals.

“We just have to prop each other up,” Garcia said. “Hold our votes together to push our stuff forward, and hold our votes together to hold things hostage when our stuff is not being taken seriously.”

And while the tributes range in length and tone — one legislator joked (?) about his romantic feelings for Assemblywoman Nora Campos — none were as awkward as the one for termed-out Roger Hernández, who was recently placed under a restraining order from his now-ex-wife and was subsequently stripped of his committee assignments.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, was the first of around a half dozen Democrats to pay kind words to the West Covina Democrat, whom she had known since election night 2000.

Gonzalez spoke of Hernández’s focus on immigrant communities and low-wage workers.

“This body will miss your work,” Gonzalez said.

Remember when he stole a member’s mic?

Gonzalez opened her remarks with a joke about Hernández’s relationship with Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach. Last July, Hernández had security remove Harper’s microphone at a committee hearing on increasing the minimum wage after repeatedly talking over Harper and calling a vote to end debate. Videos suggested that even the clerk and deputies seemed confused by Hernández’s requests.

“Seargents have already turned off Mr. Harper’s microphone, so we’re going to do OK,” Gonzalez said.

Harper declined to speak on Wednesday when jokingly asked.

“Thank you for your wisdom, Mr. Harper,” said Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, who was presiding.

Proud

Assemblywoman Shirley Weber had the most awkward exchange with Hernández, however, when she said she was “proud” to see how he’d handled himself over the past year.

In April, Hernández was placed under a temporary restraining order from his then-wife, Susan Rubio, after allegations of domestic violence surfaced during divorce proceedings.

Rubio alleged Hernández assaulted her 20 times over a three-year period, detailing eight alleged incidents in court that included being choked with a belt, being beat with a broom while on the ground and being threatened with a knife after having been accused of an affair.

Hernández has not been charged with a crime but was placed under a three-year restraining order earlier this summer. Hernández has denied the allegations, and even compared Rubio to former Olympic ice skater Tonya Harding, who hired a thug to whack the knee of another skater, Nancy Kerrigan.

It’s not the first time Hernández was in trouble. In 2012, an ex-girlfriend accused him of domestic violence, although charges were never filed. That same year, Hernández was arrested for drunk driving in a state vehicle, but was acquitted by a jury on one charge, while the jury was hung on another. And in 2015, allegations of political money laundering against Hernández were dropped by the Fair Political Practices Commission after two key witnesses were unable to testify — one had serious medical issues while the other passed away.

“You’ve taken a lot this year,” Weber said. “You’ve taken a lot over the years. And I’m always so proud to see you stand.”

Weber added that she thought of Hernández as courageous on tough issues, a man of “tremendous love and respect” and reiterated her appreciation for his toughness during his personal turmoil. Hernández recently dropped a bid for Congress amid the allegations.

“Many of us struggle with all the issues of life and we crumble as a result of it, but you did not,” Weber said. 

David Bowser was charged with using nearly $44,000 of congressional office funds of his former boss, former Georgia Republican Congressman Paul Broun, to pay one of Broun’s campaign consultants, according to the Athens Banner-Herald. Bowser was also charged with obstructing a congressional investigation and making false statements.

Politico reporter John Bresnahan broke the news of the resignation on Twitter Thursday.

/1 David Bowser, chief of staff for @RepMimiWalters, has resigned following indictment on federal criminal charges, per her office.

— John Bresnahan (@BresPolitico) April 7, 2016

/2 Bowser was indicted for alleged campaign finance violations, making false statements, lying to OCE while working for ex-Rep. Paul Broun

— John Bresnahan (@BresPolitico) April 7, 2016

Walters, an Irvine Republican, was elected to Congress in 2014, after years in the state Legislature.

“David Bowser tendered his resignation on April 6, 2016,” according to a statement issued by Walters’ office. “The charges against him involve incidents alleged to have occurred in the office of former Georgia Congressman Paul Broun in 2012-2014, before Rep. Walters became a member of Congress.”

This story has been updated to include the statement from Walters’ office and to correct the day of Bowser’s resignation.