The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, heralded by political leaders as a measure to police poor working conditions in companies doing business in California “has little influence on the labor conditions of these suppliers” in China, Li Qiang, executive director of China Labor Watch, said in a statement to CalWatchdog. “As such, labor rights violations are still prevalent in these factories.” A study released in late August from China Labor Watch reported that at the Shanghai, China, facility of Apple supplier Pegatron, “working conditions are terrible, and workers are subject to terrible treatment. Currently, Apple’s profits are declining … to mitigate the impact, Pegatron has taken some covert measures to exploit workers.”

It’s the seventh report to allege worker abuses by Apple’s Chinese suppliers from New York-based China Labor Watch since 2012.

The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act directs companies of a certain size to declare through a public posting that they are attentive to potential abuses along their supplier base. The goal is to stem human trafficking and slavery, advocates say. Companies last year received a letter from the state Attorney General’s Office, informing them that “your company must post on its Internet website the required disclosures if it meets the eligibility criteria – namely, if your company is a retail seller or manufacturer doing business in California and has annual worldwide gross receipts that exceed $100,000,000.”

But the act doesn’t mandate action to address shortfalls in the supply chain. The disclosures are the only requirement, although they have led to lawsuits filed by citizens who allege companies have filed misleading or false disclosures, using California’s liberal laws regarding consumer rights.

“This bill, it’s a very simple bill, it requires businesses to disclose their efforts to eradicate slavery from their supply chain,” former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said during the ceremonial signing of Senate Bill 657, which created the supply chains act. “This would increase transparency, allow consumers to get more information and make more choices and motivate businesses to ensure humane practices.”

The measure is responsible for several current investigations of companies based on the disclosure required by the supply chains act, state Department of Justice spokeswoman Kristin Ford said.

She declined to comment on Apple’s performance with regard to the act.

Apple, founded and based in Cupertino, Calif., since 1976, has complied with the reporting requirement. In its latest filing in March, Apple said it has a “robust auditing process which has expanded deep into the supply chain over the past ten years. This statement reflects our progress … to combat and prevent human trafficking, slavery, servitude, and forced, compulsory, or involuntary labor in our supply chain.” Apple, though, changed its primary supplier for the iPhone in 2013, handing the deal to Pegatron. Since then, Pegatron has handled other technology for Apple. Last year, according to its annual corporate report, Pegatron worked on Apple CarPlay, which delivers information from an iPhone to a vehicle’s display panel.

Taiwan-based Pegatron is a public corporation with an octopus of subsidiaries throughout Asia. It supplies electronics to a number of companies including Microsoft. But the 19-page labor study from China Labor Watch insists that “Apple is the real reason working conditions are deteriorating.”

Despite Schwarzenegger’s declaration that consumers will “make more choices” with information gleaned from the supply chain act, Apple this year ranked as the world’s most valuable brand for the sixth consecutive year in Forbes magazine’s annual study. Apple’s $154 billion worth is 87 percent higher than that of second place Google, according to the magazine.

Apple’s press office did not return a call.

China Labor Watch said that Apple’s favor among consumers has allowed it to skate on its alleged violations in China.

“Apple’s use of public relations and their popularity here in the U.S. may be why they are able to escape regulation/examination,” Qiang, the executive director of China Labor Watch, said in his statement to CalWatchdog. “In addition, Apple is very much concerned about their shareholders, as opposed to that of workers overseas. “

Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive. 

Seventeen total. And while voters will read and learn more as the campaigns unfold between now and Election Day, here is a quick reference guide to get your bearings. 

Referendum to Overturn Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags: This is as it sounds. In 2014, the Legislature passed a ban on single-use plastic bags. So a “yes” vote would uphold the ban. A “no” vote would overturn it.

To uphold the law would ban the use of single-use carryout bags, except for perishable items. It would also impose a fee of at least $.10 per paper bag or thicker plastic bag if the customer didn’t provide a reusable one. 

The ban actually died on the Assembly floor in 2014 three days before it passed. What changed? A deal was struck between the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Safeway creating the $.10 fee, which will be kept by the grocer/retailer.

Plastic Bags, Part II: If the plastic bag ban is upheld by voters, this initiative would divert the $.10 fees for bags to a state fund to pay for environmental programs. This would be in lieu of the money going to the grocers.

Campaign Finance (Poll): This is basically just an elaborate poll. It’s a non-binding measure that allows voters through the ballot process to log their approval or disapproval of campaign finance law in the country.

A similar measure got tied up in court in 2014, as opponents called it a ploy to drive voter turnout. But in January, the state Supreme Court ruled it was allowable, and so here it is. 

Specifically at question is the 2010 Citizens United ruling where the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums in support or opposition of a political candidate. 

Guns and Ammo: This is Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pet project. This would ban magazines of 11 rounds or more, require background checks for ammunition and require the state to share data in the FBI’s background check system, among other things.

However, a bill passed by the Legislature on Thursday but not signed yet by Gov. Jerry Brown would amend this ballot initiative (yes, it amends something that isn’t yet law) to further limit who can purchase ammunition to both persons whose data matches up with the Automated Firearms System and to those who have a ammunition purchase authorization. There are some exceptions. 

Naturally, this sidestep of Newsom to amend his measure ruffled his feathers, dragging him and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, the bill’s sponsor, into a public disagreement. 

“This last-minute, anti-democratic, poison pill sneak attack makes you wonder if the Pro Tem cares about himself more than he cares about doing the right thing,” said Newsom spokesman Dan Newman, according to The Sacramento Bee. “Is he someone who truly respects the will of the voters and wants to reduce gun violence or is he merely a self-serving cynic completely consumed with petty personal grudges?”

Death Penalty Repeal: This repeals the death penalty as the maximum punishment for murder and replaces it with life without parole, applying retroactively to those already sentenced to death.

This has a provision mandating those who’ve been sentenced to life without parole to work, with 60 percent of their income possibly going towards restitution to victims. 

The Opposite of a Death Penalty Repeal: And for those who think the death penalty should stay as the ultimate sentence for murder, this measure would speed up the process by implementing a time limit on the lengthy appeals process, by assigning the superior court for the initial review and by limiting the number of successive petitions. 

Like the competing measure, this would impose a work requirement for restitution to victims.

Drug Pricing: This would set pharmaceutical prices for any state agency to be as low as what the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs pays — the VA benefits from federally mandated cost controls.

According to KPCC, the measure would apply to “any program in which the state is the ultimate payer for a drug,” which includes: Medi-Cal fee-for-service plans, CalPERS (provides health benefits to current and retired state employees), prison inmates and people receiving AIDS drugs from the government.

Condoms in Porn: This may as well be called the Condoms In Porn Act, because it would require porn actors to wear condoms during the filming of sexual intercourse.

It also requires that producers provide testing and vaccinations for STDs. And for what it’s worth, producers would also have to post the condom requirements at the job site.

No Blank Checks Initiative: This would require any bond of $2 billion or more for a state project to go before the voters for approval.

As dull as that sounds, it could have a dramatic impact on Gov. Jerry Brown’s legacy, in that it would likely put funding for the bullet train and the twin tunnels water project up to a vote of the people. 

School Bond: This would authorize $9 billion in bonds for school construction and modernization, supported by a coalition of school districts and school developers. Pretty self-explanatory.

The measure failed to qualify in 2014, however, amid opposition from Gov. Jerry Brown, who said at the time local school construction was best left up to local control.

Earlier this year, Brown reiterated his opposition, calling the initiative a “blunderbuss effort that promotes sprawl and squanders money that would be far better spent in low-income communities,” according to EdSource.

FYI: Blunderbuss is a “blundering person,” according to Merriam-Webster. It’s also an old fashioned, muzzle-loading gun. 

Prop. 30 extension: This is a 12-year extension of Prop. 30, which was a seven-year temporary tax on earnings of more than $250,000 annually to bolster education funding, with the extension coming two years early.

Prop. 30 passed to stave of imminent sharp cuts in education. Now that the economy has recovered, proponents want to keep the money flowing and now hospitals want a cut too.

The extension would allow a quarter-cent sales tax that was part of Prop. 30 to expire, but would add up to $2 billion in funding per year for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. 

As part of Prop. 30, the program was supposed to receive several layers of accountability, including a state-run audit of the fund that doles out the money to schools that still hasn’t happened. The controller’s office previously told CalWatchdog the audit would likely happen before voters have to decide.

California Legislature Transparency Act: The CLTA is a constitutional amendment requiring the Legislature to make available online the final version of a bill at least 72 hours prior to a vote on either the Assembly or Senate floor. It would also require all open legislative meetings be recorded with the videos posted online within 24 hours and would give permission to individuals to record and share their own videos of open meetings.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, is currently negotiating with CLTA proponents over changes proposed by the Legislature — but the negotiations are not going well. 

Multilingual Education: This would repeal most of Prop. 227, which in 1998 placed heavy restrictions on bilingual educations for English learners in favor of English-immersion education.

Why would voters overturn their prior decision? Education Week framed the debate well. Proponents argue new data shows the value of bilingual education, native English speakers would be allowed access to a bilingual education (if they choose), and because we live in a different world with rapidly changing demographics. 

Why would voters keep Prop. 227 on the books? Ron Unz, a former candidate for U.S. Senate and governor who pushed for Prop. 227, argued that an overall improvement over a year-period in standardized test scores shows Prop. 227 worked. And others would likely make a nativist argument: This is America, and residents should learn English. 

Medi-Cal Hospital Reimbursement: This one is a little confusing. The federal government contributes to the state’s health care program for low-income patients, called Medi-Cal. In order to get this money, the state has to contribute matching funds.

In 2009, the state passed a law taxing hospitals to help contribute to the state’s portion of the Medi-Cal funding to get the money from the feds. However, the state was diverting some of this money into the general fund.

So, this measure amends the state Constitution requiring these funds go to where they are intended.

It would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to amend the fee allocation program only when the changes would “amend or add provisions that further the purposes of the Act.” It would require voter approval to repeal or replace the program with a “similar statute imposing a tax, fee or assessment unless that similar statute is either.”

Sentencing overhaul:  Jerry Brown’s baby. After surviving a legal challenge and rumored sky-high signature collecting fees, this bill made it to the ballot just before the deadline. 

Brown’s measure would allow for some nonviolent felons to be paroled early in certain instances, require judges to hold hearings prior to determining whether to try juveniles as an adult, and develop a good behavior, parole-and-sentence credit system for prisoners. 

Marijuana Legalization: This would allow individuals, 21 and older, to transport and use up to an ounce of recreational pot. It would allow individuals to grow as many as six plants.

If approved, California would join Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon in allowing recreational pot. 

Tobacco Tax: If this passes, smokers would pay a $2-per-pack tax on cigarettes, with a similar increase on other tobacco products and e-cigs containing nicotine. The money will go primarily to healthcare and anti-smoking/tobacco-related health programs.

Editors Note: The American Progressive Bag Alliance sponsored a media dinner hosted by Calwatchdog to discuss and debate the plastic bag ban with journalists in Southern California.

Henry T. Perea’s decision to leave office early cost Fresno County at least a half million dollars.

Henry T. Perea’s decision to vacate his Assembly seat early cost Fresno County a half-million dollars — enough to pay for four sheriff deputies — and has reignited a discussion on the cost of special elections.

The Fresno Democrat announced last year that he’d be leaving the Assembly to pursue a position with the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, counties are saddled with the cost of special elections regularly. And while they have become less frequent, at least temporarily, a CalWatchdog review of expenses shows that since 2013 counties (and one city) have spent $21.7 million on special elections to replace state lawmakers.

Few would decry a legislator stepping down if the officeholder or his or her family member fell ill. And of course sometimes scandals create a vacancy. But most of the time these seats are vacated by politicians looking to cash in with a high-paying lobbying position, trade up for higher office (perhaps to avoid being forced from office by term limits), which then creates a mad dash to fill the gaps behind them.

For example: In 2013, Curren Price created a vacancy in the state Senate when he won a seat on the Los Angeles City Council, which are elected in odd-numbered years. Holly Mitchell then won Price’s seat in a special election, leaving a vacancy in the Assembly. That vacancy was filled by the current occupant, Asm. Sebastian Ridley-Thomas.

That game of musical chairs cost Los Angeles County $2.4 million. And had Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell not one outright in their respective primaries, forcing a run-off, the cost for the overall costs for the special election would have approximately doubled.

Nonpartisan

Price, Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell are all Democrats, but Republicans do it too. In 2014, Mimi Walters won a seat in Congress in an open Orange County district after former Rep. John Campbell retired.

After winning, she vacated her state Senate seat, which was filled by now-Sen. John Moorlach, costing the county $1.24 million.

One approach

On Wednesday, an Assembly panel will consider a proposal from Asm. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, which would require that legislators use leftover campaign funds to pay down the cost of the special election they’ve caused, leaving exceptions for health and family reasons.

Perea still has more than $800,000 according to the campaign finance filings from the end of 2015. Instead of giving money to Fresno County, which is allowable under state law, Perea made some political contributions and paid for a few holiday parties.

Other ideas

A measure by Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, was approved by one panel earlier this month. The bill would require the state to reimburse for the entire cost of the special election for vacancies of state lawmakers. The state used to contribute to the cost of special elections, but has since ceased the practice.

“Fresno County was forced to hold a special election today to fill a vacant Assembly seat, which is costing the county more than a half- million dollars,” Vidak said in a statement last week following the election to replace Perea. “That’s money that could have been used for police, fire, health, education and other vital services.”

Others have suggested the governor appoint a replacement to serve until the next scheduled election. But critics claim that gives the unfair advantage of incumbency to a replacement if he or she decides to run for another term, and gives the governor too much political power.

“Sure, it’s a tradeoff,” said Raphael Sonenshein, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles, noting that if the seat is held only until the next scheduled election then no one would hold the seat for more than two years. “Special elections have very low turnout. It’s at least arguably a budget savings and one less election.”

Turnout

Voter turnout is a persistent issue in California. Some argue that the abundance of special elections contributes to the problem. Most of the special elections have even lower turnout.

In 2013 in Los Angeles, 23 percent of voters turned out for the regularly-scheduled city elections when Price was elected. Later that year, only 5.55 percent of voters turned out to elect Mitchell to the state Senate and then 8.47 percent turned out to elect Ridley-Thomas to the Assembly.

In 2014, the regularly-scheduled gubernatorial election that sent Mimi Walters to Congress drew about 43 percent of voters, while John Moorlach was elected to the state Senate only a few months later with only a 15.42 percent turnout.

Kathay Feng, the executive director of the left-leaning good government group California Common Cause, suggests moving all local elections to the normal presidential and midterm/gubernatorial voting schedule — and during the vacancy, until a successor is elected, the seat could either stay unoccupied or a “caretaker” could be appointed.

“Will a group of people be unrepresented for a short period of time? Potentially.” Feng told CalWatchdog. “But this is insane to elect people by five or six percent of the population and still call it a democracy.”

Cost

The money that is spent on special elections goes to things like: printing ballots, hiring poll workers, securing locations, paying for postage and producing vote by mail ballots. 

Many special elections are unbudgeted and all are unplanned and sometimes they overlap. According to Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk, it can be particularly taxing on the county registrar and confusing for voters who could be receiving election packets from the city they live in and then the county a few weeks later, like Los Angeles residents in 2013.

Logan did not advocate a particular path forward, as it’s not his role as registrar. However, he has at least raised questions over the current process and the drain on resources since at least 2010.

“And we already have a crisis of participation even in our regular election cycles, but the turnout in these special vacancy elections is extremely low,” Logan told CalWatchdog.

Term-limits

Some argue that the 2012 modification of term limits, which allowed legislators to spend more time in each chamber, may reduce the number of special elections. While the change hasn’t been around long enough to say for sure, there has been a reduction in special elections since it was passed.

There were 12 special elections (including primary and general/run-off) in 2013, two in 2014, four in 2015 and only one so far this year.

Photo credit: 401kcalculator.org

Proponents of a 12-year extension of a temporary tax used to bolster education funding may ask voters to consider the measure prior to a full vetting, with critics demanding accountability.

By law, the state Controller’s office is supposed to audit Proposition 30’s Education Protection fund, which doles out the funds according to a strict formula. Although the law gave no time requirement, the audit has not yet happened and isn’t projected to be complete until around a month before the November election, which one critic says shows a lack of transparency.

“Voters were told that Prop. 30 funds would be audited, and there is a presumption among the voters that that audit would be conducted in a timely manner,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “And to be told that the audit … isn’t going to be completed until the month before the election is not exactly full transparency.”

History

Prop. 30, which passed in 2012, implemented a tax on incomes exceeding $250,000 and a quarter-cent sales tax, which were both used to stave off severe budget cuts to education and the general fund.

To quell concerns that the tax revenue would actually go to funding education and not some unrelated expense, the measure called for two levels of oversight: annual audits of spending by local agencies, like school districts, charter schools and community college districts, and a periodic audit of the state’s Education Protection Account.

The local audits are being completed, but no audit of the EPA has been performed to date, which the law says the Controller “shall” perform. To clarify, the local audits verify how schools are spending the money, while the EPA audit would verify how the state is spending the money.

When will the audit happen and is it necessary?

The controller’s office told CalWatchdog the audit would likely be completed by October. Assuming the initiative qualifies for the ballot, which it hasn’t yet, that is only a month before voters go to the polls.

Also, only the income tax provision, which expires in 2018, is part of the extension; the sales tax provision expires at the end of 2016 either way.

Proponents — primarily teacher unions and health care advocates — are asking for the extension two years early, making the timing of the audit more immediate. But they argue the audit is not necessary because two other Controller-prepared reports, both which look at the state’s finances in a general way, satisfy the requirement.

“We know how the money has been spent and the new measure has the same accountability requirements,” said Jennifer Wonnacott, spokeswoman for the measure’s committee, Californians for Protecting Public Education and Budget Stability, Sponsored by Teachers, Health Care Providers and Labor Organizations. “The law as written under Prop. 30 has been fulfilled by these two reports, so if the Controller goes above and beyond that that’s for their office to decide.”

The Controller’s office still believes an audit is required to ensure the state is adhering to the required 89/11 percent split between K-12 and community colleges, and is satisfying other funding requirements.

“While it’s reasonable to conclude that (the other reports) meets the Proposition 30 audit requirement, the State Controller’s Office still has a duty to monitor compliance and conduct whatever field audit we believe is necessary,” said John Hill, spokesman for the Controller’s office. “That’s why we plan to audit the EPA within the next six months.”

Is there even a problem?

Despite the dispute over whether another audit is required, everyone agrees that oversight of the program was warranted. After all, the extension has also included the auditing requirements. However, no one has suggested the money is being used improperly. In fact, an independent analyst suggests there’s little cause for concern.

“These rules are relatively straightforward and we don’t have any technical concerns at this point about the way the state is distributing the funds,” said Kenneth Kapphahn, an analyst with the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Timing

The measure has not yet qualified for the November ballot, but it’s well-funded, making its chances good. Assuming it does qualify, voters may be forced to make a hasty decision. Coupal called on the Controller’s office to speed up the timeline, pointing to the fact that the measure passed four years ago, which gave ample time to perform the audit.

“We would urge the controller to expeditiously move on an audit and complete the audit at least three months prior to the election,” Coupal said.

The county set the possible fine at as much as $5.23 million per day to locate and follow proper procedures for a fraction of the wells — the most extreme measure thus far in a long-running jurisdictional spitting contest. The county says the state should have obtained permits, licenses and inspections for 523 narrow wells drilled from January 1990 to May 2014, according to a notice of violation obtained by CalWatchdog.

The wells, four to six inches in diameter, are used to monitor geological conditions and water levels for safe building purposes. State water laws are aimed at making sure the holes, which can extend hundreds of feet into the ground, don’t allow for untreated stormwater or hazardous chemicals to pollute groundwater, which the holes often intersect with.

Caltrans lawyers have for years advised staff that while the agency was subject to the laws, Caltrans could police itself. The agency relied on those opinions in deciding not to obtain the same approval and paperwork from county agencies required of a private individual or company undertaking similar drilling.

Under pressure from county environmental agencies, Caltrans shifted its stance in 2014, announcing its intent to follow the law going forward and outlining a plan to locate wells throughout the state and to work under the proper license.

“Our intention has always been to play by the rules, and ensuring that you are in compliance is always a best practice, whether you are an individual or a state department,” Caltrans spokesman Mark Dinger said.

Statewide

The dispute with Sacramento County is one of several across the state involving the drilling regulations. The agency has had relatively recent run-ins in Marin, Mendocino, San Joaquin and Humboldt counties. Some of those counties and others have filed records requests on well drilling in their jurisdictions.

The state estimates it drilled 10,000 borings across the state since 1990, though some would not have been subject to the state Water Code at issue.

CalWatchdog asked Dinger why the state agency failed to fully adhere to state and local laws during that time.

“Caltrans adopted policies in 2014 to ensure that its operations are in full compliance with the California State Water Code and the local enforcement agencies’ standards, and is working with local enforcement agencies to resolve issues from previous practices,” Dinger said.

The Sacramento County issue

As a result of not alerting Sacramento County and not keeping adequate records, Caltrans lost track of most of the wells, although some may be covered by structures. At the county’s urging, Caltrans tried to locate all 523 wells in 2015, finding 35.

The notice says that the records of how the 35 were sealed did not match what was observed by county inspectors, and internal discussions suggest that the wells were not sealed appropriately.

Cheryl Hawkins, supervising environmental specialist with Sacramento County’s Environmental Management Department, would not say whether any testing to check the groundwater had been done to follow up on Caltrans’ drilling. Hawkins said that failing to follow county standards has “potentially caused groundwater contamination,” but added there’s no “concrete evidence” of contamination.

Caltrans’ Dinger said the state does not test groundwater as part of its drilling, but it had taken extra precautions when drilling “in or near areas of known contamination.”

Caltrans was ordered to find 16 particular holes to comply with the violation notice, but only found four. Sacramento County is working on a response, which will include any enforcement actions, including the a fine, if there is one.

Background

In 2014, Sacramento County environmental official Susan Williams noticed a Caltrans work crew drilling in Courtland. Williams, who has since retired, told the crew that work could not continue until a permit had been obtained, an inspection had been scheduled and other requirements had been met.

The crew chief told Williams that Caltrans was “exempt from local agency permitting requirements,” according to the county violation notice.

Williams issued a cease and desist letter, pointing out the site they were drilling, along the Sacramento Delta, was a “sensitive area” with respect to groundwater and required a special sealant to prevent contamination through improperly sealed wells.

It was not the first time Williams had wrestled with Caltrans. In 2003, Williams and another county official told a Caltrans crew that permits for drilling were required and said the county would cite anyone tied to drilling.

Williams emailed Caltrans staff in early 2015, asking for documentation on the agency’s plan to find and backfill the holes. Based on what she’d seen so far, “nothing even came close to being sealed properly.”

Meanwhile, some Caltrans employees were urging change.

Internal cracks

Caltrans had made coordination with counties optional and had developed a form letter to provide notice when the agency planned to drill a well. The letter was rarely issued. The agency had determined that employees, consultants and contractors did not need to obtain permits for the drilling or pay related fees.

And the agency decided it would work under a C-57 professional license — typically required when water is struck — only when drilling in or near areas of known contamination.

That policy worried Douglas Brittsan.

In a Feb. 2014 email to Geotechnical Services division’s upper management, including the then-Geotechnical Design regional chiefs and then-Deputy Division Chief Phil Stolarksi, Brittsan, the supervising transportation engineer, asked the group if notification to counties was required. Brittsan said that the language in the boilerplate cover letter said Caltrans would comply with a county’s program, but that “we currently are not.”

Brittsan said the state didn’t have the equipment needed to backfill the holes properly and noted that Caltrans’ preferred method for backfilling was not allowed in some counties.

“Notification is not a requirement,” said Timothy Pokrywka, one of the regional Geotechnical Design chiefs.

Brittsan argued that it was best to notify anyway. Otherwise they were subject to “getting spotted and ratted on, and with the county having no record of us being there.”

“Wouldn’t it be better if it was required so we are transparent with the county (or other agency)?” Brittsan asked before stating he didn’t “agree with our current policy,” calling it “wishy washy.”

Pokrywka said the issue had been “widely debated” among the division’s brass for years and that he used to agree with Brittsan.

“It was decided that each Office Chief has to manage their own risk,” Pokrywka wrote. … “It does put drilling services staff in a precarious position.”

Policy shift

By April 2014, Brittsan had persuaded enough people to play by the rules. Under pressure from Sacramento County, the policy shifted. Agencies needed to be notified ahead of time, and local procedures were to be followed. Well completion reports were to be filed. And workers were to fill the wells with the preferred sealant with a device called a tremie used to guarantee the seal within groundwater.

The licensing issue was still being worked out internally, so activities requiring a C-57 were subcontracted out and the subcontractors were demanding that the rules be followed or else their license couldn’t be used.

“If your work falls under the Water Code then that code needs to be followed and Caltrans is NOT exempt from its requirements,” Brittsan wrote to staff. “Ostensibly, Caltrans is exempt from obtaining permits and paying fees, however (the contractors) are requiring that we obtain permits and pay fees or else we cannot use their license.”

In June 2014, Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty sent a memo to Brian Kelly, the secretary of the California State Transportation Agency, stating that Caltrans now agreed with Sacramento County about following local procedures.

Dougherty admitted to Kelly that the lack of documentation, combined with an “ill-defined business process means Caltrans cannot represent that we have adequately protected groundwater during our drilling operations as required” by state law.

Caltrans has since worked with local agencies to locate and reseal old wells and follow the rules on new ones.

As of December, Caltrans reported in a informational document that it had found and properly sealed 7 percent of its borings on active and planned projects statewide. The agency will soon hunt for older holes and estimates less than 5 percent total will be accessible for resealing.

Caltrans estimates that $750,000 has been spent since 2014 in Sacramento County in the effort to go back and reseal previous borings and $3.7 million statewide. The agency estimates that to finish the job it will take “several million more.”

The law

In 1986, the Legislature amended the California Water Code to include in its definition of regulated wells many of the same kind Caltrans drills.

The measure and subsequent laws did several things, including defining the state as a person regulated by the law and setting a minimum statewide standard for best practices, requiring a C-57 license and the filing of well completion reports with the Department of Water Resources documenting proper sealing of the wells.

The law also empowered local agencies to meet or exceed those standards for drilling in their individual jurisdictions. Sacramento County passed an ordinance requiring notification, permitting, inspections and completion reports.

But Caltrans’ legal opinions provided the agency cover in ignoring the substance of the law.

Legal opinions

There are at least four legal opinions prepared by Caltrans in-house counsel dating back to 1998, three of which say the law needs to be followed to some degree. While all agreed that Caltrans was subject to the Water Code, the opinions gave the agency free rein to determine its own compliance.

The 1998 opinion came after Contra Costa County complained Caltrans was drilling without a permit. The opinion argued the kind of borings Caltrans was drilling were not the same type of wells regulated in the Water Code.

In May 2003, another opinion said that Caltrans didn’t have to follow any of the rules if the drilling was for a “state highway purpose.” That opinion, the only one entirely supportive of Caltrans’ position, was quickly overruled by another, which said Caltrans was subject to state and local laws but not required to pay related fees.

Then in 2011, another legal opinion said Caltrans was subject to state and local laws, like the C-57 license requirement, but didn’t need to get locally mandated permits because permits weren’t specifically mentioned in the state law.

Actual practices varied

“We do not necessarily need to abide by every specific local agency requirement,” an internal 2012 memo from Pokrywka, on behalf of the Geotechnical Services management team that included the Geotechnical Design regional chiefs and the Geotechnical Support chief, who at the time were: Abbas Abghari, Roy Bibbens, John Ehsan, Mark Willian and Pokrywka.

“It is possible to negotiate with the local agency on some of these requirements. Since we are not legally directly subject to all their provisions, we can choose not to implement requirements that are too extreme or superfluous,” Pokrywka said.

Pokrywka wrote that compliance with state and local laws “would add time and costs to projects,” and that the C-57 licensing requirement adds “potential cost, procedure and labor relations issues.”

Pokrywka recommended that staff only notify local jurisdictions of drilling activities when “it is in the best interest of Caltrans.”

Mendocino County

Caltrans often maintained it would comply with the substantive provisions of the groundwater protection program. However, it did not always properly seal its wells — arguably the most important component of the law.

Between 2004 and 2008, Caltrans back-filled more than 100 wells in Mendocino County with bentonite chips, state records show.

“That’s not typical practice for this county,” William Nalty, an environmental health technician at Mendocino County Environmental Health, told CalWatchdog.

That material is generally used for shallow borings, not the deep holes that Caltrans was drilling, primarily because it’s difficult to seal deep wells with it. Grout with a tremie is preferred.

Nalty added that with the drought, “more and more people are pumping out of the water table, so we want to make sure it’s clean and not contaminated.” Nalty also praised Caltrans’ efforts since 2014.

The agency’s practices in Mendocino County came to light as part of a 2015 case before a professional board questioning whether agency staff should have had a C-57 license to drill the wells, obtain permits and file completion reports. Caltrans prevailed because, as the board argued, the wells were “reportedly” sealed properly.

Marin County

The agency has also been criticized by officials in Marin County.

In February 2014, county inspector Scott Callow sent an email to Sacramento County’s Williams, saying the lack of permitting and the rogue drilling was not the most troubling part in his county’s interactions with Caltrans, but rather the apparent lack of training on the part of Caltrans engineers.

“The apparent lack of basic knowledge of the possible contamination threats to groundwater is most concerning,” Callow wrote, complaining of crews trying to fill deep holes without a tremie.

“How do you explain the blank looks when discussing a tremie,” Callow asked.

Drilling in contaminated sites

Instead of contacting the local agency first to find out if there were any contamination issues with the site, Caltrans would routinely do its own determination of the risks.

However, that plan didn’t always work. A San Joaquin County official in February 2014 complained of catching Caltrans drilling wells without prior notification (and noted that Caltrans was not calling the wells “wells”). The official complained that staff was not properly trained on drilling in contaminated areas.

“These wells were going to be left indefinitely to help drain the storm-water pond,” San Joaquin County’s Adrienne Ellsaesser wrote in an email to officials in other counties. “This would allow any hazardous spill/waste from the freeway to run into the pond and drain directly into and contaminate our groundwater.”

Photo Credit: HUD.gov

The rule would modify how traffic is evaluated during a critical phase for planning for building developments, shifting the focus from traffic congestion to the increase in miles traveled. New building projects would be viewed as adversely affecting the environment if they increase vehicle miles traveled by more than a regional average without offsets.

The Brown administration — which was tasked with creating the new rule by the Legislature — believes this shift will encourage the development of urban housing, bringing people into the cities and giving them more transportation options beyond the car.

“This proposal will actually help affordable housing projects, especially near transit,” said Christopher Calfee, General Counsel for California’s state Office of Planning and Research. Calfee said the new proposed guidelines will streamline the process as it removes other factors, like aesthetics and parking — from being considered to be negative for the environment.

But critics say applying this standard in instances outside of specific urban areas near major transportation spots — areas called Transit Priority Areas — will hurt the development of housing in suburban and rural areas where property values are lower, and hurt local economies by thwarting new development.

“We’d prefer to see approaches that continue to incentivize transit, incentivize (re-purposing old buildings),” said Richard Lambros, the managing director of the Southern California Leadership Council. Lambros was critical of the new rule, saying while it benefits areas near mass transit, it could limit the development in lower cost, suburban and rural areas.

Greenhouse gasses

When the Legislature tasked Brown’s administration with writing the new rules in 2013, it asked that the new rule “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” This coincided with a statewide goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

In addition to promoting alternative means of travel, the new regulations impose a “road diet,” meaning limiting the amount of new road lanes built — a 4 percent cap statewide between now and 2030.

“We respect that we’re trying to achieve important (greenhouse gas) reduction goals in California, but we can’t develop the policy to do that in a way that doesn’t account for unintended consequences,” said Lambros.

But the Brown administration contends that this doesn’t put a cap on roads (although road diet is OPR’s term), providing instead a threshold for when the mileage standard is considered significant.

“Some new roads will actually decrease (the new standard called Vehicle Miles Traveled),” said Calfee. “Others will increase it. Even if that increase is significant, lead agencies may override the impact and still approve the project.”

Lawsuits

The 46-year-old California Environmental Quality Act requires developers to obtain an Environmental Impact Report during the planning period, which evaluates a project’s impact on the local environment. This public document advises local governments when they are deciding to approve or deny a project, and it’s in this report that the new guidelines will be applied.

Local governments are not actually required to deny a project based on a negative report. However, many proposed developments end up being fought in court — by environmentalists, opposing developers and so on — so cities and counties can overlook these guidelines at their own peril. In other words, overlooking the environmental impact report makes a project less defensible.

“It gives more ammunition to people who want to stop capacity projects for whatever reason,” said Hasan Ikhrata, executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments, whose group is concerned that the new rule will subject hundreds of projects in their six counties to new standards midstream, which they say are largely un-achievable.

History

Under CEQA (pronounced see-qua), many factors were considered in an environmental impact report — a requirement for new development. Some of the factors were transportation, aesthetics and parking.

The 2013 bill said that parking and aesthetics in certain instances in the Transit Priority Areas were no longer considered significant impacts on the environment. These areas were created by the Legislature to encourage high-density development in areas where there is existing or proposed public transportation — like areas near metro stops.

The bill also tasked the Brown administration to come up with new guidelines on determining the transportation impact, as the old guidelines were based on traffic congestion — making congestion worse was considered an adverse impact.

The proposed modification shifts the focus from congestion to vehicle miles traveled, as compared to the regional average. So, increasing the average amount of miles that vehicles travel compared to the regional average is considered adverse if it’s without plans to offset the mileage.

Affordable Housing

So with the new standard, close proximity to proposed or existing mass transit is certainly helpful, and critics say it’s an unofficial requirement. Because there are existing roads and generally adequate access to public transportation, high density projects near urban centers will fare better in the CEQA/environmental review process.

But areas further away from the urban center would likely be more affected. Critics say this could affect the access to affordable housing, since property values and rents usually fall the further away development gets from the city. Many critics aren’t against the new standard, just it’s widespread application.

“We’re ok with (the new standard),” said Ikhrata. “But what we’re saying is you shouldn’t subject every project to this test. This should be done on an overall system, and be able to mitigate in other places. No project is going to pass that test.”

Richard Stefanik also died while in police custody in September, and it could be said the cause was a broken heart. In November 2014, Stefanik was arrested for the murder of his wife of 58 years. She was suffering from cancer, and by most accounts it was a failed murder-suicide.

The death of Stefanik, in county jail, was also ruled natural.

Ornelas, 47, and Stefanik, 81, were among the 744 individuals who died last year in the custody of law enforcement or a state agency, an increase of 8 percent over the average in the last decade. The deceased included 47 women. One in five were either convicted of homicide or were awaiting trial on homicide-related charges.

Half the deaths were determined to be due to natural causes, according to data from the California Department of Justice. Thirty-four of the deaths were classified as accidental, including two by hanging or strangulation and a drug overdose.

There were also 62 deaths ruled suicides, and 96 deaths, or 13 percent, were determined to have resulted from justifiable shootings by law enforcement. One-hundred fifty-eight cases are pending investigation, 41 of them connected to an arrest in progress and 51 of them at state facilities.

In-Custody Deaths

In 2005, 62 percent of custodial deaths were determined to be natural, and 8 percent justifiable, according to a report from the state’s Attorney General.

In-custody deaths have drawn national attention following last year’s high-profile cases of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and Sandra Bland outside Houston.

Gray died while being transported to jail by police officers. Six officers are charged with murder in his death. The first case ended in a mistrial in December.

Bland’s death was ruled a jail cell suicide by hanging after she was stopped for a traffic violation and was taken in for allegedly assaulting a police officer.

Dubious classifications of death

The classifications for the recently released data in California, though, are often dubious and open to interpretation.

Among the deaths ruled suicides were those of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who in December killed 14 people in a terrorist attack on a social services office in San Bernardino County. News accounts have said the couple was killed in a shootout with police.

Also included in the death total are homicides committed by inmates, mostly referred to as accidental. And the jurisdiction is sometimes hazy in the reporting.

For example, Choi Saeteurn, 68, was allegedly beaten to death by a 35-year-old inmate in January 2015 in Sacramento County’s main jail.  In records, the death is attributed to the Azusa Police Department, located 400 miles south of Sacramento.

Also, of the 47 women’s deaths, four were attributed to suicide, including Malik’s. Six were determined to be justifiable homicide, including that of Angela Slack, who was arrested on misdemeanor prostitution charges and whose relatives posted a graphic YouTube video of her in her last days alleging that Slack was abused by police. Slack’s cause of death is listed as hanging/strangulation.  

One female death was deemed accidental, that of Sara Corliss, who died Jan. 2, 2015, and whose death in a Los Angeles County Jail is still being investigated.

In an email, the state Attorney General’s office said that each department is responsible for investigating their own custodial deaths, including the detail of those deaths.  

The California State Auditor in January released a list of agencies that have failed to address perceived problems in their operations. The state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has failed for six years to implement changes that would give inmates more supervision and to protect the safety of both inmates and corrections officers.

More than half of custodial deaths since the early 2000s have occurred in facilities run by the state.

Well, it’s not that simple. It’s a detailed process that amateurs likely long ago lost the ability to win on their own.

Preparation

Find some money: While the average citizen could run a ballot initiative campaign on a shoestring budget, it probably wouldn’t be successful. The cost of consultants, polling, campaigning and signature gathering is exorbitant — and yes, all that is necessary.

Finding an average cost of a campaign is difficult because it really depends on the issue, the year and the strength of the opposition, but proponents of the water bond in 2014, for example, spent $19.5 million that year.

And where does all that money go? To winning, hopefully.

Step 1: The first thing a proponent needs is the law’s language. This could be done by the individual, but it’s best done by a lawyer. The Office of Legislative Counsel will also help as long as a few simple requirements are met.

To get to the right language, several rounds of drafting the language and polling may have to occur. This is a time-consuming process, but it could mean the difference between success and failure.

“If you want to fly blind, which means no polling, no research at all, then you’re most likely going to lose,” said Barry Fadem, an attorney in the Bay Area who’s been working on ballot measures for more than 30 years. “Flying blind — thinking you know everything about how California voters are going to feel about a certain subject matter — is a really bad idea.”

Experts agree that this is the most important step. There’s a natural tendency to keep expanding on the idea, to bog down the measure with “Oh, and then…”

But simplicity is key.

“The more provisions you put in an initiative, the longer you make it, the more opportunity you give the other side to find vulnerabilities,” said Rick Claussen, a partner at Redwood Pacific. “Keep it as simple as possible.”

Title and Summary

Step 2: Once the language is set, it’s submitted to the Attorney General to prepare a circulating title and summary. Oh, and there’s a filing fee, which was set high enough to weed out less serious ideas.

The fee actually jumped from $200 to $2,000 this year in response to a failed idea that would have allowed the killing of homosexuals had it passed. But the fee is refunded if the initiative qualifies for the ballot within a certain period of time.

The AG will then send the initiative to the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office for a fiscal estimate, which they have 50 days to prepare.

Now there’s a 30-day public review process. Proponents can make amendments during this time, but the amendments need to be germane.

But the more the idea is reworked, the more it’s susceptible to challenges. Gov. Jerry Brown’s criminal justice ballot measure, for example, drew a challenge last week over an amendment, according to The Sacramento Bee.

After all that, the AG has 15 days after receiving the fiscal estimate from the Department of Finance and the LAO to send the title and summary over to the Secretary of State and back to the proponents — the date this is done is called the “official summary date.”

And once the title and summary is issued, some more polling is probably a good idea.

“Generally, the rule of thumb is if you come out of the gate with less than 60 percent, you should give up,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist.

Getting Signatures

Step 3: The petition must follow a certain format — or else.

Step 4: Based on the summary date, the SOS will issue a calendar of deadlines. All the signatures must be gathered within 180 days from the official summary date, which also has to be done at least 131 days from the date of the general election.

How many signatures are needed? It’s based on a percentage of the last gubernatorial election, 5 percent for statutes and 8 percent for constitutional amendments. Because turnout was so low in 2014, the threshold for signatures is very low — that’s why there are so many initiative proposals currently trying to get on the November ballot.

The cost of signature gathering is unpredictable, with reports of prices as high as $5 per signature. The cost increases as the deadline approaches, so it’s best to start early and hire a good signature gathering company.

After the 25 percent mark has been reached, the SOS must be notified, which will in turn notify the Legislature. At this point, both chambers are required to assign the measure to the appropriate committees to hold joint public hearings. But the Legislature is not allowed to amend the measure or derail it.

Instead of campaigning during the signature gathering process, it’s best to be building the foundation for the campaign.

“Reaching out to coalitions, supporters, getting earned media, getting a strategy in place, getting endorsements, and get your opposition research if you can,” said Maviglio.

The Campaign

Step 5: And it’s probably no surprise there’s all kinds of rules, provisions and timelines in the signature verification process. Once the required amount is reached, proponents turn the signatures in to the appropriate county officials.

At this point, assuming the signatures check out, the initiative is eligible for the ballot (it’s technically not qualified for the ballot until the SOS deems it so on the 131st day prior to the election).

And now the campaign starts — the most expensive part — where yard signs and media buys and consultants, etc., try to carry the measure over the finish line.

“Submit the signatures, get a number and let the games begin,” said Maviglio.

There will be plenty of anecdotes in between now and November about the fruit picker or dish washer whose wages would rise 50 percent if the minimum wage were to jump from $10 to $15 per hour. But experts say that’s not the only factor to consider.

Experts agree that increased wages will increase prices, as employers are forced to compensate for increased labor costs. This means minimum-wage workers will lose some of their new-found earnings to inflation.

“Obviously, when minimum wage goes up, businesses try, if they can, to pass the extra costs to consumers,” said Dr. Esmael Adibi, director of the A. Gary Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University. “So, a person who got a higher minimum wage will be paying higher for the products or services that they received, and as a result they may not be as well off.”

Some industries are more reliant than others on minimum-wage workers, so price increases won’t be universal, said Adibi, adding that not all of the increase will be passed on as higher costs, as businesses “cannot really proportionately pass all that cost onto consumers.”

Experts at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education estimated in a 2015 study for the city of Los Angeles that increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour incrementally over a five-year period would increase prices overall by less than 1 percent, and just under 8 percent in the restaurant industry, with the cost of the increased wages being absorbed through savings from lower turnover and increased productivity (better paid workers are happier workers).

“The increase in prices reduces overall demand for goods,” said Ken Jacobs, chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center. “On the other side of the equation, workers have more money to spend, which increases the overall demand for goods. As a result, the net effect on economic activity is very small.”

What Does It Mean For Workers?

The UC Berkeley study on Los Angeles estimates that once all factors are considered, the average earnings for low-wage workers will increase 30 percent.

“That represents a very real economic gain for the workers,” said Jacobs.

UC Berkeley experts point to research highlighting how an increase in the minimum wage reduces dependency on public assistance programs, like food stamps, and how this, plus the increased minimum wage, would have a positive effect on poverty.

The Public Policy Institute of California reported in 2014 that 16.4 percent of Californians were living below the poverty line, which was at $24,000 per year for a family of four. That comes to $11.54 per hour for one income.

“Raising the minimum wage is not a cure-all, especially in the face of larger forces generating inequality that require national attention,” wrote the UC Berkeley experts. “Still, our assessment of the research evidence is that these policies have worked as intended in raising the incomes of low-wage workers and their families.”

But another study, by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, estimated that because of increased wages, employers may turn to automation, may reduce hours, may substitute the lowest-skilled workers with those who are more productive and may reduce thier share of the profits.

And as a result, prices will increase, employment for those at the bottom of the skills ladder will be diminished, employment growth will slow, and “there will be little impact, if any, on poverty in Los Angeles,” according to the LACEDC report.

What Does It Mean For Employers?

Many experts point to a ripple effect. As those at the bottom wage scale are paid more, workers slightly ahead of them — the shift supervisor, for example, who makes a few dollars more per hour than the minimum-wage workers — would have their status diminished as they’d be no longer making as much compared to those below them.

Even if the increased minimum wage bumps these workers up, employers may still have to give them another increase to compensate for their higher level of responsibility, tenure or skills.

Also, the minimum wage requirement for exempt employees (exempt from overtime) is based on the minimum wage. State law requires, in most instances, they be paid at least twice the minimum wage, so even employers with no minimum wage employees may see labor costs rise.

“That does affect everybody,” said Peter Tateishi, president and CEO of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

And in some instances, the negative effects of an increased minimum wage are already being felt. An Oakland city councilman told the San Francisco Chronicle last month that when Walmart decided to close some local locations as part of nationwide downsizing, it was partially due to Oakland’s increased minimum wage.

The Chronicle also pointed out that a San Jose location — also subject to a higher minimum wage — would close as well, while two stores in San Leandro — where the minimum wage was no higher than the state’s — would remain open.

Income Inequality

Throughout the presidential debate, voters are reminded of the widening gap in income inequality. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is shrinking.

While proponents, like the experts at UC Berkeley, argue that increasing the minimum wage is worthwhile, detractors say that raising the minimum wage does nothing to increase upward mobility and fill in the gap.

According to Adibi, worker training, education and opportunity for advancement is the “fundamental issue,” so that the minimum wage is more “transitory.” According to Adibi, the increased minimum wage would certainly help, but isn’t going to make minimum-wage workers substantially more prosperous.

“The public policy should address the core policy here rather than put a band-aid on by increasing the minimum wage,” Adibi said.