The hunger strike was designed link the legislators’ sacrifice of food with the farmworkers’ sacrifice of some overtime pay while plucking the food, bringing attention to the issue in the process.

As the eight or so hunger strikers broke their fast, the bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez tweeted — after handing out bread — that Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon reportedly agreed to call the bill to the floor on Monday (a de Leon spokesman could not immediately confirm the timing). 

.@LorenaAD80 passes out bread. She said Senate Leader Kevin de León will present #AB1066 on Monday. #caleg pic.twitter.com/btaS8sslbW

— Jazmine Ulloa (@jazmineulloa) August 17, 2016

Sausage making

Getting a vote was not really in doubt, as legislators have the right to call up their legislation mostly whenever they want. What made this process particularly interesting, though, was that the last iteration died a few months ago and so Gonzalez slapped the language into another bill — a process called gut and amend.

By gutting and amending, the San Diego Democrat’s proposal will circumvent some of the normal steps in the legislative process, although it’s unclear if Gonzalez has been able to secure enough votes from the 112 non-hunger strikers to pass both the Senate or the Assembly, where it died in June.   

What the bill does

While farmworkers do get overtime, it has a much higher threshold than other professions, and this bill would bring the threshold in line with other professions over time.

Proponents argue it’s a matter of fairness — that farmworkers should have the same overtime and break protections as everyone else. Opponents say farmers can’t afford it, and that an industry dependent on weather and external price setting can’t be regulated the same as other professions.

The seven members of the panel are supposed to represent a broad swath of the citizenry, so not having a full commission means not having full representation. But it also threatens the functionality of the CCCC. 

Gov. Jerry Brown has the responsibility to appointment the commissioners. According to the state Constitution, “within 15 days of any vacancy, the governor shall appoint a person to serve the unexpired portion of the term.” The shortest current vacancy stretches longer than a year.

Brown’s office previously argued why the 15-day rule didn’t apply and restated its position on Wednesday. Brown’s office again declined to give “details regarding applicants for appointments,” which would include how many applicants there are and why the vacancies are so challenging to fill.

“It’s not uncommon for meetings to be canceled and rescheduled,” Brown spokesman Evan Westrup said Wednesday. “As you know, this particular commission is required to meet once a year, before June 30, and we expect the meeting will be rescheduled before then.”

Why does it matter?

The CCCC’s duty — which came out of a sweeping ethics reform package, Proposition 112, in 1990 — is to decide the pay and benefits of constitutional officers (like governor and attorney general) and state legislators. That package was aimed at giving regular citizens a measure of influence.

The 15-day window serves multiple functions. It ensures that there’s a functioning commission with a fully represented citizenry. It also prevents a governor from holding nominations until just before he or she leaves office and then packing the commission on the way out the door.

The CCCC’s seven members are appointed to six-year terms, with each representing different areas of expertise: one with expertise in compensation (like an economist); one representing the general population (like a homemaker/retiree/person of median income); one representing the nonprofit world; one who is an executive at a large CA employer; one who represents small business; and two labor representatives.

The general population seat is currently filled by a wealthy and well-connected real estate developer in Stockton. 

Pay scale history

There was backlash against the CCCC over the last decade (under different commissioners), after salaries were reduced twice. One former legislator fought a cut — an 18 percent reduction in salaries in 2009, which was nearly a $21,000 loss for legislators — by appealing to both Brown and the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. Neither appeal was successful.

California has the highest paid state legislators in the country, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. They are also paid well above the state’s median income of around $61,084.

Since 2005, legislators have received six increases, three freezes and two reductions. Base salary went from $99,000 in 2005 to the $100,113 it is today — after salaries had been frozen between 1999 to 2005. 

The two reductions were largely orchestrated by the former chairman Charles Murray, a holdover appointee from the Schwarzenegger administration. Murray stepped down almost a year ago to the day.

Constitutional officers have increased/decreased at a different rate and have varied salaries.

Asm. Roger Hernández speaks on the Assembly floor in 2016. Photo courtesy of member’s office.

Following the news that the wife of Asm. Roger Hernández had filed a temporary restraining order against the West Covina Democrat, a lone colleague was questioning whether he should remain in a leadership position in the Assembly.

It wasn’t the newly chosen Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, whose recently announced leadership team kept Hernández atop the Labor and Employment Committee.

It also wasn’t Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, chair of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus. Nor was it the vice chair, Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens. And it wasn’t Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, one of the most outspoken champions of women’s issues in the Capitol.

Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach, went where those lawmakers would not, taking to Twitter Friday to question the lack of action from Assembly Democrats. Harper has been critical of Hernández before, dating back to when Harper was Hernández’s vice chairman on the Labor and Employment Committee.

Why is Hernandez Democrats' choice for Labor Committee Chair? Judge orders TRO. #DomesticViolence https://t.co/SP1Z7JUj8Y #CALEG #AD48 #CA32

— Matthew Harper (@AsmHarper) April 15, 2016

Hernandez’s office did not return requests for comment.

Restraining order

On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times reported that Hernández’s wife, Susan Rubio, a Baldwin Park city council member whom he is divorcing, had obtained a temporary restraining order, alleging a history of violence.

“My wife and I are nearing the completion of a 16 month divorce case,” Hernandez told the Los Angeles Times. “And despite all of the tensions that arise in any difficult situation and negotiation, at no time prior to today has there ever been a suggestion that she would need a restraining order. In fact, just minutes before this alleged incident, we were both in front of a judge with our lawyers and this issue was never raised.”

The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until a hearing in divorce court May 4.

Congressional bid

Hernández is challenging Democratic Congresswoman Grace Napolitano for her seat, as he is termed out. On Friday, he cancelled his campaign kickoff that was scheduled for Saturday.

.@Roger_Hernandez cancels #CA32 campaign kickoff this weekend. Our story on new allegations: https://t.co/pqMKgrDtsG pic.twitter.com/pyXB3TTcV6

— John Myers (@johnmyers) April 15, 2016

Democrats’ response

Jackson, the chair of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus, condemned domestic violence in a statement to CalWatchdog but declined to comment on Hernández.

“The Women’s Caucus takes domestic violence very seriously,” Jackson said. “While I cannot comment on Assemblymember Hernández’s specific situation, we believe our society should not tolerate domestic violence in any form.”

Rendon, Garcia, and Gonzalez did not respond to requests for comment.

In 2012, another woman sought an emergency protective order against Hernández, according to the news reports. At that time, a Baldwin Park councilwoman was demanding his resignation from the legislature.

History with Harper

Harper and Hernández have clashed before. Last July, Hernández had security remove Harper’s microphone at a committee hearing on increasing the minimum wage, after repeatedly talking over Harper’s microphone and calling a vote to close debate. Video suggests that even the clerk and deputies seemed confused by Hernández’s requests.

“Assemblyman Harper asked (then-Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego) for Hernández to be removed last year after the ‘microphone incident,’ instead Harper was removed, not only as vice-chair, but removed from Labor Committee all together,” Harper spokesperson Madeleine Cooper told CalWatchdog on Friday. “With the recent court findings, there is even stronger evidence of the man that Hernández is and yes, he should be removed as chair now more than ever.”

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.

Among the top gift recipients from last year was Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, who accepted $15,623 in free perks. De Leon’s total was boosted by a $9,759 trip to Peru in December paid for by the Climate Registry, a government-sponsored nonprofit organization that tracks greenhouse gas emissions.

Other state legislative leaders accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts. According to the Los Angeles Times’ review of disclosure reports, “Assembly Republican leader Kristin Olsen of Modesto reported $13,577 in gifts, led by $5,723 in travel expenses paid for by the California Foundation on the Environment and Economy for a study trip to Canada, and a $2,914 trip to Hawaii for a conference paid for by the nonprofit Independent Voter Project.”

Last year, state law restricted state officials to $440 in gifts from each source.

Gatto, Beall shun junkets

But not all lawmakers were looking to supplement their government salaries with perks from special interests. For the second straight year, Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, led a small group of legislators who shunned extravagant gifts, declined once-in-a-lifetime trips around the world and went above-and-beyond the legal requirements for financial disclosure.

What set Gatto apart from his colleagues? For starters, his form included additional footnotes to explain discrepancies between this year’s and last year’s report. In 2013, Gatto reported several stocks that are missing from this year’s report. However, a helpful footnote explained the stocks had dropped below the reportable threshold in the last year.

State Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, once again shunned gifts from special interest groups and corporations that lobby the Legislature. He reported a few thousand dollars in life insurance stock shares and a handful of gifts from the California Democratic Party. Like Gatto, Beall went out of his way to disclose gifts, such as a $117.83 dinner for which he later reimbursed de Leon. Since the reimbursement check hadn’t cleared, Beall reported the dinner anyway.

Gatto and Beall were joined this year by a few other California politicians that took the state’s disclosure requirements to heart. State Controller Betty Yee filed her report a month early and included a number of gifts valued below the reporting requirement.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission only requires gifts valued at $50 or more to be reported. Nevertheless, Yee included various food and beverage gifts, including $14 for a commemorative Coca-Cola bottle.

Assemblyman Matt Harper, R-Huntington Beach, reported a long list of gifts from Orange County politicos on January 11, the date of his wedding. According to the state’s disclosure guidelines, wedding gifts are not subject to the $440 gift limit, but half of the value is reportable.

Lawmakers: Side jobs and major businesses

California’s Legislature may be full-time, but that hasn’t stopped a few lawmakers from running side businesses.

Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, who reported no gifts on his 2015 financial disclosure report, disclosed stock in Walker R.R. Associates valued between $100,000 and $1 million. He also serves as the general partner of Katch-Go Petroleum, a partnership valued over $1 million with more than $100,000 per year in gross income. Those profits are from several Central Coast service stations.

State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, reported dozens of customers for Hill’s Poll Service Inc., of which he serves as president.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom needed 29 pages to report income, assets and gifts received in 2014. Newsom’s gifts included $350 from the Oakland Raiders, $100 from the Clinton Foundation and $375 from French President François Hollande.

By far the most active stock trader was Assembly member Jacqui Irwin, D-Thousand Oaks, who listed 75 stock investments on her annual disclosure form. Not all the stock purchases were retained for the entire year.

Another trader, Assembly member Catharine Baker, R-San Ramon, reported her covered calls and short positions in CommScope Holding Company held between June 27 and August 18, when the stock gained nearly 7 percent.

Big fluctuation in gift values

In some cases, there were major disparities in the fair market value reported by state lawmakers for similar gifts. When he still was a state senator, on July 11, Secretary of State Alex Padilla accepted $247.50 in golf from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and another $247.50 in golf from the Governor’s Cup Foundation.

The same day, Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, reported golf from the same entities valued at $440 each.

Assemblyman Brian Maienschein reported $4,011 in free parking at the San Diego Airport. During the same year, fellow San Diego Republican Assemblyman Rocky Chavez reported $4,723 in free parking from the same agency. The same perk in Los Angeles for Board of Equalization member Jerome Horton was valued at just $360.

According to the Fair Political Practices Commission, parking is considered a travel payment that is required to be disclosed, although it is not subject to the gift limit. In 2010, half a dozen state lawmakers were fined for failing to disclose gifts, including $100 worth of free parking from the city of Los Angeles.

That’s the conclusion of a new report by Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor. He reviewed the state program for returning unclaimed property to its rightful owners. At the end of 2014, the state held more than 28.4 million unclaimed properties worth an estimated $7.2 billion. Ninety-five percent of unclaimed property held by the state is cash assets.

Taylor said the state could do a better job of finding owners, instead of passively waiting for the cash to be claimed. His report also raised the question of whether the state has a conflict of interest in managing the program.

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

Public unaware

Under state law, when there’s been no activity on an account for three years, financial institutions are obliged to report this unclaimed property to the California Controller’s Office. In turn, the controller holds the funds, commonly money from a forgotten bank account or insurance settlement, until it is claimed by the owner.

Controller Betty Yee has a special web page to help find lost property. It urges, “You may be one of millions of Californians owed money by the State!” The search engine is here.

Among the biggest problems facing the state’s unclaimed property program is a lack of public awareness about where people can find their old property.

“To begin with, the name itself — unclaimed property — is not very user-friendly,” the report said. “It likely prevents potential claimants from quickly understanding the program. The poor branding is likely made worse by limited state efforts to increase public awareness of the program.”

Even state leaders aware of the program’s existence, such as former controller candidate and Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, don’t bother to routinely check and then collect small sums held by the state.

A search by CalWatchdog.com of the unclaimed property database showed prominent state political leaders with unclaimed property.

Gov. Jerry Brown has $61.26 in cash from the sale of shares formerly held by US Bancorp. The address for Brown in the database matches an Oakland address for his “We The People” organization.

There are also unclaimed cashier’s checks for “Kamala Harris” and “Gavin Newsom.” But, without any addresses listed, it’s unclear whether the $200 and $40, respectively, are owed to the attorney general and lieutenant governor by the same names.

Database problems

Missing addresses are only the beginning of the problems with the state’s unclaimed property database. Inaccurate information, such as misspelled city names, can prevent owners from finding their properties in the database. For example, the city of “San Bernardino” has at least 18 different spelling variations.

In addition to allowing the controller’s office the authority to clean the database, the Legislative Analyst’s office recommends the Legislature approve an upgrade to enhance search capabilities. Other states’ databases, such as Virginia’s unclaimed property database, include an address suggestion feature.

“Virginia’s database seems more effective than California’s, particularly for users living in large cities, who have common names, or who have lived at many addresses,” the report noted.

Other website upgrades could include an automated email, similar to a Google Alert, to notify Californians when new property is reported to the state.

Other recommendations for improving the program include:

• Maintaining communication with users by performing database searches on behalf of users;
• Publicizing a list of top unclaimed properties by region;
• Increasing the incentives for third-party investigators beyond the current maximum fee of 10 percent of the claim.

Praise for Chiang’s eClaim feature

Although the report dished out plenty of criticism, it also praised the controller’s office for its new eClaim feature. The new streamlined process for accounts valued at less than $500 was the product of John Chiang when he was controller from 2007 to 2015. He now is the state treasurer.

Roughly 90 percent of the 28.4 million properties held by the state are valued at less than $500.

In a statement, Chiang welcomed the report’s recommendations:

“The LAO has detailed many of the innovations and reforms which fueled an 8-year revival that wrestled away from past lawmakers a program that was hijacked to pay for their own spending priorities and, importantly, restored its original purpose of reuniting property with their rightful owners,” Chiang said. “I strongly support the LAO’s overarching message urging lawmakers to fight the instinct to oppose changes and investments which benefit consumers, even if those changes reduce money from California’s 5th largest revenue source.”

Yee, who has only been on the job a few weeks, hasn’t neglected the unclaimed property program. Earlier this month, she announced a new agreement with Charles Schwab & Company Inc. to return accounts to Californians via the unclaimed property program.

We’ll have to see what his Jan. 2015 budget, due out in a couple weeks, says about the problem.

But here’s the latest, from the U-T San Diego:

A state-mandated sched-ule for replenishing California’s cash-strapped teachers’ retirement fund means school districts will see their pension contributions triple by 2021 and remain high for decades, according to budget forecasts released this month by several local districts.

Administrators say they’re at a loss for how they’ll come up with the cash, which for some districts could be tens of millions per year. The forecasts come just six months after a legislative deal was struck by Sacramento lawmakers to recover billions of dollars for the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, or CalSTRS.

Some school districts in San Diego County highlighted the sticker shock in so-called “interim midyear” budget reports released this month that show escalating contributions from teachers, school districts and even the state as a way to dig the teachers’ retirement fund out of debt over the next several years.

Now we know where that $7 billion from Proposition 30, advertised as going for schools, really is going.

The same thing with Gov. Jerry Brown’s re-election campaign chest of $23.6 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. But which he isn’t spending, according to the Chronicle, because “he’s conducting one of the most unusual re-election campaigns ever witnessed by state voters — one in which he hasn’t starred in a single TV or radio spot, campaign mailer, or Web video.” And he spent just $132,000 in July, August and September.

So, might as well have some fun and let “What happens in Vegas stay in Vegas.”

Meanwhile, Republican opponent Neil Kashkari, who is running at only about 40 percent in polls, holds “about $680,000 in the bank, with $142,000 in unpaid bills.” On the positive side for Kashkari, in 2010 Republican Meg Whitman blew $180 million of her own dough against Brown, and also finished with just 41 percent. So Neel’s votes will cost about 1/180th that of Meg’s.

What will Brown will do with all that campaign moolah he doesn’t spend? Probably not Vegas. Probably another city to the East. Do I hear a special tune?

On June 2, President Barack Obama announced his new rules to mothball “dirty” coal power plants so as to reduce carbon-dioxide power plant emissions by 30 percent from their 2005 level. He also set voluntary targets for the percentage of renewable energy in each state by 2029.

Coverage generally focused on Obama’s overall proposals rather their specific implications for individual states. But if Western states take Obama’s goals seriously, or if these goals are given some teeth, that could hurt California.

At first glance, it appears the Golden State would fare well under key sections of the president’s plan.

California has no large in-state coal power plants connected to the power grid. While several cities in Los Angeles County get their power from coal-fired power plants in Nevada, Arizona and Utah, their contracts expire by 2020.

There are 80 fossil fuel power plants in California that would be subject to 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide levels from 2005. But normally, they would be retired by 2030 anyways and replaced with more energy-efficient natural gas power plants as well wind and solar power plants.

Furthermore, Obama’s 34.1 percent renewable energy target for California by 2029 seems oddly low. Because of state policies, California is already on course to reach 33 percent by 2020.

But the president’s much-more ambitious renewable energy targets of 91.7 percent for the state of Washington and 85.3 percent for Oregon may reduce cheap hydropower availability to California because these states might stop exporting to California — especially during cold snaps or heat waves. This could be devastating for a state energy grid that in coming decades will be forced to rely more on inherently less dependable wind and solar energy supplies.

California doesn’t count hydroelectric power as renewable energy under AB32, its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. However, the U.S. EPA’s draft new renewable energy targets for each state leave it open whether hydropower will count or not.

Washington and Oregon, however, would be prone to keep their cheap hydropower in-state to meet their high renewable energy targets. Today, Washington’s and Oregon’s hydropower plants produce 57 percent and 50 percent of their power, respectively.

EPA mandate may reduce some states’ advantages

A central focus of the debate over the AB32 state law is whether the higher energy costs it mandates for California in coming years will spur companies to go to cheaper states or nations. The term used in environmental and regulatory circles for this is “leakage.”

Cara Horowitz — executive director of the Center on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law — says this concern has “been one of the motivations all along for California hoping it wouldn’t have to go it all alone. Leakage is a real risk to California if it continues to be well out in front on the climate change question.”

But if AB32-style mandates such as the EPA rule take effect, then “California becomes less likely to lose business to Texas,” she thinks.

Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, put it another way: “Requiring the use of renewable power and ‘energy efficiency’ is exportable.”

What she means by the term “exportable” is exporting California’s high electrical energy prices to other Western states that now have the competitive advantage of cheap coal, hydro or nuclear power.

States that generate enough electric energy to meet their consumption such as Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Utah and Texas would have to play by the rules of those Western states that are not self-sustaining: California, Nevada and Colorado.

By keeping the cost of electrical energy high like California in all Western states, there is less likelihood of “leakage” of not just companies but of population to states that no longer have the huge economic advantage of cheaper power.

On April 28, Superior Court Judge M. Bruce Smith reaffirmed his preliminary ruling granting the “Citizens of Lower Water Bills — Yes on Measure W” the right to move forward with their referendum on the city’s controversial water rate hikes. The ruling clears the final pre-election hurdle for the group of taxpayers, although it could still be appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Last year, the City of Fresno denied the taxpayers a title and summary for their petition, and then sued the taxpayers to prevent their initiative from being circulated. The move appeared to be a direct violation of the California Constitution. Section 3 of Article 13C states that “the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge.”

Pre-emptive strike: City sues taxpayers

The Superior Court ruled against the city.

“Measure W moves on as we complete our gathering of signatures,” said former Fresno County Supervisor Doug Vagim, the leader of the taxpayer group and a named party in the case. “It’s estimated the City’s lawsuit will cost the taxpayers of this community over a third of a million dollars, and to date they have lost at every court, Superior and Appellate. Their next step is the California Supreme Court.”

To qualify their referendum for the regularly scheduled November 2014 election, taxpayers would need to submit 4,846 valid signatures to the City Clerk by May 8.

Petition circulation time cut short

Opponents of the water rate increase say that the protracted legal battle was little more than a stalling tactic to make it more difficult for them to collect the necessary signatures.

“As a result we were provided a window of only 10 weeks from the normal time of 26 weeks to circulate our petition and make the Nov. 2014 election cycle,” Vagim said.

Even supporters of the water rate hike have become disgusted with the city’s hardball tactics. Shortly after the first ruling, the Fresno Bee editorial board, which backs the water rate increases, chastised Mayor Ashley Swearengin for her involvement in the political games.

“We support the water-rate increases; they are vital to the city’s future,” the paper wrote. “But with these stalling and blocking tactics, Swearengin sends a message that she doesn’t trust Fresno voters to do what’s best for the city.”

Tactics backfired — both parties oppose water rate hikes

Yet, the city’s hardball tactics appear to have backfired and united the public against the water rate hikes. In April, Vagim and his fellow taxpayers convinced the local Democratic and Republican central committees to support putting the issue on the ballot.

“Democrats and Republicans don’t often see things the same way,” the Fresno Bee’s City Beat columnist George Hostetter noted. “But both have embraced Vagim.”

Vagim downplays the achievement of bringing Republicans and Democrats together in opposition to the city’s lawsuit.

“Remember, the City of Fresno sued its own citizens in an attempt to stop them from exercising their franchise of the initiative guaranteed by the California Constitution,” he said.

City of Fresno: Rate hike needed to fund aging water system

As CalWatchdog.com has previously reported, the battle began last August, when the city of Fresno approved a controversial plan pushed by Swearengin to raise the city’s water rates. The additional revenue was intended to go toward a $410 million upgrade to the city’s aging water system.

Under Swearengin’s plan, most water users, including city residents and some unincorporated parts of Fresno County, would see their average monthly bills rise to $48, double what they were last year. That didn’t sit well with a group of taxpayers, led by Vagim, who mobilized a grassroots effort to overturn the rate hikes.

But when the taxpayers tried to circulate a petition to overturn the mayor’s plan, the city took the extraordinary step of refusing to grant the petition a title and summary. Without a title and summary, the group couldn’t collect the necessary signatures to get a referendum on the ballot.

In January, the city complied with a court order and issued a ballot title and summary that allowed taxpayers to circulate their petition. The case is City of Fresno v. Doug Vagim.