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

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

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

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

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

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez leads on minimum wage equity

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

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

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

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

Goodwill Industries: Biggest Name in Special Wage Program

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

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

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

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

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

California lawmakers accepted $844,000 in gifts in 2013 — the majority of which came from special interest groups that routinely lobby the state Legislature.

According to a new report released by the good-government group California Common Cause, gifts to elected state representatives included $580,000 in travel payments, more than $100,000 in meals and receptions and $65,500 for tickets to entertainment and sporting events.

“With ongoing federal investigations into potential ethics violations by several state lawmakers, this report highlights that there are many legal channels through which special interests exert their influence in Sacramento,” Kathay Feng, executive director of CA Common Cause, said in a press release.

More than 2,700 gifts reported in 2013

Each state lawmakers received, on average, $600 worth of gifts every month. To put that number into perspective, it’s three times the freebies the average recipient of food stamps receives in California. According to the California Department of Social Services, “The average amount of CalFresh benefits received per household is about $200 per month.”

In total, state lawmakers reported more than 2,700 individual gifts in 2013, ranging from a $1.50 bottle of Coke to a $15,782 trip to Armenia. While meals were the most common item, the largest payments were for travel to exotic locations and accommodation in luxury hotels. Among the more unique gifts were:

• $439 in tickets to a Drake concert given by the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority to Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland;
• $216 in nail polish given by the Personal Care Products Association to then-Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who is facing charges of corruption;
• $160 worth of golf fees and clubs given by the California Foundation on Education and the Environment to state Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres;
• $130 in spa services given by the California Legislative Black Caucus Policy Institute to state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Culver City;
• $115 in seafood given by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation to Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles.

Gifts increasing in number and value

CA Common Cause says both the number and value of gifts increased dramatically in the past year. According to their report, state elected officials accepted approximately $216,000 in gifts and travel payments, including $41,000 in hotels and lodging; $30,000 for tickets to entertainment and sporting events; and more than $100,000 for meals and receptions.

“While Californians across the state exchange gifts this month in celebration of the holidays, its worth taking a minute to reflect on the year-round, not-so-secret Santa happening in the state Capitol,” said Sarah Swanbeck, policy and legislative affairs advocate for CA Common Cause. “What we’re seing is a growing trend in both the number of gifts and the total value of those gifts given by powerful special interest groups to state lawmakers.”

To compile its report, the group analyzed publicly available financial disclosure reports, which are filed annually with the Fair Political Practices Commission. That means the figures are likely to be lower than the actual total. State law does not require gifts under $50 in value to be reported on these Statement of Economic Interest forms. Financial disclosure reports for 2014 won’t be available until March 1.

Top Recipients of Gifts in 2013

Legislative leaders topped the list of gift recipients in 2013, with former Speaker of the Assembly John A. Perez, D-Los Angeles, taking home nearly $38,000 in gifts and perks. The Top 10 recipients, according to the report:

1. Assemblyman John A. Perez: $37,823;
2. Sen. Ricardo Lara: $32,492;
3. Sen. Anthony Cannella: $26,644;
4. Assemblyman Steven Bradford: $25,408;
5. Assemblyman Travis Allen: $23,118;
6. Sen. Kevin de Leon: $22,910;
7. Assemblyman Scott Wilk: $21,780;
8. Assemblywoman Connie Conway: $20,675;
9. Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia: $20,600;
10. Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen: $17,603.

All of the state lawmakers listed in the Top 10 of gift recipients utilized the longstanding loophole that allows elected officials to circumvent the state’s $440 gift limit.

Legislators gone wild on junkets

State officials can accept gifts that exceed the state’s gift limit if it is for travel-related expenses in conjunction with a speech or conference. Special interest groups routinely take advantage of this loophole by organizing “conferences” in exotic locales. In 2013, the two biggest donors helped state lawmakers jet off to Scandinavia, Taiwan and Maui, courtesy of this loophole.

The biggest gift-giver to state lawmakers was the California Foundation on the Environment & Economy, which spent $161,893 in travel-related gifts. It was followed by the Independent Voter Project, which spent $38,080 in 2013.

Founded by former Assemblyman Steve Peace, the IVP hosts a notorious annual conference in Maui. Eighteen state lawmakers attended the group’s 2013 conference, held at the luxurious Fairmont Kea Lani, “Hawaii’s only all-suite and villa luxury oceanfront resort.”

The travel gift loophole has been criticized by newspapers and ethics experts.

“Almost all of this largesse came courtesy of people and organizations with business before the Legislature,” the Press-Democrat recently editorialized. “With all the junkets and outings, it’s a wonder they find time for any business.”

Sacramento: Only place there’s still a free lunch

While travel-related gifts accounted for nearly 70 percent of the dollar amount, the most frequent gift given to legislators in 2013 was a free lunch. That’s gifts of meals and drinks; and attendance at receptions, events and hospitality suites.

In the area of free meals, the California Democratic Party donated more than any other group, according to CA Common Cause. The state party spent nearly $10,000 to wine and dine its members.

Top 10 gift-givers

The top 10 gift-givers in 2013 were:

1. California Foundation on the Environment & Economy: $161,893;
2. Independent Voter Project: $38,080;
3. Consulate General of the Republic of Armenia: $25,173;
4. State Legislative Leaders Foundation: $24,027;
5. Pacific Policy Research Foundation: $22,015;
6. Taipai Economic and Cultural Office: $32,533;
7. California Issues Forum: $18,902;
8. The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles: $17,989;
9. American Israel Foundation: $12,737;
10. California Democratic Party: $10,556.

A Sacramento Bee editorial picks up on part but not all of the significance of Brown’s moves.

With his nomination of rising legal star Leondra R. Kruger to the California Supreme Court on Monday, Gov. Jerry Brown has made his boldest move yet to infuse the court with new blood and high-powered diversity.

Kruger, 38, is not just an African American woman, but will be one of the youngest high court appointees in modern state history if her confirmation goes as expected. Her tender age already has raised a few eyebrows. A “mind-blower,” Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen termed the governor’s choice.

Brown is right in his effort to invigorate the Supreme Court with a new generation of jurisprudence. The seven-member bench has long been older and more conservative-leaning than the state as a whole.

The court had one Latino and three Asian justices and a 50-50 mix of men and women before Kruger was tapped to fill the seat of retired Associate Justice Joyce Kennard. But before Brown began reshaping it with the appointment of 44-year-old Justice Goodwin Liu in 2011, the average age on the bench was a venerable 69.

With Kruger and Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, 42, Brown’s other new and distinguished appointment, the high court will have an average age of 56 and a trio of Gen-Xers. That’s not a bad kind of diversity to have in a state this demographically young.

Courts don’t just interpret laws

The diversity angle is notable. But it’s not nearly as important in the long term as the fact that Kruger, Liu and Cuéllar are all very much classic liberal activists — legal thinkers who believe the Constitution is a living document and who see the courts as having a responsibility not just to interpret the law but to fight for social justice.

In other words, the California Supreme Court is on the brink of being the state version of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his piece earlier this week for Cal Watchdog, John Hrabe detailed how Kruger’s advocacy of lesser rights for religious institutions triggered disbelief from traditionalist conservatives at one U.S. Supreme Court hearing.

Legal analyst Emily Green depicts Cuéllar as the sort of legal theorist who is eager to legislate from the bench.

Green points out that Cuellar’s writings endorse legal realism, which, in her words, “champions the idea that courts can and should consider the law in a broader social and political context when making their decisions.” Green notes that Cuellar wrote in his 2001 doctoral thesis that “ ‘[a]s far as the law is concerned, political responses are actually fair game for interpreters [i.e., judges] to consider when crafting their decisions.’ ” The central idea of Cuellar’s thesis, Green adds, is that, in the complex relationship between courts and elected officials, judicial decisions are not the last word on an issue but simply a starting point, “ ‘the tip of the iceberg.’ ”

“Empathy” as a legal theory

As for Liu, this is from a Washington Post story in 2011 about a U.S. Senate filibuster killing his nomination to be a federal judge.

Republicans, however, excoriated Liu’s writings while serving as a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, saying he adopted a legal standard of “empathy” that encouraged judges to try to view cases through the perspective of the people appearing before them, rather than through a strict reading of the law.

“What do Mr. Liu’s writings reveal? Put simply, they reveal a left-wing ideologue who views the role of a judge not as that of an impartial arbiter, but as someone who views the bench as a position of power,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. …

Underlying the debate was Liu’s testimony at the 2006 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Samuel A. Alito Jr. “Judge Alito’s record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse . . . where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man,” Liu wrote.

This tipped the balance for Alexander, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and several other Republicans who cast their first votes ever to support a filibuster of a judicial nominee.

“He went after the man. He went after the man saying, ‘This man represents a bad side of America because of his philosophy.’ I’m not going to tolerate that,” Graham told reporters after the vote. “You don’t have to accept conservative legal thought. I don’t accept liberal legal thought, but I don’t have disdain for the people who embrace it.”

In Lindsey Graham lived in California, he probably would have to “accept liberal legal thought.”

It’s going to be interesting to see where Kruger, Liu and Cuéllar take California jurisprudence. Depending on your politics, you’d almost certainly use a different word than “interesting.”

But for some on the right — and for lots of people who believe in direct democracy — that probably would be fine by them. Regular CWD contributor John Hrabe explains what drives the phenomenon in which Swearengin’s biggest detractors come from what should be her base:

“The battle over Fresno’s water rates began last August, when the city approved a plan supported by Mayor Ashley Swearengin to increase the average water bill to $48 per month. The city says that the additional revenue is needed for a $410 million upgrade to the city’s aging water system. But, some residents of the city and unincorporated parts of Fresno County balked at the prospect of higher water bills, which are expected to double by 2016.

“When taxpayers attempted to circulate a petition to overturn the plan, the City of Fresno denied the taxpayers a title and summary for their referendum. Then, the city sued the taxpayers to prevent their initiative from entering circulation. 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.’

“The city says that the lawsuits were necessary in order to fulfill its obligation to deliver an essential public service to residents. … Yet, 11 judges have disagreed with the city’s arguments in the case. Most recently, the California Supreme Court denied the city’s petition for review of a 5th District Court of Appeals ruling, which held that the city has a legal obligationto issue a petition title and summary.”

Not up to task of persuading Fresno residents?

On this issue, I started out thinking Swearengin was dead wrong. But the more I think about it, the more I understand the peril of having a state in which citizens can vote on their utility rates. Of course that’s likely to lead to chaos.

But, I’m sorry, Swearengin is still dead wrong. Whatever the circumstances, an elected leader shouldn’t defy clearly written state laws, as she did. Instead, you make your case to voters.

Swearengin chose dirty pool over taking the high road. She either …

A) … didn’t think the voters she would have to convince were bright enough to understand that utilities which have fixed bills and obligations aren’t the same as local governments which often tolerate bad status quos because of political influence or an acceptance of incompetence; or …

B) …. didn’t think she was enough of a leader to win over voters to the logic of her argument.

I am slightly more understanding of why Swearingen did what she did than I used to be. I also think her critics on the right need to cogitate more on the difference between utilities and local governments.

But ultimately I think the liberal Fresno Bee editorial page pretty much nailed the right way to characterize the Fresno mayor’s actions back in November:

“We support the water-rate increases; they are vital to the city’s future. 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.”

She also doesn’t seem to trust her own competence at a politician’s most basic skill: the ability to win over people who disagree with you.

“California has been a leader on women’s issues, and we want to make sure we remain a leader,” Perez said.

State Assembly’s poor record of pay equity

California may be a leader on women’s issues, but the California State Assembly has a poor record when it comes to pay equity for its female employees. Last year, an analysis of Assembly payroll data by CalWatchdog.com showed that women who work for the California State Assembly face a glass ceiling.

As of May 2013, female employees at the California State Assembly were paid less than their male counterparts, were less likely to serve in leadership roles and remained stuck in secretarial positions, the CalWatchdog.com analysis of legislative payroll data found. The evidence was staggering:

• Women were nine times more likely to work as a secretary.
• Men were nearly twice as likely to serve as a highly paid chief consultant.
• The 10 highest-paid employees of the state Assembly were all men.
• Women filled only 35 percent of the Assembly’s chief-of-staff positions, the top staff slot for each elected representative.
• The average woman employed by the Assembly made $5,640 less per year than the average man.
• Men represented 62 percent of the Assembly’s Top 100 highest-paid employees.
• The Top 50 highest-paid men made, on average, $19,880 more per year than the Top 50 highest-paid women.

CalWatchdog.com analyzed payroll data for the state Assembly’s 1,175 employees listed as of May 31, 2013. The annual payroll for the state Assembly is $70.5 million.

Perez’s poor record on helping women

Little has changed in pay equity since CalWatchdog.com’s initial report. Last month, the State Assembly handed out raises to hundreds of its employees. According to the Sacramento Bee, “About a quarter of the money went to the 12 percent of workers who earned more than $100,000 as of January 2013, including raises for all but a handful of the Assembly’s 20 highest-paid employees.”

The Assembly’s highest-paid woman, Fredericka McGee, the special counsel to the Assembly Speaker, received a 10 percent pay hike. Consequently, she is now the only woman in the Assembly’s Top 10 highest-paid employees.

The Assembly’s unequal pay has been noticed by women’s rights groups, which have been critical of Perez’s record on women’s issues.

“Pérez knowingly pays men more than women for the same work and also places more male staffers in higher level positions than female staffers,” Patricia Bellasalma, the president of the California National Organization for Women, wrote in a blog post at La Progressive earlier this year. “It’s time to say no to John Pérez, who over the course of his tenure as Speaker, has seen the number of female elected Assembly members steadily decline, including in Los Angeles.”

Gonzalez vows to look at Legislature’s record

The new select committee may have been intended, in part, to blunt this criticism. Perez is locked in a tough battle for State Controller against one of the state’s most prominent female elected officials, Board of Equalization Member Betty Yee.

“I have formed the Select Committee on Women in the Workplace with the expectation that it will address the whole range of issues from wages to working conditions and everything in between,” he said in explanation of the new committee.

Whatever Perez’s motivations, Gonzalez’s selection as the committee’s chair ensures that the Legislature won’t be exempt from the review. She told CalWatchDog.com that the Assembly’s treatment of women in the workplace will be part of the committee’s work.

“As this Select Committee works to enact laws that promote opportunity and equity for all California’s women, I’m also committed to making sure these efforts are extended to the advancement of women in the Assembly,” Gonzalez told CalWatchdog.com. “I am very excited to work with my colleagues to seek solutions that break down barriers to employment, accommodate women’s roles in their families as well as their jobs, and bring a greater dose of equity to the workplace.”

The Select Committee on Women in the Workplace will focus on challenges faced by women in the workforce, including the changing role of women in society, how to ensure pay equity and opportunity for women, the health and well-being of women in the workplace, and the impact on family life, according to the State Assembly.

Select Committee on Women in the Workplace

The Assembly members of the Select Committee on Women in the Workplace are:

• Rob Bonta, D-Oakland;
• Nora Campos, D-San Jose;
• Brian Dahle, R- Bieber;
• Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens;
• Roger Hernández, D-West Covina;
• Marc Levine, D-San Rafael;
• Henry Perea, D-Fresno;
• Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton;
• Nancy Skinner, D-Los Angeles;
• Marie Waldron, R-Escondido.

The state that is home to more than 10 million immigrants and a quarter of America’s immigrant population is churning out new members of the American Independent Party at a record pace, according to voter registration statistics.

A group of savvy political veterans, calling themselves the AIPrl Fooled Campaign, says that the record number of sign-ups has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with voter confusion. And they are using this April Fool’s Day to alert independent voters that the American Independent Party is not the same thing as being politically independent.

“The creators of AIPrl Fooled don’t object to any political party, nor the right for the AIP to have a strongly ideological platform,” the group, which is being led by Mark Vargas, a member of the California Coastal Commission, said in a press release. “But given the political leanings of most registered voters in California, it is hard to believe that the AIP has become the fastest growing political party in the state for any reason other than voter confusion.”

Group: 95 percent of AIP from confusion

The group adds that, by their estimate, as much as 95 percent of the American Independent Party’s membership comes from voter confusion resulting from the party’s use of the word “independent” in its name.

There are plenty of high-profile political figures that have made that mistake. In 2008, former Los Angeles Police Chief and current Council Member Bernard Parks said he inadvertently registered AIP, thinking it was independent. The same goes for a 2012 candidate for San Diego County supervisorial candidate, Dave Roberts; and Jennifer Siebel, the wife of Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Some party leaders have acknowledged that some voters may have inadvertently signed up due to independent confusion. Other leaders say that the party’s growth comes from its conservative platform.

“We share all the Tea Party principles and go way beyond them,” Markham Robinson, the chair of the party’s executive committee, told LA Weekly. “We go along with the Declaration of Independence. That makes us radicals, doesn’t it?”

Possible disaffected GOP voters don’t explain increase

Its conservative platform could be attracting some disaffected California Republicans that have grown disenchanted by GOP support for liberal policies. Last year, California Republican legislators delivered the necessary votes for a $2.3 billion tax hike, while the state party has embraced gay and lesbian groups. In contrast, the American Independent Party is opposed to gay marriage, illegal immigration and abortion.

“Freed from the lawless oppression of Liberal rule, we may then compassionately and justly use our energy and ingenuity to provide for ourselves and our families,” the American Independent Party states in the “Freedom from Liberalism” section of its platform. “We will then establish truly free and responsible enterprise and reassert the basic human right to property.”

But the state’s data experts say that disaffected Republicans can’t explain the disproportionate rate at which Latinos, African Americans and Asian Americans are joining the party.

“Over 60,000 voters registered as AIP are foreign born,” the AIPrl Fooled Campaign points out. “And a third of voters registered as AIP are under the age of 35.”

It also doesn’t explain why the American Independent Party has more members than the Green, Reform, Libertarian and Peace and Freedom parties combined.

Registration data: Split between GOP & Democrats

Paul Mitchell, vice president at Political Data Inc. and one of the state’s foremost voter data experts, says that 39,000 AIPs used to be Republicans, and 32,000 used to be Democrats.

“If these 39,000 former Republicans were there for a right-wing movement, you would see their candidates get more than 12 percent of their own turnout,” said Mitchell, one of the backers of the AIPrl Fooled Campaign.

The group says it isn’t trying to undermine or sponsor any party, and is merely trying to educate the public. That’s why this April Fool’s Day it has built a website, launched a Twitter account and distributed a blast email to educate AIP voters regarding their registration status.

“Congress should phase out the use of the Special Minimum Wage Certificate provision and eventually repeal Section 14(c) of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act,” the resolution states.

Under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, employers can apply for a special wage certificate that allows them to hire people with disabilities at a sub-minimum wage. Critics say that the law allows for the legal exploitation of people with disabilities and creates a separate system of worker rights for the disabled.

Gonzalez: Legislature’s leading advocate for workers

In October 2012, CalWatchdog.com first reported that five California-based Goodwill charities paid hundreds of employees less than minimum wage, while providing lucrative compensation packages to top executives. At that time, Gonzalez first expressed interest in the issue that affects more than 300,000 workers nationwide.

“I believe all workers deserve a minimum wage and all work has dignity,” said Gonzalez, the Legislature’s leading advocate for workers. “When I read stories about this Depression Era program, I knew we wanted to do something. However, since it is a federal program, we were limited in how we could help make change.”

Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, applauded the resolution.

“Assemblywoman Gonzalez’s courageous action today is a great step in the right direction for the California Assembly,” he said.  “The National Federation of the Blind commends Assemblywoman Gonzalez for recognizing the value of workers with disabilities and encouraging Congress to repeal this antiquated law.  We urge the California Assembly to finish the work Assemblywoman Gonzalez has started by passing AJR 36.”

Last November, as the National Federation of the Blind and Autistic Self Advocacy Network announced that more than 170,000 people had signed its Change.org petition, Gonzalez was quietly gathering support among her colleagues. Hueso, a fellow San Diego Democrat, shared Gonzalez’s concerns about what he sees as a “civil rights issue.”

“Retracting the Special Minimum Wage Certificate provision of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act is necessary to ensure equal rights for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities,” said Hueso. “This is a civil rights issue. As legislators, it is our responsibility to ensure that there is no disparity in the workforce.”

Goodwill Industries: Most well-known sub-minimum wage employer

In recent years, Goodwill Industries has become the poster-child for exploitation of workers with disabilities. More than 100 Goodwill entities nationwide employ workers through the Special Wage Certificate program. Last year, a Watchdog.org investigation revealed that these same Goodwill entities that use the special wage program simultaneously spent $53.7 million in total executive compensation. A month after the Watchdog.org report, an NBC investigation repeated the same findings.

“It has been widely documented that many of the organizations which employ disabled persons are in financial situations that would enable them to pay minimum wage to all of their disabled employees, evident in the high compensation packages paid to their executives,” the legislative resolution states. 

Goodwill uses the special minimum wage exemption to take advantage of 7,300 of its 105,000 employees. The organization says that it performs routine productivity tests in compliance with the law. Gonzalez’s resolution describes this “singling out of disabled workers given that the general workforce is not subjected to standards of timed productivity, the time study practice to determine wages is both inconsistent and unfair.”

“We at least want to bring attention to what we think is an outdated policy and start a discussion about the value of disabled workers,” said the former secretary-treasurer of the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council.

“With 80 percent of working age adults with disabilities in our country not participating in the workforce currently, we believe that it’s important to explore more types of opportunities,” Brad Turner-Little, the director of mission strategy at Goodwill International Inc., has repeatedly said in public statements on the issue. “The special minimum wage certificate is a tool to create employment for people with disabilities. It’s not the only tool.”

For more about Goodwill Industries and sub-minimum wage, check out the complete Goodwill Investigation.

It’s the latest development in a bitter fight between the city and taxpayers. Last August, the city approved a controversial plan by Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin to double water rates in order to fund a $410 million upgrade to the city’s water system. But when a group of taxpayers led by former Fresno County Supervisor Doug Vagim objected to the plan, the city took the taxpayers to court in order to stop a referendum campaign.

Earlier this month, a state appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that ordered the city to fulfill its ministerial duties and issue a petition title and summary. Now the taxpayers say that the title and summary, as prepared by City Attorney Doug Sloan, are biased in favor of the water tax hike.

“Frankly, I don’t believe this Title and Summary filed by the Fresno City Attorney can be considered to represent an impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure,”  Vagim said  “This text belongs in the con-argument side of the ballot’s voter guide for Measure W.”

This is the full text:

“Title: Initiative Measure To Repeal City of Fresno’s Four-Year Water Rate Plan And Related Water Fees”

“Summary: A ‘yes’ vote on this measure would repeal water rates to be charged over four years that the Fresno City Council adopted on August 15, 2013, and cause the rates to return to what the Council adopted in 2008. The City Council adopted the 2013 water rates to pay for increased costs to provide adequate water that is safe to drink. The increased costs are caused by changes in state and federal drinking water standards, depletion of ground water, costs of maintenance and repairs to old water pipes and other parts of the water system, and the necessity to build a surface water treatment plant. If the current rates are repealed, the City Council could impose higher rates again. However, it would delay the City’s work to repair and improve the water system.”

Factual errors: Last water rate hike in 2010, not 2008

Vagim points to state law, which requires the city attorney to issue an impartial analysis. The Election Code states:

“In providing the ballot title, the city attorney shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.”

In the complaint letter submitted to the city attorney on Thursday, Vagim’s group cited factual errors in the title and summary, including the last time the city raised water rates. The petition summary references a water rate hike in 2008, when the last such increase passed the council in 2010.

“The prejudicial nature of this misstatement falsely informs voters that water rates have not been raised since 2008, when in fact rates were last increased in 2010,” the letter objecting to the petition summary states.

After five months of delays, the taxpayers say they’ll circulate the biased petition rather than wait for another title and summary. 

“Moreover, the City’s intentional, unreasonable and unlawful delay over the course of the last five (5) months has deprived my client of time to challenge the petition title and summary for petition circulating,” the complaint states.

If they can gather enough signatures, they’ll be looking for a revised title and summary before the election and could recoup legal fees and court costs in the process.

Fresno City Attorney: ‘Title is fair, complete and complies with the law’

The city attorney maintains that the title complies with the law. “We believe the title is fair, complete, and complies with the law,” said Sloan, Fresno’s City Attorney.

But the state’s leading taxpayer advocacy group contended otherwise. “The language is most certainly slanted,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “But we have not yet determined whether it crosses the line from the perspective of potential litigation.”

Earlier this month, CalWatchdog.com reported the story of the bully tactics by the City of Fresno in defense of Mayor Swearengin’s water rate increases. Under Swearengin’s plan, the average water bill would be doubled to fund a $410 million upgrade to the city’s water system.

In September, a group of taxpayers, led by former Fresno County Supervisor Doug Vagim, organized a campaign to overturn the rate hikes. But the taxpayers were denied a title and summary for their petition. Without a title and summary, the group couldn’t collect the necessary signatures to get a referendum on the ballot.

City of Fresno sues taxpayers

Then the city sued the taxpayers in an effort to stall the petition from reaching the 2014 ballot. In late November, a Superior Court sided with taxpayers and ordered the city attorney to issue the title and summary. Instead of compiling with the court order, the city filed a notice of appeal, which stayed the court’s order, as part of a strategy to run out the clock on the initiative.

The city of Fresno is facing major financial problems after years of fiscal mismanagement and irresponsible spending. It owes $3.4 million per year in annual construction bond payments for a city-owned minor league baseball stadium. The bond payments were supposed to be covered by a $1-per-ticket fee collected by the team. However, City Manager Renena Smith told the Fresno Bee in November that the team is two years in arrears. To solve its cash flow problems, the city had to borrow $14 million from the water department to balance its books.

Fresno Bee: Thumbs down to Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin

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 Swearengin.

“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.”

The “stalling and blocking tactics” stopped the referendum from reaching the June 2014 ballot. To qualify their proposed initiative for the regularly scheduled November 2014 election, taxpayers would need to submit 4,846 valid signatures to the City Clerk by May 8.

The battle began last August, when the city of Fresno approved a controversial plan pushed by Mayor Ashley Swearengin to raise the city's water rates. The additional revenue would go towards a $410 million upgrade to the city's aging water system.

Under Swearengin's plan, most water users, which include 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 former Fresno County Supervisor Doug 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.

The move appears 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

Not content to block the initiative, the city went a step further: It sued the taxpayers.

“The City anticipates Initiative Proponents will continue to advocate for the Initiative and its submission to the voters,” its lawsuit states. “By seeking pre-election relief, the City hopes to avoid the cost and expense of submitting an illegal and invalid Initiative to voters.”

Attorneys for Fresno made the remarkable argument that the city's lawsuit would restore the public's trust in government that had been eroded by the courts.

“The voters already fear that everything they vote on ultimately gets invalidated by the courts anyway, and we don't want to feed that fear by letting plainly invalid measures get presented to the voters,” the city's attorney, Michael Colantuono, argued in Fresno County Superior Court.

Taxpayers said that the city was using the legal system to undermine their constitutional rights.

“Our constitutional rights are being infringed on on a daily basis as we're denied the ability to go to the voters to seek their approval,” Chuck Bell, one of the state's preeminent election attorneys, argued on behalf of the taxpayers. “Frankly, we still have the hurdle once a title and summary is issued to retain the requisite signatures of a sufficient number of voters to qualify the measure for the ballot.”

In late November, a Superior Court agreed, and ordered the city attorney to issue the title and summary. Instead of compiling with the court order, the city filed a notice of appeal, which stayed the court’s order, as part of a strategy to run out the clock on the initiative.
cheap software downloads

'Core public service not subject to referendum'

Swearengin's office did not respond to an email request for comment on the issue. However, at a press conference last month, the Republican mayor said that the city's interests in managing the water business trumped citizens' rights to petition their government.

“The city of Fresno believes there is ample case law that indicates that a core public service is not subject to a referendum,” she said. “I recognize the short-term pain of raising water rates in the city of Fresno. However, I believe this short-term pain will result in long-term gain for the people of Fresno.”

Much of the city's financial problems stem from years of fiscal mismanagement and irresponsible spending. In a November speech to the Rotary Club of Fresno, City Manager Bruce Rudd acknowledged that “the reality is this organization has always ran close to the edge.”

Among the city's money-pits: a costly city-owned baseball stadium for the town's minor league team, the Fresno Grizzlies. The city owes $3.4 million per year in payments toward the stadium's construction bonds. The bond payments were supposed to be covered by a $1-per-ticket fee collected by the team. However, City Manager Renena Smith told the Fresno Bee in November that the team was two years in arrears.

Which all comes back to the city's water problems. To make up for the cash it wasn't getting from the baseball team, the city had to borrow $14 million from the water department to balance its books.

Fresno Bee turns on mayor over her hardball

Even supporters of the water rate hikes have become disgusted with the city's hardball tactics. Shortly after the first Superior Court ruling, the Fresno Bee editorial board, which backs the water rate increases, chastised Swearengin.

“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.”

The “stalling and blocking tactics” have already proven effective at stopping the referendum from reaching the June 2014 ballot. If the 5th District Court of Appeals doesn't set aside the stay, taxpayers won’t get a title and summary until May, and the referendum would miss the November ballot. To qualify their proposed initiative for the regularly scheduled November 2014 election, taxpayers would need to submit 4,846 valid signatures to the City Clerk by May 8.

The next scheduled election would occur in 2016, by which time the city is expected to have bond funding contracts in place.

A new report by California Common Cause shows that elected officials in California accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts in 2012. The gifts to lawmakers, according to the non-partisan citizens’ lobby organization, came primarily from special interest groups that routinely lobby state officials.

“Christmas came early for many of the Capitol’s most powerful,” said Phillip Ung, author of the report and outgoing policy advocate for California Common Cause. “When gifts are exchanged, a feeling of gratitude is natural, but voters should be concerned how policymakers show their gratitude towards powerful interest groups.”

In 2012, state elected officials accepted approximately $216,000 in gifts and travel payments, including $41,000 in hotels and lodging; $30,000 for tickets to entertainment and sporting events; and more than $100,000 for meals and receptions, according to the report.

Top Gift Recipients in 2012

California Democrats may claim a supermajority in both houses of the state legislature, but an Orange County Republican lawmaker topped the list of gift recipients in 2012. State Senator Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel, accepted $15,810.80 worth of gifts in 2012, almost double the amount of the next highest legislator. Rounding out the top five were:

* Speaker of the Assembly John Perez, D-Los Angeles;

* Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello;

* Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima;

* Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas.

To compile its report on overall gifts, Common Cause used publicly available financial disclosure reports that are filed annually with the state. That means the figures are likely to be lower than the actual total. State law does not require gifts under $50 in value to be reported on these Statement of Economic Interest forms.

“At a time when federal investigators are looking for potential illegal actions by California legislators, this report shows that many legal activities raise suspicions about the influence of special interest in the State Capitol,” said Kathay Feng, executive director for California Common Cause.

Gifts to state lawmakers ranged from lavish meals to expensive tickets to entertainment venues, all paid for by powerful special interest groups. Under state law, most gifts are subject to a $420 limit.

Some of the gifts to state lawmakers included a $69.78 breakfast for Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, paid for by the California Independent Petroleum Association; $420 worth of Disneyland tickets for Assemblyman Don Wagner, R-Irvine; and a $420 round of golf for Calderon.

“The prolific providers of entertainment and sports tickets were special interest groups with business before the Legislature,” the report stated.

Long-Standing Travel Loophole

Despite the state’s $420 gift limit, Jones-Sawyer, Wagner and Calderon were among those who also accepted thousands of dollars worth of accommodation, meals and airfare as participants at a special interest-funded junket to Maui. The Common Cause report criticized the longstanding travel loophole that allows public officials to be reimbursed for travel expenses if connected to a non-profit conference.

In 2012, 17 California legislators attended such trips to Maui that were funded by special interest groups. According to the Sacramento Bee, the list of legislators that traveled to Maui included:

*Assembly GOP leader Connie Conway, R-Tulare;

* Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo;

* Sen. Tom Berryhill, R-Oakdale;

* Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton;

* Assemblyman Paul Fong, D-Cupertino;

* Sen. Steve Knight, R-Palmdale;

* Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach;

* Assemblyman Manny Perez, D-Coachella;

* Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood;

* Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord;

* Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont;

* Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles;

* Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa;

* Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego.

Campaign Committees Used as Slush Funds

Special interest-funded junkets weren’t the only gift loophole highlighted by Common Cause. The report also identified lawmakers’ use of campaign committees as slush funds.

Assemblyman Adam Gray of Merced and State Sen. Ricardo Lara of Long Beach, both Democrats, used campaign funds to buy gifts for Perez. Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, also used $231.85 of her campaign funds on meals and dinners for other legislators.

CalWatchdog.com has previously reported on lawmakers’ use of campaign funds for travel expenses. Earlier this year, six state lawmakers used campaign funds for a spring break trip to Cuba organized by a Capitol lobbyist. Legislators using campaign funds on the trip included Atkins, Calderon and Mitchell; as well as Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo; Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley; and Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton.

$6.7 Million in Behested Payments to Pet Causes

In addition to gifts, Common Cause analyzed contributions made at the request of legislators and statewide officers. These “behested payments” to politicians pet causes totaled $6.7 million in  2013. Ethics experts say these payments offer another form of influence.

“We call it an end run around contributions limits,” Bob Stern of the nonprofit Center for Governmental Studies told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2009.

Gov. Jerry Brown has been the state’s top fundraiser for non-profits. “From 2006 through September of 2013, he has raised a total of $22.5 million through behested payments for his favorite charitable causes,” Capitol Weekly reported earlier this year. “As a point of comparison, the amount is more than half the price-tag of his 2010 gubernatorial campaign, which racked up some $40.5 million in political contributions.”

Common Cause, one of the nation’s most effective grassroots advocacy groups, promotes good government issues and tracks special interest involvement in politics. A copy of the report is available at Gifts, Influence, and Power: A Report on Gifts Given to California’s Elected Officials.