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.

Denise Cross / flickr

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

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

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

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

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

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

10x Filing Fee Hike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fee Hike to Deter Frivolous Submissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Tuesday, the 28 Republican members of the lower house selected Assemblyman Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley as their next leader. The caucus did not release the specific tally for the caucus vote nor indicate any other candidates for the leadership post.

“I am fortunate to inherit a Caucus that is united in its commitment to fiscal responsibility and meeting the needs of a 21st Century economy,” Mayes said in a press release following the announcement. “For California to thrive, legislative leaders must provide solutions that offer a pathway to prosperity. Too often politicians take actions that limit opportunity in the very communities they claim to serve.”

He added, “I look forward to working with our Caucus to make California a better place to call home.”

Mayes, who was elected to the state Assembly in 2014, will take over for current GOP leader Kristin Olsen when the Legislature reconvenes on January 4, 2016.

Second consecutive GOP leader to reject anti-tax pledge

Mayes said that he intends to carry on Olsen’s philosophy and approach to the post.

“I am humbled by my colleagues’ confidence in my ability to lead the Caucus,” Mayes said. “I plan to build upon Kristin’s vision of bringing the Caucus and its supporting operations into the 21st Century. She has worked tirelessly to position our Caucus and its members for maximum success.”

Since taking over as minority leader, Olsen has embraced a more moderate approach and rejected the anti-tax rhetoric that is considered orthodoxy to traditional conservative Republicans. In 2012, Olsen publicly criticized the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a promise by elected officials to oppose higher taxes.

“The problem with the no-tax pledge is that entrenched special interests interpret what is or is not a violation of the pledge in order to serve their own agendas – and sometimes their interpretations defy logic,” Olsen wrote in a Sacramento Bee opinion piece before taking over as leader. “To grow the Republican Party, we have to get away from relying solely on ‘No’ messages. We are better than that, and Californians deserve and desire solution-focused leadership that will help bring legislative Democrats over to our side on the need for lower taxes and substantive reforms.”

As a candidate for State Assembly, Mayes similarly rejected the anti-tax pledge. Mayes told the Desert Sun last year that “he’s not the kind of Republican who is out to blow up government … and said he declined to sign the taxpayer protection pledge.”

Mayes brings experience from more than a decade serving at the local government level. He was first elected to the Yucca Valley Town Council in 2002 and was twice re-elected. During his time on the town council, Mayes served as president of the Desert Mountain Division of the League of California Cities.

He also worked as a political staff member at the county-level, serving as chief of staff to San Bernardino County Supervisor Janice Rutherford.

Olsen’s tenure as leader

Olsen earned praise from her colleagues for her tenure as leader.

“Kristin may have been a transitional leader in terms of time, but she has been transformative in her impact on Caucus operations,” said Assembly Republican Caucus Chair Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita. “Her changes set a pathway to Republican relevancy and she worked to lay the foundation for a Republican majority in the near future. Thanks to Kristin, our Caucus is united, focused, and motivated.”

Olsen, who is termed out of the state Assembly next year, welcomed the leadership transition and said she’s proud of her accomplishments, which included a major staff shake-up as part of an effort of “modernizing caucus operations.”

“My goal as Assembly Republican leader has been to unite our caucus and advance core principles that resonate with Californians and will revitalize our state: good jobs, great schools, and a more transparent, effective, and citizen-driven government,” Olsen said. “I am pleased that we have been able to accomplish this while modernizing our Caucus operations, hiring top-notch staff, and becoming pro-active and solution-focused.”

Mayes will have company learning the ropes as a new Republican leader. Last week, the Senate Republican Caucus announced that Sen. Jean Fuller of Bakersfield had unseated Sen. Bob Huff as Republican Senate leader.

Huff is running for an open seat on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to replace longtime Supervisor Mike Antonovich. Other candidates for that seat include gang prosecutor Elan Carr, Glendale City Councilman Ara Najarian, Los Angeles City Councilman Mitchell Englander and Kathryn Barger, Antonovich’s chief of staff.

“AB339 is designed to ensure consumer access to vital medications,” said the bill’s author, Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park, on the Assembly floor June 3. “Californians with cancer, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, lupus and other serious and chronic conditions, need high-cost, specialty drugs. Today, consumers with these serious health conditions can be asked to pay as much as $6,600 for a month’s prescription for a single drug. AB339 limits what a consumer pays to $275 per 30-day prescription.”

The updated version of the bill reduces that to a $250 copay limit for a 30-day supply, with the exception of those with bronze insurance plans who would be liable to pay up to $500 for a 30-day drug supply.

“The California Health Benefits Review Program, which analyzed AB339, found that there’s a preponderance of evidence from studies that persons who face higher cost sharing for prescription drugs are less likely to maintain meaningful levels of adherence than persons who face lower cost sharing,” said Gordon. “And poor adherence to prescription drug therapy for chronic conditions is associated with higher rates of hospitalization and emergency department visits.”

Actual Effect of Cost Sharing

The actual effect of cost sharing may be more nuanced, according to the legislative analysis prepared for the Senate Health Committee’s July 15 hearing: “[T]here is some evidence that the effect of cost sharing may differ depending on the specific disease and specific specialty drug. There is a preponderance of evidence that cost sharing has stronger effects on use of health care services by low-income persons compared to high-income persons. However, this was not observed in a recent well-done observational study from Massachusetts.”

Gordon responded to the concern that his bill would increase insurance premiums by pointing out that CHBRP “found that premium increases are estimated to be only 0.3 percent for enrollees with group insurance and 0.7 percent for enrollees with individual market policies. As demonstrated by this data, the benefits of this bill increasing medication adherence far outweigh any negatives. Join me in supporting these important consumer protections, which ensure that Californians are better able to afford their prescription drugs and that drug benefit designs are not discriminatory.”

He was in fact joined by most of the Democrats in the Assembly where the bill passed, 48-30, with no other discussion. It also passed along party lines in the Senate Health Committee, 7-2, after witnesses testified to its pros and cons.

Advocacy Organizations Tout Effectiveness of Medicinal Improvements

“This is a bill about basic consumer protections,” said Sawait Seyoum, representing the advocacy organization Health Access California. “A recent study found that the average consumer has about $2,300 in liquid assets in their checking or savings account. Today we expect the average constituent to pay over half of what they have in their account for a single prescription in the first month.

Touting the effectiveness of medicinal improvements was Anne Donnelly, representing Project Inform, which advocates for those with HIV and hepatitis C.

“Over the years since we started working on HIV, people with HIV have started moving from a life expectancy of about 43 days to a normal life span, and we have ended the transmission of HIV from HIV-infected moms to their babies,” she said. “And that’s in large part due to the effectiveness of HIV drugs. Now we have an HIV drug that when used appropriately can stop new infections.

“So the hope of ending this epidemic really depends in large part on these drugs being accessible and affordable to Californians living with and at risk for HIV. We need AB339 to ensure that everybody with a serious health condition or at risk for one, not just people living with HIV but including people living with HIV, have access to the drugs they need at a price they can afford.”

Opposition to Bill Focused on Increased Premiums

But the bill might actually have the opposite effect, according to Nick Louizos, representing the California Association of Health Plans.

“Our opposition to this bill is fairly simple,” he said. “Legislatively designing health benefits increases premiums. We can legislatively create the best benefit packages in the world, but if no one can afford them, that’s pretty useless from our perspective. This has been demonstrated time and time again. The independent analysis of the introduced version of this bill does show premium increases of close to $400 million on individuals and employers.”

That analysis, which was done before the bill’s scope was reduced to include only prescription drugs providing essential health benefits, estimated it would result in a $162 million increase in employer-funded premiums in the private insurance market and a $216 million premium increase by individual purchasers.

But there may be big costs associated with the current version of the bill. The analysis states that it may include “unknown, potentially significant fiscal impact on the private health insurance market. By requiring coverage of single-tablet regimens and extended release prescription drugs, carriers lose negotiating power, leading to unknown higher drug costs.”

Louizos said that the state health benefit exchange, Covered California, has estimated “that over a three-year period, prices could increase by 3 percent. And that’s a pretty significant percentage from our perspective, considering all the cost drivers in the health care system.”

John Caldwell, representing Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, is also opposed:

“[It} appears to require the brand pharmaceuticals that have been on the market the longest, and thus most often prescribed, would get favored status,” he said. “In some cases this would be the most expensive, in some cases it may not be. So we don’t see the reasoning behind that. We think it’s just going to require redoing the [cost] tiers on an annual basis based on what is the most popular drug.

 

“Another issue: AB339 essentially forces coverage of more expensive brand HIV pharmaceuticals that are in single-tablet form when less expensive brands or generics in multi-tablet form are available. As the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis noted, the burden of proof to refuse coverage of these drugs, according to the bill’s provisions, appears very high, essentially meaning they would have to be covered. This provision would completely eliminate any incentive for the manufacturers to negotiate on plan formularies.”

Further Discussion Encouraged

The only committee comment came from the chairman, Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina:

“I agree that there are conditions that need to be dealt with, especially very expensive ones. I believe that we need to make sure that the consumer doesn’t have to go bankrupt.

 

“But there’s something that I think we really need to really have a discussion. There’s an underlying problem, and it still deals with overall controlling costs to the health care system – and that’s the increasing cost of prescription medications. At the end of the day what’s going to happen is that you’re going to have lower payments to the consumer, but yet if you have escalating drug costs, guess what, all of those costs are going to be passed onto the consumer in the form of premium increases throughout the entire system.”

AB339 will next be considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB567 “would allow the Board of Equalization and the local county assessor to disclose that a legal entity change in ownership statement has been filed or that the BOE has determined that the property requires a reassessment under legal entity change in ownership law,” said Gipson on his website.

Currently the BOE is prohibited from providing change in property ownership information to the public, according to the bill’s legislative analysis.

That’s despite the fact that “in recent years, media reports of the disparate consequences of reassessing property owned by legal entities and property owned by individuals have resulted in an increasing number of inquiries from the public whether specific sales, mergers, acquisitions, and buyouts reported by media trigger the reassessment of a legal entity’s real estate holdings,” the analysis said.

The bill also allows the disclosure if the change in ownership filing was prompted by the Franchise Tax Board based on information collected from the taxpayer’s state income tax return.

The analysis by Oksana Jaffee said that the disclosure would be “very limited”:

It does not require a disclosure of any factual information reported on the taxpayer’s state income tax return, such as the amount of gross receipts or sales, gross profit, the amount of credit carryovers, income subject to apportionment, or the amount of each individual credit claimed on the tax return.

 

Furthermore, no actual information reported on a CIO [change in ownership] statement, other than the fact that the statement has been filed, may be disclosed to the public. Detailed financial information reported in the state income tax return or CIO statement will remain confidential.

Currently it’s difficult to find out about a change in property ownership because “discovery relies heavily on self-reporting, which does not always result in 100 percent compliance,” the analysis said. It quotes the BOE’s analysis that “delayed transparency undermines the public trust in the current property tax system as it applies to legal entity changes in ownerships and fuels the perception that laws are inequitable and should be changed.”

Jaffee’s analysis concludes with an argument for AB567:

Transfers of real property are recorded and are already public information. Thus, it is unclear why a disclosure of the mere fact of filing a CIO statement by a legal entity, or the fact that the filing was prompted by the information collected by the FTB, would undermine public trust or should remain confidential.

Gipson made his case for the bill on the Assembly floor May 28:

AB567 will increase accountability in assessed property values by allowing the State Board of Equalization to provide timely and basic information to the public. Right now the county assessors are required to make public reassessed property values on the assessed role.

 

However, when a business files paperwork to trigger reassessment, the State Board of Equalization is required to keep information confidential – I want to underscore confidential – even though this information will eventually be made public by current law today.

 

As a result, when the public calls upon the State Board of Equalization to ask about specific sales or merger, the State Board of Equalization cannot provide any information. AB567 will allow the State Board of Equalization to disclose only the necessary paperwork as filed and triggered by the reassessment.

 

What will be shared by AB567 is actually less than what is required to be disclosed by the county assessor’s office today. This modest bill will improve communication between the public and the State Board of Equalization, and help ensure our tax laws are fairly applied to the public’s benefit.

Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, also spoke in favor of the bill:

As a former assessor I dealt with this issue very specifically. Often times when there are changes of ownerships that happen, they are reported on your tax returns, which obviously are delayed for a year. That information is then transferred from the Franchise Tax Board to the BOE, and doesn’t get to the county assessor, it could be, for almost two years.

 

So that information, which is actually public information necessary for us to make sure that assessments are done properly, aren’t getting to the county assessors in a timely fashion. This will help increase transparency, help speed it up. It does not impact privacy at all. This is public information and it will just get to the right source at the right time.

But Republicans who spoke against the bill don’t consider it so benign. Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach said:

Very simply, according to the author, the purpose of the bill is to allow anyone who believes that a possible change in ownership has occurred to call the Board of Equalization and inquire about the ownership of a property. And after the BOE receives the inquiry and finds that this entity has not filed a certain form, the BOE can then request that entity to file the form and then evaluate whether or not a change in ownership has occurred.

 

I know that sounds a little complex. But essentially what that means is that anybody can call up the BOE and potentially harass a business. And the reason they would be doing this is potentially to get them to pay higher taxes. This opens itself to potential abuse. The implementation could cause problems in California.

Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine, agrees that AB567 will open up businesses to harassment:

You get to go and say to the BOE, “Hey, I think there was change in ownership in this business.” Maybe that business is a competitor of yours. Maybe that business has got some information that would otherwise appear on these forms that you’d like to dig into and find out about maybe for your own competitive purposes, maybe for nefarious purposes, maybe for purposes of harassing the business.

 

You don’t even need a good faith belief to make the allegation, as I understand the bill as it is in print, to require the form to be filed. So now your competitor is filing forms with the BOE, public forms with the BOE. The board is now tasked with evaluating whether or not there’s been a change in ownership when perhaps there’s been absolutely no underlying transaction whatsoever.

 

Why do this? You do this to harass other businesses, you do this maybe because you’re trolling for a lawsuit. You do this for all sorts of reasons that, rightly as the law exists today, you can’t do. So there’s no evidence in the hearing that I sat through that this is a great big problem and lots of businesses are escaping change of ownership filing requirements.

 

Every small business in the state has had enough of our forms. This is one more form from what is merely a fishing expedition and absolutely no explanation of the problem we are trying to solve. Let’s not go there. This is an easy no vote.

The bill passed 47-29 along party lines in the Assembly and will next be considered by the Senate. The California Taxpayers Association and a coalition of business groups sent an opposition letter to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on June 1. It states:

There is no valid reason to begin violating taxpayers’ fundamental protection of keeping their tax information confidential. The bill would deteriorate taxpayer privacy by allowing confidential tax information to be released to the public; and would allow the information to be released without tax officials first making a proper determination regarding a property owner’s taxes.

 

This bill would not promote “transparency,” because no public interest would be served by allowing tax officials to release confidential tax information regarding changes in ownership. In fact, an erosion of trust would occur, as the public is acutely aware that tax agencies currently must safeguard their tax information, and this bill would break that trust.

 

Oftentimes, no change-in-ownership statement is filed because no change in ownership occurred. In these cases, what purpose is served in disclosing to the public that no form was filed?

 

More and more tax information that should remain confidential is indiscriminately made available to the public. The benefits to be derived from such disclosures are speculative at best, and do not warrant taking the risk of inaccuracies or other adverse consequences that may undermine public confidence in the tax system.

The bill will next be considered by the Senate Rules Committee for assignment to a policy committee.

And in the Assembly, Republicans defeated three Democratic incumbents, which also reversed a Democratic supermajority.

“We unseated sitting Democrats for the first time in 20 years because Californians want positive change and because we had great, hard-working candidates on the ballot this year, candidates who are connected with their communities and know the challenges facing people in their districts,” newly elected Assembly Republican Leader Kristin Olsen told CalWatchdog.com. “They were more diverse than ever – in gender, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic upbringing and background.”

Is the GOP changing? In the Assembly, women make up a greater share of the Republican caucus than the Democratic caucus. Although Democrats hold nearly a two-thirds majority in the lower house, there are nearly as many Republican women (eight) as there are Democratic women (currently 9; or 10 if Patty Lopez defeats Raul Bocanegra in AD 39 in a tight race — Lopez currently leads by seven votes; both are Democrats).

The Friday following the election, Olsen introduced to the Sacramento press the three most talked about new members of her caucus — each of whom has a major achievement by virtue of her election. Catharine Baker is the first Republican to win a Bay Area legislative seat in years. Ling-Ling Chang is the first Taiwanese-American Republican woman to join the Assembly. And Young Kim is the first Korean-American Republican elected to the lower house.

Young Kim: First Korean American GOP woman elected to State Assembly

For the next two years, you can expect Kim to be an almost daily fixture in the Korean-language newspapers, where she’ll be talking about lowering taxes and improving California’s business climate.

“Now that we’ve broken the Democrats’ supermajority in both houses, taxpayers can sleep a little better at night knowing that Proposition 13 is safe, at least for the next two years,” Kim told CalWatchdog.com, referencing the 1978 tax-limitation initiative.

She says she’ll focus on creating a business-friendly environment to help spur job creation in California as well as keeping our communities safe by putting a focus on public safety.

Fast-track to GOP leadership: Ling-Ling Chang

If there’s one freshman Republican on the fast-track to leadership, it’s Chang. She’s a smart, articulate assemblywoman-elect with impressive fundraising at a time when Republicans are serious about re-branding the party.

It’d be a no-brainer for Chang to land a spot on the Assembly Health Committee, one of the most coveted assignments in the lower house. An expert on public health, Chang has experience in both the non-profit and for-profit side of health care. She’s worked in the corporate sector training physicians and medical staff at various hospitals across Southern California.

With a spot on a juice committee, Chang would boost her already robust fundraising, which aided GOP targets in November. In the final two months of the campaign, Chang contributed more than $60,000 to party committees and legislative targets, including colleagues Kim, David Hadley, Tom Lackey, Marc Steinorth, Catharine Baker and Eric Linder.

When CalWatchdog.com asked her about the incoming GOP class, she quickly focused the spotlight on her colleagues. One colleague, who is getting buzz as an expert in technology, is Jay Obernolte, a fellow Southern California Republican freshman.

“Jay is one of the smartest, most technologically savvy individuals I know,” Chang told us when we asked about the new freshmen class. “His experience as a software and video game developer and business owner will bring a cutting edge perspective for Republicans to the issues facing California.”

Obernolte, the mayor of Big Bear Lake, founded FarSight Studios, a successful video game company that makes “family videogames for the PlayStation3, Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS, Apple iPhone, and the PC.” For a caucus looking to make inroads with Silicon Valley, who better than a video-gaming geek who graduated from UCLA and CalTech?

Catharine Baker: Lone GOP voice in Bay Area

Republicans also benefit from Baker’s representation of the Bay Area. For years, Republicans have been without any state or federal elected officials in the region. An attorney from Pleasanton, Baker becomes the most prominent Republican official for hundreds of miles in the Bay Area.

In practical terms, that’s a very big deal. It means she’ll be sending out field representatives to PTA meetings, distributing certificates at chamber breakfasts and fielding constituent calls to help with the DMV– all the boring things that win elections.

“Voters sent a message on Election Day that the culture of corruption and one-party rule in the Legislature is unacceptable and not healthy for our state,” Olsen said.

She added, “Now, our Assembly Republican Caucus will take the responsibility voters have given us and work hard together to put California on a better path for ALL Californians in each and every neighborhood.”

“I was a surprise win in the last election,” Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, said in a recent interview of her four-point victory over Republican Chris Norby. “And from the moment I won, there has been an effort to take back this seat.”

Quirk-Silva isn’t exactly giving up her seat without a fight.

As of October 18, the first-term Democrat had spent roughly $2.4 million this year to stave off her Republican challenger, Young Kim. To put that number into perspective, the Democratic governor of New Hampshire has spent roughly the same amount on her competitive re-election campaign, according to recent figures from the Associated Press.

Kim, a former aide to GOP Congressman Ed Royce, is no pauper either, having spent $1.4 million over the same period.

With its two fundraising powerhouses, the campaign for the 65th Assembly District is on track to be one of the most expensive races — at any level — in the country. Combined spending by both candidates, the two political parties and various independent expenditure committees is on pace to exceed $5.2 million.

Spending on the race had already surpassed the $4.7 million mark on October 18, when the candidates had another half-million dollars at their disposal in cash on hand. Those preliminary figures also don’t account for other late expenditures expected to be spent on this weekend’s get out the vote efforts.

Big labor, big business fund Quirk-Silva’s campaign

Just two years ago, Maplight estimated each member of the California State Assembly, on average, raised $708,371, an average of $970 every day during the 2012 cycle. So, where is all of this additional money coming from?

On Quirk-Silva’s side, the funds can be traced back to both big business and big labor through party committees. Of the $2.65 million raised for her campaign, nearly $2 million has come from either the California Democratic Party or various Democratic central committees throughout the state. Those Democratic committees have accepted large checks from special interest groups that routinely lobby the Legislature, including insurance companies, defense contractors, oil companies and labor unions.

Kim’s campaign, which has raised $1.8 million, owes a third of its support to the California Republican Party, which has relied heavily on political activist and physicist Charles Munger Jr. for its support.

Race to decide Assembly supermajority

Both sides have invested big money in the race that could decide whether Democrats hold a two-thirds supermajority in the lower house, and thus have the votes to raise taxes without any GOP defections. And understandably, tax issues have taken center stage in the race.

In its early endorsement of Kim, the Orange County Register highlighted her position on taxes. “Ms. Kim is the better choice when it comes to protecting taxpayers and restoring the beleaguered California economy,” the paper wrote. “In her bid to serve the residents, she has focused on fixing the education system, making California more business-friendly, improving public safety and dealing with California’s crippling water and infrastructure issues.”

Taxpayer groups have also played an active role in the campaign. Eariler this month, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, took umbrage with a mail piece from the Quirk-Silva campaign that implied an endorsement.

The first-term Orange County Democrat put her name alongside the taxpayer organization’s name, stating their shared support for Proposition 2, the Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act. The not-so-subtle goal of the slick mailer was to associate Quirk-Silva with the state’s most trusted taxpayer group, which has endorsed Kim. Coupal described it as “the most unusual attempt at deception we’ve seen this election.”

Neither side forgetting grassroots

The questionable tactics by Quirk-Silva’s campaign demonstrate the challenge that Democrats have in holding the seat. Although Democrats have a 1.7 percentage-point advantage in voter registration, the district is considered a “lean Republican” seat, according to the ATC Partisan Index, which ranks districts based on their competitiveness in the 2014 election.

The GOP’s hope for reclaiming the seat stems from a candidate who delivered a strong showing in the June primary. Kim, a first-generation Korean-American immigrant, earned the highest vote percentage of any GOP legislative challenger in the June 3rd primary, garnering 55 percent of the vote in the Democratic district.

She won voters over with her powerful immigrant success story.

“As many immigrant families did, my parents worked hard and struggled, but they also instilled in me the value of individual responsibility and living within a person’s means,” Kim wrote in a personal narrative featured in the Orange County Register earlier this year.

Kim’s message appears to be resonating with Asian voters, who have returned their absentee ballots at a slightly higher rate from two years ago. According to absentee ballot data from Political Data Inc., Asian absentee voting is up a point from 2012, while early voting by Latinos is down a point. The net gain of two points for Asian voters over Latino voters is expected to benefit Kim.

Republicans are also optimistic about the party breakdown of returned absentee ballots. Of the 27,372 absentee ballots that have been returned, 45 percent have been from Republicans, an 8 percentage-point advantage over Democrats, according to Political Data’s ballot tracker. That’s an improvement from 2012, when Republicans held a 6 percentage-point edge in absentee ballots.

Enticing volunteers with Korean BBQ

But don’t think that Kim’s advantage in early voting has made her complacent. On Thursday afternoon, Kim’s campaign enticed Republican activists to participate in the final weekend’s “Get Out The Vote” efforts by offering Korean BBQ.

“We need as many volunteers as possible to contact voters and tell them to cast their ballots for Young Kim, and I’m hoping you can join us,” Kim’s campaign wrote in its latest email alert to supporters. “Our office will be open 9a-9p every day between now and Election Day, with 3-hour shifts of canvassing and phone banking.”

But employment conditions in state government are very different, and about to get more so.

Thirty-eight members of the State Assembly voted Friday to support a bill to allow state employees to miss five consecutive days of work, and still be able to keep their jobs.

Sponsored by the Service Employees International Union, Assembly Bill 855 is by Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, D-San Bernardino. It would require the California Department of Human Resources to reinstate the AWOL worker if “automatic resignation” kicks in if the employee is absent from work without permission for five consecutive work days.

Being AWOL means “absent without official leave.” In the military, AWOL is also known as “desertion.” Current law allows the state to terminate an employee for being AWOL for five consecutive days, under the assumption of an “automatic resignation” clause.

The “debate”

“The SEIU is trying to circumvent the collective bargaining process,” said Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee, during Friday Assembly session, which I attended. “They should bring it to the bargaining table — it’s between the union and the state.”

Jones said this bill demonstrates to the rest of the country just how out-of-touch the California Legislature is. “How can anyone think this is good?”

“AWOL isn’t accepted in the private sector, or anywhere,” Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said in floor debate. “Why would anyone in this union want to be gone for five days without letting anyone know?  This would never be allowed in the private sector.”

Even Assembly Speaker John Perez questioned the purpose of the bill. “What are you trying to correct,” Perez, D-Los Angeles, asked Assemblywoman Brown. Even after Brown explained that administrative law decisions to terminate AWOL state employees have never been overturned, Perez wasn’t convinced. “I still don’t get the defense of what the deficiency is,” he said. Perez asked Brown to specifically address this in her closing argument.

The government class

“Would you extend provisions of this bill to the California State Assembly so we may be AWOL for four days without getting fired, or having the California Highway Patrol coming after us?” quipped Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia.

“I think we are not under the same rules,” Brown replied. A silence descended over the Assembly momentarily.

“Taxpayers are frustrated when we don’t play by the same rules,” Donnelly said. “If anyone here were to skip session, the Speaker has absolute authority to send the CHP to get us. State employees should be under the same rules.”

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, asked Brown if a state employee would be only allowed five consecutive AWOL days during the year, or could take five days off without permission from a supervisor one month, and then do it again, month after month. Grove said the way the bill was written, it would allow bad employees to abuse the intent, without recourse by the state.

Brown said the state CalHR department still would retain the authority to terminate state employees.

“To quote, ‘we are not under the same rules.’ I applaud the author’s honesty,”  Assemblyman Don Wagner, R-Irvine, said. “Occasionally on the floor, the truth slips out.”

Wagner added, “If that is okay with you, vote yes. If it’s not okay with you, vote no.”

Brown’s bill would require the state to reinstate the employee if “the employee makes a satisfactory explanation as to the cause of his or her absence, and his or her failure to obtain leave.”

The second condition for reinstatement is “if the department finds that the employee is ready, able, and willing to resume the discharge of the duties of his or her position or, if not, that he or she has obtained the consent of his or her appointing power to a leave of absence to commence upon reinstatement.”

The bill is currently stalled in the Assembly on a 38-27 vote, with many Assembly members not voting at all. But it will only take three more votes to pass. With the SEIU pressing Democrats to vote for the bill, expect AB855 to pass.

By Chris Reed

The longer I’ve lived in California, the more governance here seems to resemble organized looting of taxpayers. It’s not just the showy and ridiculous things, like the longtime president of the CalPERS governing board being a top official in the California Federation of Labor, or the public safety workers in a bankrupt town winning automatic raises. It’s stories like this one, about a defeated Assembly member getting a $128,000 part-time state job:

“Allen, defeated by Marc Levine in his reelection bid for a state Assembly seat representing part of Sonoma County and Marin County, was appointed on Thursday to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

“The five-member panel, which meets monthly, is the final arbiter in appeals of unemployment and disability claims involving workers and employers.

“The job pays $128,000 a year. That’s a hefty bump from an Assembly member’s base pay of $95,300.”

Assemblyman aids aide and is aided in return

And it’s stories like this one, about a termed-out Assembly member helping his aide win a narrow election to his old job, and then getting a $102,000-a-year job from his aide until his next elected gig starts paying him:

“Voters in northeast Los Angeles picked former state Assemblyman Felipe J. Fuentes III (D-Sylmar) in March to represent them on the City Council, but that job won’t begin until July, seven months after Fuentes’ term in Sacramento ended. He won’t be struggling to make ends meet, however: Fuentes is bridging the gap by working for his former chief of staff and longtime friend, Raul Bocanegra, who was elected in November to fill Fuentes’ seat in the 39th District.

“Assembly records show that Fuentes went on Bocanegra’s payroll Dec. 3. His title as of February 28 was principal assistant in Bocanegra’s district office; his monthly salary of $8,500 was the second-highest among Bocanegra’s aides. In fact, it’s more than the salaries paid to either Bocanegra or his chief of staff.

“The unofficial tally from the March 5 election showed Fuentes with 51% of the vote in Council District 7, almost twice the percentage of runner-up Nicole Chase. The only candidate in the district to raise a significant war chest, Fuentes spent almost nine times as much in the campaign as all his rivals combined.”

That’s from the L.A. Times.

Question the looting, and you’ll get insulted

Here’s another version of governance as looting involving another Democratic Assembly member, Ben Hueso, and the San Diego City Council. Note that Hueso’s aide characterizes questioning the looting as being “obnoxious.”

What’s obnoxious is this status quo, and how government watchers are so used to it that it’s barely considered news any  more.

Here’s more from the Times story on Fuentes:

“Fuentes has tapped public funds at least once before while moving from one public-sector job to another. He was chief of staff for Padilla in the 7th District until Padilla won a seat in the state Senate in 2006. Fuentes then ran for and won a special election to replace Assemblyman Richard Alarcon (D-Panorama City), who had won the seat Padilla vacated on the council. The day after Fuentes won that election, he obtained a $7,500 contract from the [Los Angeles] City Council to brief Alarcon’s council staff. Not that Alarcon was new to the council; he’d represented the 7th District before heading to Sacramento.”

Showing it’s not just Sacramento and San Diego. It’s L.A. It’s all of California government.

Great, just great.