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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Brown plans to propose spending millions of dollars in fees paid by carbon producers to aid the state’s controversial high-speed rail project.

“The proposal – and the prospect of additional funding from the state’s cap-and-trade program in future years – could provide a significant lift to a $68 billion rail project beleaguered by uncertainty about long-term financing.

“Brown plans to propose allocating several hundred million dollars this year, sources told The Sacramento Bee. … Brown is expected to include the proposal in the annual budget plan he will release Friday. Brown has made high-speed rail a priority of his administration, and he suggested two years ago that cap-and-trade revenue, which is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, would be a future source of funding for the project.

“But the use of cap-and-trade money for high-speed rail could be problematic. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said in 2012 that while the rail project could eventually help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, benefits would not be seen until after 2020, the year by which California is seeking to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals.”

Will any responsible Democrats step up and say this is crazy, Jerry? We shall see.

But as I wrote last week, I don’t see how this saves the bullet train. Yes, if Brown gets his way, the rail authority could then go back to Judge Michael Kenny and say hey, now we have additional funding.

By Chris Reed

We’ve seen President Obama and Gov. Brown spread the green jobs myth, pretending that niche categories of employment can revive the larger national and state economies. Now Los Angeles mayoral candidate Eric Garcetti is offering up the green Kool-Aid, claiming if he’s elected he’ll bring 20,000 green jobs to a city that the Los Angeles Times has finally admitted is in broad economic decline.

But as the L.A. Weekly is reporting, Garcetti doesn’t exactly have credibility on this front:

“On Nov. 10, 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown came to Los Angeles to help open the new headquarters of CODA Automotive. The company was rolling out its CODA Sedan, which boasted new battery technology that would deliver unprecedented range for an all-electric car. The company claimed it would bring 650 high-tech jobs to L.A.

“‘To the naysayers, we’re saying yes to solar, yes to CODA,’ Brown said. ‘We’re saying yes to a Los Angeles that’s on the move.’

“But though Brown and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa did most of the talking at the day’s ceremony, it was City Council president Eric Garcetti who deserved most of the credit. Garcetti played the key role in enticing CODA to move its headquarters from Santa Monica by dangling $1 million in city redevelopment money — even as he received $8,000 in contributions from CODA executives and their spouses.

“And yet, a little more than a year later, CODA is in trouble. The company never got close to its goal of 650 employees, topping out at about 270 before it began laying off workers in December. A showroom at the Westfield Century City mall has closed. It appears the company has sold fewer than 100 cars.

“Over the past several months, CODA has been sued by eight suppliers for unpaid bills amounting to more than $1.7 million. One of its suppliers recently warned in an SEC filing of “substantial uncertainty regarding CODA’s ability to honor their obligations.”

“‘Their staff’s been cut to nothing,’ says John Gartner, an analyst at Pike Research. ‘On the automotive side, it seems like there’s not much of a future for them.'”

Connect the dots on green-job lies? Nah

Isn’t this, yunno, news? That green job claims at every level haven’t come true?

Nah.

What we’re seeing in the national media with the basic refusal to acknowledge that the president’s sequestration rhetoric is pure scare tactics, we see at every level of the media when it comes to environmental issues. Green jobs aren’t saving the economy. Low-regulation states do create more jobs.