The report, released by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office on Wednesday, identified three areas of concern. First, LAO writes the administration’s strategy “lacks basic information necessary to determine its merits, including its costs, benefits, and potential alternative approaches.” 

Second, the LAO noted the administration’s insistence on using a particular funding process that allows “the administration to establish and fund projects without legislative approval” greatly reduces legislative oversight. 

The LAO also called the construction and renovation plan “ambitious,” adding it was already behind schedule and that it is likely to become increasingly more expensive.

The LAO recommended the Legislature call for a “robust analysis” of the administration’s strategy, to closely monitor the $1.3 billion expenditure for 2016-17 and to push for further appropriations to be made through the budget process. 

“We believe these recommendations would help ensure that the state has the information it needs to move forward with the best available strategy for addressing its buildings in the Sacramento area and that any funds provided are spent with adequate legislative oversight and accountability,” wrote Helen Kerstein, an LAO analyst. 

The administration’s plan provided “badly needed” funding for the modernization effort, to maximize energy and water efficiency, to strengthen security and to make the buildings ADA compliant, said an administration spokesman. 

“We look forward to working closely with our colleagues at the LAO and within legislative leadership to make this effort a success and ensure the highest possible degree of transparency and accountability in how these projects are executed,” Brian Ferguson, a deputy director at the Department of General Services, told CalWatchdog on Thursday. 

Adding to the complications, Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2014-15 budget would pay for a five-year study on the building, rather than remodel the known problems, or move the BOE out. Some say the governor doesn’t want to incur any new debt, which is understandable. But this problem is not getting any better by sitting… and molding.

In October, the DGS sent out a “request for information” for a study on where BOE employees could move. The BOE said it needs between and 750,000 and 800,000 square feet of office space to house all of its employees. BOE employees are currently in five different locations.

There is no telling when this will be resolved. It’s a mess, and a perfect example of an unnecessarily complicated government bureaucracy, which cannot even figure out how to fix the existing BOE building, or move employees elsewhere. Dickinson’s office said he will keep on trying.

By Katy Grimes

Democrats in the Assembly passed a bill on Monday requiring the Department of General Services to collect and report information on lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender owned businesses in contracting with the state.

The bill, AB 1960, by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, opens the door to allow preferential treatment in the bidding process on state government contracts, similar to the bidding preferences already received by minority, disabled military veterans, and women-owned businesses.

Dickinson vehemently denied this was the intent of the bill. But why else require the state’s largest agency to collect and report the data?

According to the author, “this bill represents a small, but vital step toward breaking down  discriminatory barriers marginalizing a key segment of our population.  LGBT owned businesses are a critical part of our economy, and AB 1960 would help provide recognition for this valuable role.”

Is Dickinson saying that the state discriminates against LGBT-owned businesses and needs a bill declaring that this is wrong?

This is pure nonsense and drivel, except AB 1960 is now on its way to becoming a law.

The State of California spends $8.9 billion annually on state contracts. As the state already provides preferential treatment in state contracting for some, the LGBT community obviously wants to get a piece of the action.

Dickinson’s bill is just the baby step in the process.

It still boggles my mind that the state gives preferential treatment to those it deems victims in need of special assistance in business: Women, disabled veterans, minorities, and now LGBT.

“The cost is small in comparison to the impact,” Dickinson said Monday.

Owners of businesses who qualify for the state’s special certification process must jump through numerous hoops, including mountains of paperwork proving they are a woman, a minority or a disabled veteran.

Multiple years of tax returns, financial statements, business projections, and other forms of documentation proving the validity of the protected class, are required by the state. How then will the state prove that a business contracting with state agencies is in fact lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender owned?

Assemblywoman Linda Halderman, R-Fresno, asked Dickinson that question. But Dickinson said that the bill does not provide any legal entitlement or special privileges, and said that it is voluntary disclosure. But he never did say what the purpose is for asking for “voluntary disclosure”  of sexual orientation when contracting with the state.

The state has a responsibility to use taxpayer money as prudently as possible. AB 1960 would begin the process of adding yet one more discriminatory bid preference to the mix, when instead, we should be removing all of them for the most open field for competition.

Preferential treatments in state bidding reduce competition and result in higher costs for taxpayers. The system is already gamed by phony business owners claiming to be minority or women owned. What’s to stop anyone from claiming to be LGBT?

AB 1960 is a stupid bill and just additional evidence that California needs a part-time Legislature.