The bill would, over the course of a few years, bring the overtime structure for farm workers in line with that of many other professions by giving overtime past eight hours in a day, where currently the threshold is at 10 hours, and over 40 hours in a week, where it’s currently at 60 hours.

Democrats, the primary supporters of the measure, largely argued that it is a matter of fairness and dignity.

“Right now, we’re telling our farm workers ‘You’re different, you’re less than other workers,'” said Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland. 

Opponents, largely Republicans, argued that the lower threshold would force farmers to cut hours to stay below the overtime rule and that increased labor costs could spur job loss. Democrats rebutted that the same argument was made during the debate to abolish slavery.

Gut and amend

Some members opposed on procedural grounds. Assembly rules prohibit a measure from being reintroduced if it had already been defeated during that legislative session — the same measure was defeated in the Assembly earlier this year.

Democrats overruled the challenge from Assemblyman Don Wagner, R-Irvine, because they said the original text of the bill was not the same. The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, changed the language in a controversial process called a “gut and amend,” which is designed to circumvent the rules. 

Wagner then challenged that since the body decided the bill was different from the original text, it needed to be referred to a committee as the process requires, but Democrats overruled that as well.

The gut and amend process also violates rules of both chambers prohibiting “non-germane” amendments — those amendments that have nothing to do with the original bill. The original bill had to do with the use of non-employee contractors by school districts and community college districts.

The non-germane amendment point of order was not raised on Monday. 

Thursday’s misfire

Gonzalez had previously scheduled the vote for last Thursday, after having a demonstration at the Capitol with United Farm Workers supporters in the morning. And dozens of those union farm workers stayed for the vote.

However, as the day dragged on, it became clear that something was wrong. Members generally call for votes once they know that there is enough support to pass, as a failure can be embarrassing — so when session ended without a vote many on social media speculated that something had happened.

#farmworker overtime vote these folks all showed up for evidently not happening today pic.twitter.com/SGizrIhpr4

— Jeremy B. White (@CapitolAlert) August 25, 2016

@ccadelago You gotta whip before you send out invites to your party…

— Matt Fleming (@mflemingterp) August 25, 2016

The farm workers protested for at least another hour, demanding a vote, outside the speaker’s office. Finally, Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, came out to calm the crowd, promising a vote on Monday. 

Gonzalez’s office declined to comment on what happened.

Emotions flare at the Capitol over #AB1066 to expand farmworker overtime. #caleg pic.twitter.com/AK8XvN1g7T

— Jazmine Ulloa (@jazmineulloa) August 25, 2016

The Legislature passed 11 bills in all, six of which were signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown and the rest vetoed. But one is fraught with peril as it circumvents the Elections Code by amending a November ballot initiative regulating ammo sales. 

The difference between how the bill, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, and the ballot measure, sponsored by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, regulate ammo sales is not substantial. But Democrats have had a hard time providing legal justification for going around Section 9034 (c) in the Elections Code, which says the Legislature does not have the authority to “alter the initiative measure… .”

Republicans tried

Assembly Republicans tried raising the issue just before final passage, but were brushed aside.

“Don’t we have a statutory or Constitutional problem in amending something that hasn’t even become law yet and is proposed to go to the voters for a vote,” asked Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Plumas Lake.

Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, who was presiding at the time, said the Legislature had the authority under “the initiative process and statute.” The San Mateo Democrat, however, was unable to identify a particular law or statue, offering instead that legislative counsel said it was OK.

Assemblyman Don Wagner tried next.

“I think you’re wrong,” the Irvine Republican told Mullin, citing the Elections Code. Wagner appealed the ruling, saying the Legislature was “trampling the will of the people,” who signed a ballot measure without de León’s amendment, adding that the Legislature was “acting illegally and in violation of the Elections Code.” Assembly Democrats pushed forward and Wagner was overruled.

Attempts to get justification 

According to documents provided by de León’s office, legislative counsel did not review the legality of the measure. Instead, legislative counsel issued an opinion on how the amendment would affect the ballot measure.

No legal justification for the law has been provided to CalWatchdog, although de León’s office pointed to an instance from 1990 when the Legislature amended Prop. 129. The measure failed by a wide margin, however, and CalWatchdog has been unable to find a legal ruling setting precedent.

Language in the measure

Next, de León’s office pointed to a provision in Newsom’s ballot language stating: “The provisions of this measure may be amended by a vote of 55 percent of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this Act.” But it’s unclear if the legislative intent of that passage is referring to before or after the measure becomes law, although that’s likely irrelevant. Until the ballot measure is approved by the voters (if it is approved by voters) it has no force of law.

And if the legislative intent was to allow the legislature to amend the measure’s language prior to a vote of the people, it’s unlikely that Newsom or any other ballot initiative proponent has the power to temporarily rewrite the Elections Code.

Proponents have a period to amend pending initiatives, but that period ended a while ago.

Lack of accountability

The attorney’s general office has not responded to requests for comment. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill into law last week, but his office deferred to de León.

A spokesperson for the ballot initiative said proponents were focused on getting the measure passed and did not say if they would challenge the law.

Newsom/de León fued

In recent weeks, the Newsom/de Leon feud has spilled out into public, with a Newsom spokesman calling the move “sickeningly cynical.”

“Is (de León) someone who truly respects the will of the voters and wants to reduce gun violence or is he merely a self-serving cynic completely consumed with petty personal grudges,” spokesman Dan Newman told The Sacramento Bee. 

De León has had it out for Newsom for a while over the gun issue. When Newsom announced plans to introduce the measure last year, de León — who’d made background checks for ammo purchases a pet priority — slashed the size of Newsom’s staff.

With a little luck at the ballot box, Republicans in the Legislature are set to expand on their increasingly diverse delegation, a far cry from the “Party of Old White Men” it’s been thought of by some for years.

And while Republicans have the primary goal of holding the relatively few seats in the Legislature they already have, increased diversity would show a modernizing party that could expand is electoral appeal. 

“Our party does not engage in the identity politics of the left, but we have placed an emphasis on recruiting and supporting the best candidates for every district,” said CAGOP Vice Chairwoman Harmeet Dhillon. “In our culturally rich state, that candidate is often someone with a minority background.”

Diverse candidates

In a district that includes much of Bakersfield, termed-out Republican Shannon Grove appears set to be replaced by Vince Fong, of Chinese descent. Fong won the primary with 60.8 percent of the vote in the largely Republican district.

Dante Acosta is poised to replace termed-out Republican Scott Wilk in a Republican-leaning district that includes Simi Valley and much of north Los Angeles County.

Acosta, of Mexican descent, came in second in the primary behind Democrat Christy Smith, who won 44.8 percent to 35.9 percent. However, Acosta split a majority of votes among two other Republican candidates.

In a largely Republican Orange County district, termed-out Don Wagner may be replaced by Harry Sidhu, who came to the United States in 1974 from India. Sidhu split a 67 percent majority of the vote among six Republicans and came in second behind the lone Democrat.

Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang, who was born in Taiwan, is running to replace Bob Huff, the only termed-out Senate Republican, in a competitive district that straddles Orange and Los Angeles counties. Chang faces longer odds than the others, as she advanced to the general with two Democratic candidates splitting a 55 percent majority of the vote.

If Chang does win, she’d increase diversity in the Senate Republican caucus. And filling her seat in the Assembly could be Philip Chen, of Chinese descent. Chen, like Acosta and Sidhu, was the second-place finisher in the primary behind a Democrat, splitting the vote with four Republicans in the Republican-leaning district.

“As an immigrant myself, I am proud to see more and more Republican candidates that other Californians with diverse backgrounds can identify with when they visit the polls,” said Dhillon, who was born in India. “This trend increases voter turnout and enthusiasm.”

Does it even matter?

California is a huge state, filled with diverse pockets. It’s often said that as the demographics of the state changed, the Republican Party failed to keep up.

Since becoming CAGOP chairman in 2013, Jim Brulte (along with Dhillon and other party leaders) has tried to change that trend in candidate recruitment. As he said in 2015: “In a neighborhood election, the candidate who most looks like, sounds like, has the shared values and shared experiences of the majority of the people in the neighborhood tends to win.”

In 2014, California Republicans sent a relatively large delegation of women to the Legislature, with a large Asian bloc that included Chang. In 2016, they’ll aim to expand on that with Acosta, Chen, Sidhu, Fong and Chang. 

“Under the leadership of Jim Brulte, California Republicans have done yeoman work in recruiting candidates who look like their constituents,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “It’s a smart move: monochrome does not fit California, and in the long run, this strategy could help the party rebuild its strength.”

But, Pitney cautioned, the effect Trump — the presumptive nominee who has a tendency to say things sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly viewed as racist — will have at the top of the GOP ticket is unclear.

“The problem is that people tend to see political parties through the prism of presidential candidates,” Pitney said. “Trump could ruin much of California GOP’s progress.”

Henry T. Perea’s decision to leave office early cost Fresno County at least a half million dollars.

Henry T. Perea’s decision to vacate his Assembly seat early cost Fresno County a half-million dollars — enough to pay for four sheriff deputies — and has reignited a discussion on the cost of special elections.

The Fresno Democrat announced last year that he’d be leaving the Assembly to pursue a position with the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, counties are saddled with the cost of special elections regularly. And while they have become less frequent, at least temporarily, a CalWatchdog review of expenses shows that since 2013 counties (and one city) have spent $21.7 million on special elections to replace state lawmakers.

Few would decry a legislator stepping down if the officeholder or his or her family member fell ill. And of course sometimes scandals create a vacancy. But most of the time these seats are vacated by politicians looking to cash in with a high-paying lobbying position, trade up for higher office (perhaps to avoid being forced from office by term limits), which then creates a mad dash to fill the gaps behind them.

For example: In 2013, Curren Price created a vacancy in the state Senate when he won a seat on the Los Angeles City Council, which are elected in odd-numbered years. Holly Mitchell then won Price’s seat in a special election, leaving a vacancy in the Assembly. That vacancy was filled by the current occupant, Asm. Sebastian Ridley-Thomas.

That game of musical chairs cost Los Angeles County $2.4 million. And had Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell not one outright in their respective primaries, forcing a run-off, the cost for the overall costs for the special election would have approximately doubled.

Nonpartisan

Price, Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell are all Democrats, but Republicans do it too. In 2014, Mimi Walters won a seat in Congress in an open Orange County district after former Rep. John Campbell retired.

After winning, she vacated her state Senate seat, which was filled by now-Sen. John Moorlach, costing the county $1.24 million.

One approach

On Wednesday, an Assembly panel will consider a proposal from Asm. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, which would require that legislators use leftover campaign funds to pay down the cost of the special election they’ve caused, leaving exceptions for health and family reasons.

Perea still has more than $800,000 according to the campaign finance filings from the end of 2015. Instead of giving money to Fresno County, which is allowable under state law, Perea made some political contributions and paid for a few holiday parties.

Other ideas

A measure by Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, was approved by one panel earlier this month. The bill would require the state to reimburse for the entire cost of the special election for vacancies of state lawmakers. The state used to contribute to the cost of special elections, but has since ceased the practice.

“Fresno County was forced to hold a special election today to fill a vacant Assembly seat, which is costing the county more than a half- million dollars,” Vidak said in a statement last week following the election to replace Perea. “That’s money that could have been used for police, fire, health, education and other vital services.”

Others have suggested the governor appoint a replacement to serve until the next scheduled election. But critics claim that gives the unfair advantage of incumbency to a replacement if he or she decides to run for another term, and gives the governor too much political power.

“Sure, it’s a tradeoff,” said Raphael Sonenshein, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles, noting that if the seat is held only until the next scheduled election then no one would hold the seat for more than two years. “Special elections have very low turnout. It’s at least arguably a budget savings and one less election.”

Turnout

Voter turnout is a persistent issue in California. Some argue that the abundance of special elections contributes to the problem. Most of the special elections have even lower turnout.

In 2013 in Los Angeles, 23 percent of voters turned out for the regularly-scheduled city elections when Price was elected. Later that year, only 5.55 percent of voters turned out to elect Mitchell to the state Senate and then 8.47 percent turned out to elect Ridley-Thomas to the Assembly.

In 2014, the regularly-scheduled gubernatorial election that sent Mimi Walters to Congress drew about 43 percent of voters, while John Moorlach was elected to the state Senate only a few months later with only a 15.42 percent turnout.

Kathay Feng, the executive director of the left-leaning good government group California Common Cause, suggests moving all local elections to the normal presidential and midterm/gubernatorial voting schedule — and during the vacancy, until a successor is elected, the seat could either stay unoccupied or a “caretaker” could be appointed.

“Will a group of people be unrepresented for a short period of time? Potentially.” Feng told CalWatchdog. “But this is insane to elect people by five or six percent of the population and still call it a democracy.”

Cost

The money that is spent on special elections goes to things like: printing ballots, hiring poll workers, securing locations, paying for postage and producing vote by mail ballots. 

Many special elections are unbudgeted and all are unplanned and sometimes they overlap. According to Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk, it can be particularly taxing on the county registrar and confusing for voters who could be receiving election packets from the city they live in and then the county a few weeks later, like Los Angeles residents in 2013.

Logan did not advocate a particular path forward, as it’s not his role as registrar. However, he has at least raised questions over the current process and the drain on resources since at least 2010.

“And we already have a crisis of participation even in our regular election cycles, but the turnout in these special vacancy elections is extremely low,” Logan told CalWatchdog.

Term-limits

Some argue that the 2012 modification of term limits, which allowed legislators to spend more time in each chamber, may reduce the number of special elections. While the change hasn’t been around long enough to say for sure, there has been a reduction in special elections since it was passed.

There were 12 special elections (including primary and general/run-off) in 2013, two in 2014, four in 2015 and only one so far this year.

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed one of them, Assembly Bill 359, which requires the purchaser of a grocery store to retain the store’s current employees for at least 90 days.

The Chamber continues to campaign against the other two bills, hoping for a Brown veto.

Assembly Bill 465  would make it illegal for businesses to require job applicants, as a condition of employment, to waive their right to have a future employment dispute adjudicated by the state labor commissioner or in civil court.

Senate Bill 406 increases family leave benefits by expanding the definition of a family to include more extended family members.

Expanding Definition of Family

Currently eligible employees are allowed by law to leave work for 12 weeks each year, without pay and with their job guaranteed upon return for reasons of illness, after the birth of a child or to care for a sick child, spouse or parent.

The definition of a child under the California Family Rights Act includes a biological, adopted, foster or stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person performing the role of a parent, who is either under the age of 18 or is an adult-dependent child.

SB406 would expand this definition to include the son or daughter of a domestic partner. The bill also would remove the provision regarding age and dependent status of the child.

The definition of a parent includes the employee’s biological, foster or adoptive parent, stepparent, legal guardian or other person who has performed the role of a parent when the employee was a child.

SB406 retains that definition and expands allowed leave to include care for a sick sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner and parent-in-law.

The other leave expansion provided by SB406 applies to businesses that employ both parents of a newborn child. It allows each parent to take 12 weeks off to bond with that child for a total of 24 weeks between them. Current law limits parents to a total of 12 weeks of leave between them.

To be eligible for the leave benefit, employees must have worked at least 1,250 hours for the employer in the previous year. The law would only apply to businesses with 50 or more employees.

The bill’s supporters say that it’s a matter of fairness, updating the 24-year-old CFRA regulations to better reflect the changing reality of today’s extended families.

Concerns of Chamber

But the Chamber and a coalition of businesses in a Sept. 11 memo to state senators called SB406 a “job killer” because “it will mandate employers to provide up to 24 weeks of protected leave, that can be taken each day in as small of increments of one-hour, with a threat of litigation and punitive damages for any unintentional misstep.”

Twenty-four weeks of leave could be taken by splitting it between 12 weeks through CFRA’s expanded provisions and then another 12 weeks through the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, according to the Chamber.

Businesses are also concerned that the family leave expansion will lead to increased litigation.

“CFRA includes a private right of action with the opportunity to obtain compensatory damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees,” the Chamber said. “This private right of action creates costly litigation for employers, even when employers take reasonable steps to address abuse under CFRA.”

The Chamber cited several examples. In one case an employee, while on 12-week medical leave for a back injury, was found to be working at a restaurant that he owned. After the employer fired him, the employee sued. “Although the employer ultimately prevailed, the employer had to pay for litigation for over six years,” the Chamber said.

In another case, an employee sued unsuccessfully after he was fired for golfing and doing side work while taking time off to care for his father who had undergone ankle surgery. Other cases include an employee who submitted false medical certification to justify his leave, and another who claimed his leave rights were violated although he had been provided more than 14 months of leave.

During the debate on the bill before the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee on June 24, CalChamber legislative advocate Jennifer Barrera said there’s no need for state legislation dealing with personal situations best left between employers and employees.

“’I can give you one week here and another couple there,’” she said as an example of how a business might protect itself from being shortchanged while still accommodating an employee’s leave request. “It’s a balance how to accommodate both needs.”

A Hobson’s choice

But the bill’s author, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, doesn’t believe such accommodations are always made and that there need to be safeguards in place to protect employees. Nearly 40 percent of eligible employees do not apply for family leave because they fear losing their job or facing other negative consequences, she said, citing a 2011 Field poll.

“The choice – caring for a loved one, bonding with a new child or keeping my job – it’s a Hobson’s choice, in my opinion,” Jackson said. “And certainly one that does not reflect a society that tries to emphasize the importance of family and community.

 

“This bill … will have a profound effect on California workers who have to face a difficult choice between putting food on the table or caring for a loved one. Many of us have not had to risk losing our job to care for a loved one with a serious illness, but life happens.

 

“And we want to ensure that Californians can keep their jobs and keep contributing to the economy while taking on the added burden and responsibility, and for many the opportunity, to provide that care and nurturing for loved ones who are in need.”

Testifying in favor of the bill was Lisa Bautista, a registered nurse who said her employer did not allow her to take time off to help care for her ailing 91-year-old grandmother.

“I was in disbelief,” she said. “She’s my grandmother and I consider my immediate family. When I was forced to choose my job, it was heartbreaking for me and difficult for my mother and aunts. Had I been able to take care of her, I would have felt more at peace and didn’t feel like I abandoned her. My brother has serious health issues and I would like to take care of him when the time arises.”

SB406 passed the Legislature largely along party lines. There was no debate in the Senate, but both sides weighed in on the Assembly floor on Sept. 11.

Slippery Slope

Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine, is concerned that the bill’s expansion of the definition of family is part of a pattern of legislation that starts out as a commonsense measure and metastasizes into runaway benefits that hurt businesses.

“We always just take the next step and the next step and the step after that,” he said. “And that’s where you get businesses fleeing California. That’s where you get rules and regulations that are job killers, like the Chamber has said this bill is.

“It’s time to say stop. It’s time to give our employers breathing room so that they grow themselves and provide the further jobs and the further opportunities that at the end of the day don’t benefit the employers but actually benefit the employees by giving them good productive jobs.”

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, countered, “The other side often wants to talk about family values. In my community, family values often mean it’s not a traditional family. I’m a single mom. If my child was sick I have to continue to work to pay the bills. But my parents have always been there.

“This is a natural progression of this law. It is not an expansion that will cost employers more. It makes sense. If you are pro-family, there is no way you can vote against this law.”

As of Sept. 17 Brown had not announced whether he will sign or veto SB406.

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.

With 100 percent of precincts “partially reporting,” according to the California Secretary of State, here are the results:

Senate District 7:

• Orlinda Mayor Steve Glazer (pictured on the left), 32.8 percent.
• Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, 24.9 percent.
• Former Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, 22.6 percent.
• All are Democrats. Glazer and Bonilla will face off in a May 19 runoff election. Rounding out the field were Michaela M. Hertle, a Republican, 17 percent; and Terry Kremin, a Democrat, 2.8 percent.

Senate District 37:

• John Moorlach (pictured above on the right), a former Orange County Supervisor, 51.4 percent.
• Assemblyman Don Wagner, 45.1 percent.
• Naz Namazi, 3.5 percent.
• All are Republicans. Because Moorlach got a majority, there will be no runoff — pending any unlikely changes in the vote tallies.

Senate District 21:

• Former state Sen. Sharon Runner, a Republican, ran unopposed. As CalWatchdog.com reported in January, Runner declining to seek reelection in 2012 due to a life-threatening autoimmune disease. After a double lung transplant, she was proclaimed a “walking miracle” and now has successfully reclaimed her Senate seat.

Glazer

Glazer, as CalWatchdog.com reported yesterday, is a major ally of Gov. Jerry Brown, having been the top political strategist for Brown’s 2010 gubernatorial bid and Proposition 30, Brown’s $7 billion tax-increase initiative in 2012.

The state’s public-employee unions fear Glazer would bring Brown’s pension-reform penchant to the Senate. But union support was split, as the California Federation of Teachers backed Buchanan, while the Democratic Party organization mainly backed Bonilla.

For the May 19 runoff, it is likely that union forces will join and back Bonilla against Glazer.

This looks to be a close-fought race over the next two months. Hertle, the Republican, had urged her supporters to back Glazer, yet she still got 17 percent. Add that to Glazer’s 32.8 percent, an the total is 49.8 percent, tantalizingly close to a majority.

Then add together Bonilla’s 24.9 percent and Buchanan’s 22.6, and the total is 47.5 percent, also close to a majority.

Of course, the actual tally will be affected by many other factors, including voter turnout, different sets of voters in May than March, Republican reaction to not having one of their own on the ballot and the conduct of the actual Glazer and Bonilla campaigns.

With the Republican Party still struggling in California, it is races like this that show how democracy is bifurcating the Democratic Party to give voters a choice on state policies.

The election in Senate District 7 continues to shape up as a significant one for the future of the Democratic Party, the state Senate and California.

Moorlach

Moorlach is best known for warning in 1994 about Orange County’s impending bankruptcy as he ran for county treasurer-tax collector against incumbent Democrat Bob Citron. Moorlach pointed to risky investments of county funds, but was not heeded.

Shortly after Citron won the election that November, the county’s finances collapsed, Citron resigned and the county Board of Supervisors appointed Moorlach in his place. Citron later pleaded guilty to six felony counts of financial fraud, although not for personal financial gain.

In the year’s campaign, Wagner pulled in three times the campaign cash as Moorlach, according to the Orange County Register. Several flyers sent to voters by Wagner painted Moorlach as a greedy supervisor who goosed his own county pension. The website TheRealMoorlachRecord.com — labeled at the bottom, “Paid for by: Don Wagner for Senate 2015” — attacked him for similar themes as the flyer: “Career politician John Moorlach doesn’t like it when you talk about his record. He’d rather voters focus on what he says, not what he does.”

It attacked Moorlach for “rasing fees,” which Moorlach pointed out where for county services, such as parks, for which the tab otherwise would have been picked up by taxpayers.

The Wagner attacks didn’t stick. When he ran for supervisor in 2006, Moorlach was attacked for the opposite reason by local public-employee unions: for seeking to reduce their pensions. He was opposed by union-backed Stanton Councilman David Shawver, but easily won the election.

On the Board of Supervisors for eight years, Moorlach was known for warning of the dangers of excessive spending, especially for pensions.

Republicans, of course, are in the minority in the Senate. But Moorlach’s fiscal expertise still will be valuable as pensions become even more important in the coming years.

It’s too early to tell in two special elections for the California Senate. CalWatchdog.com will have more extensive coverage tomorrow. But here are the early returns:

For state Senator for the 37th District, according to the Orange County Registrar of Voters, John Moorlach leads with 49.7 percent and Don Wagner with 44.8 percent; both are Republicans. Two other candidates split the rest.

For state Senator for the 7th District, according to the California Secretary of State, Steve Glazer leads with 30.5 percent, followed by a near tie between Susan Bonilla at 24.6 percent and Joan Buchanan at 22.8 percent; all three are Democrats. Two others candidates split the rest.

In both races, if no candidate gets 50-percent-plus one votes, a runoff will be held May 19.

Looks like it will be a long night for the candidates and their supporters.

In the third state Senate election, for the 21st District, Republican Sharon Runner is unopposed.

Don Wagner, the incumbent just re-elected in Assembly District 68, announced his candidacy last November for the 37th District. That was just after state Sen. Mimi Walters won a seat in the U.S. House of Represenatives, then left her post as state senator in the 37th.

Wagner is touting his anti-tax record in the Assembly, as tallied by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. According to Wagner, “Every month California families stretch their budgets and pinch their pennies to make ends meet. Not so in the State Capitol. There, budget gimmicks and creative tax schemes encourage the state’s spending spree. This has got to stop.”

He was followed yesterday by another candidate. Reported the Orange County Register, “Touting his early warnings of Orange County’s 1994 bankruptcy, former county Supervisor John Moorlach officially declared his candidacy for state Senate on Wednesday.” CalWatchDog.com predicted his run six weeks ago.

The story quoted Moorlach, “Just like Orange County was 20 years ago, our state is on shaky financial ground and it’s time to get our fiscal house in order.”

A year ago, Moorlach flirted with running for the congressional seat now occupied by Walters.

The 37th District is in the heart of Reagan Country in Orange County, including Villa Park, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel and Irvine; as well as parts of Orange, Anaheim and Huntington Beach. In 2012, it went 53.7 percent for Romney, 43.9 percent for Obama. Walters garnered 57 percent against 43 percent for Democrat Steve Young.

Because of the Top Two system, its possible a Democratic candidate could finish third in the primary, with two Republicans, likely Wagner and Moorlach, going head-to-head in the runoff.

At CalWatchDog.com, we’ll be covering all three state Senate races.

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.