By Joseph Perkins

Elaine Alquist is not a member of the San Francisco 49ers’ Gold Rush gals, but the Santa Clara state senator is the NFL club’s biggest cheerleader.

With but a month left in the legislative session, Sen. Alquist, D-Santa Clara, has artfully crafted a measure that would gift the York family, which own the Niners, up to $30 million toward construction of the tricked-out new stadium they’ve always wanted.

So desperate is Alquist to please the Yorks, to presumably secure her place in the owner’s box during Niners home games, that she actually gutted a bill on teacher credentialing and amended it to free up local redevelopment dollars for the building project.

Alquist felt compelled to go to such extraordinary lengths after the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors denied a request by the city of Santa Clara that the board turn over the $30 million or for the stadium’s construction.

A copy of Alquist’s bill, obtained by the Los Angeles Times, states that the board’s denial created “unique circumstances” — namely, that the York family wouldn’t get the taxpayer subsidy they were expecting to build their new stadium — and, therefore, “this special statute is necessary.”

If the Legislature passes Alquist’s special statute, it will hardly be the first time state lawmakers have bent over backwards to facilitate construction of a new stadium for a privately-owned sports franchise.

Just last year, in fact, the Legislature approved a special statute for a proposed stadium in downtown Los Angeles that granted a waiver from certain environmental laws. And in 2009, state lawmakers approved a special bill for a proposed stadium in the city ofIndustrythat waived environmental mandates.

The argument for the custom legislation clearing the way for the stadium projects in downtown L.A., City of Industry and, now, Santa Clara is that they will foment economic growth and stimulate job creation in the respective cities.

UBS study

But a growing body of evidence suggests that argument is a canard. Indeed, a recent report by UBS finds that “new stadiums and arenas have no measurable effect on the level of real income or employment in the metropolitan areas in which they are located.”

Sure, a new stadium in Santa Clara (or downtown L.A. or City of Industry) will attract sports fans. But, says the UBS report, “Individuals generally maintain a consistent level of entertainment spending, so money spent on sporting events typically comes at the expense of cash spent in restaurants, on travel, and at movie theaters.”

Defenders of publicly-funded sports facilities suggest that it is impossible to retain or attract a professional sports franchise without taxpayer handouts. But that is simply is untrue.

The San Francisco Giants built their $357 million ballpark in 2000 with no public funds. And the owner of the Golden State Warriors is moving the NBA franchise to San Francisco and building a new arena out of his own pocket.

That’s not to say that Alquist and her colleagues in Sacramento should do absolutely nothing to assist owners of professional sports franchises build new stadiums or arenas.

It’s perfectly acceptable for the state to relax onerous environmental and labor regulations that substantially increase construction costs for sports facilities. But it’s fiscally irresponsible to provide taxpayer subsidies to pay for those privately-owned facilities.

By JOHN HRABE

A loophole in the California State University’s new executive compensation policy will allow new Cal State Northridge President Dianne Harrison to earn a 20 percent raise over her current salary as president of Cal State Monterey Bay. Harrison, who annually earns $270,315 in base pay as Monterey Bay’s chief, will be eligible to earn $54,185 more per year by switching institutions.  The potential pay raise is double the 10 percent limit claimed by the Cal State Chancellor’s office.

In January, the Cal State Board of Trustees responded to public outcry over the $400,000 base salary of San Diego State University President Elliott Hirschman and approved a new 10 percent limit on future presidential pay raises. The text of the policy reads: “When a presidential vacancy occurs, the initial base salary, paid with public funds, to the successor president, shall not exceed ten percent of the previous incumbent’s pay.”

The carefully-worded language means that Harrison’s pay raise won’t be based on her current salary but that of former CSUN president Jolene Koester, who retired in December. Kester’s base salary was $295,000 per year. A 10 percent increase would bring the new CSUN presidential salary to $324,500.

If the 10 percent cap were applied to Harrison’s current pay, she’d only be eligible to receive $297,346.50 per year, or a $27,000 boost.

Loophole

The Cal State Board of Trustees has yet to determine Harrison’s salary. The Monterey County Herald reported, “Her new salary at CSU Northridge will be determined at a future board of trustees meeting.” However, recent board actions and trustee statements give some indication that the board is likely to exploit the loophole. This week, Cal State Trustees handed out 10 percent pay raises to the two new college presidents at Fullerton and East Bay, while simultaneously threatening enrollment cuts.

“I’m just sorry we can’t pay them more because of the policy we adopted,” CSU Trustee Roberta Achtenberg said at this week’s board meeting, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Base pay is only one component of the total compensation provided to college presidents, who also receive $72,000 per year in car and housing allowances, more than the annual salaries of 3,888 Cal State professors. The board has a history of providing top administrators with other perks and benefits that have not been widely reported by the media.

In 2008, Cal State Trustees approved a compensation package for then-San Jose State University President Jon Whitmore that included an annual $25,000 bonus from foundation sources, $18,775 for moving costs, $66,577 in escrow fees for the sale of his Texas residence, CalPERS retirement benefits  an annual medical physical examination, top-of-the-line health plan, insurance programs, vacation days, sick leave accruals and eligibility for the system’s transitional program for university presidents. These perks were in addition to a $328,209 base salary and the housing and car benefits.

The presidential transfer loophole also exposes the hollow and ineffectual nature of a pay cap recently approved by a California Senate committee. On March 21, the Senate Education Committee passed SB 952 by Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-Santa Clara, instead of a tougher option proposed by Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco.

According to the text of SB 952, “This bill would prohibit, on or after July 1, 2012,  and until July 1, 2018,  the Trustees of the California State University from entering into, or renewing, a contract that provides for a compensation increase for any administrator, as defined,  of more than 10 percent using General Fund moneys in the fiscal year during which the contract is executed, relative to the immediately past contract for that same position.” Yee’s SB 967 would prohibit raises for Cal State University’s top administrators during bad budget years or within two years of a student fee hike.

Tougher Bill

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D- Sacramento, said Thursday that he was unsatisfied with the Alquist measure and may support Yee’s more stringent cap. The Los Angeles Times reported that Steinberg “suggested that the bill, sponsored by Sen. Elaine Alquist (D-Santa Clara), should be tougher and apply to other top executives besides presidents.”

CalWatchDog.com has previously reported on the numerous loopholes in Cal State’s new executive compensation policy, including the option of supplementing presidential salaries through university foundations. A CalWatchDog.com investigation has also revealed numerous financial irregularities in the tax returns of these Cal State foundations. The Tower Foundation of San Jose State University on federal tax returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009 reported zero compensation paid by the organization or any related organizations to more than a half dozen high-ranking university personnel, including the college’s president, provost, athletic director and several vice-presidents.

This week, CalWatchDog.com first reported that the California State University Office of the Chancellor understated the annual compensation of San Francisco State University President Robert Corrigan by as much as $52,787.

Earlier this month, CalWatchDog.com revealed that Cal State Los Angeles President James Rosser reported $515,612 in annual compensation to the IRS for the 2009-10 tax year. In at least five instances, Cal State officials have falsely claimed or implied Rosser’s compensation was nearly $200,000 less. On March 12, the California State University system falsely claimed to have received a 2012 Sunshine Award, which recognizes “the most transparent government websites in the nation.”

The California State University Chancellor’s Office has not responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification about its executive compensation.