City College of SF ballot measure shows financial woes not gone yet

Good morning. TGIF. We’ve heard plenty recently about statewide ballot measures, but there’s a seemingly endless amount of local measures.

In fact, the City College of San Francisco is hoping to double down on a measure passed just a few years ago. In 2012, CCSF persuaded voters to adopt a $79 parcel tax to stave off bankruptcy.

Now the school — the largest based on enrollment in the California Community College system — is once again coming to voters for help, seeking to increase the annual parcel tax to $99 and move back its sunset from 2021 to 2032.

Measure B requires two-thirds’ voter support. If adopted, it would provide $19 million a year, up from the present $15 million.

The selling points for the measure build off the idea that the community college has turned the corner from its recent problems with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, which has voiced concerns since 2011 that the college has few internal financial controls, has spent money in unfocused ways and has provided inadequate student services.

But Measure B critics offer evidence that undercuts the assertion that the college’s biggest problems are mostly behind it.

CalWatchdog has more.

In other news:

• “In a move that foreshadows sweeping statewide reductions in the amount of river water available for human needs, California regulators on Thursday proposed a stark set of cutbacks to cities and farms that receive water from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. To protect endangered fish at critical parts of their life cycle, regulators proposed leaving hundreds of thousands of additional acre-feet of water in the San Joaquin River system.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 
• “If marijuana is legalized, where would $1 billion in pot money go?” The Orange County Register has the answer. 
• The Los Angeles Times has a decent deep dive into the debate over the impacts of the new law giving additional overtime pay for farmworkers. One report estimates that in “the worst-case scenarios … farmworker wages could fall by about $1.5 billion, jobs could decrease by 35,000 to 78,000 and agricultural production could see an almost $8 billion drop in a one-year period, assuming full implementation of the new law. In its best-case scenario, which assumes all farm operations are profitable and competitive enough to absorb the overtime costs, wage earnings could increase by about $2,200 per worker.”
• “The Fair Political Practices Commission approved a $55,000 settlement deal Thursday with Tina Baca Del Rio, a Commerce councilwoman who failed to file numerous financial disclosure forms with the state and used her campaign fund to cover expenses for her kitchen remodel,” reports The Sacramento Bee.

Legislature:

• Gone ’til December.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @PeterDeMarco22

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, took to Twitter to show her exuberance, especially after having been named in Politico’s national list of 50 “thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics in 2016,” which called the San Diego Democrat a “progressive ideas lab” (partially for this bill).

Si se pudo! Farmworker overtime!!! We did it @UFWupdates! Thank you to the leadership in both houses & this Gov! https://t.co/GPe0t9tY0T

— Lorena Gonzalez (@LorenaSGonzalez) September 12, 2016

Farmworkers currently earn overtime pay past 60 hours in a work week and past 10 hours in a work day. But starting in 2019, the threshold will lower incrementally until 2022 when workers will earn time-and-a-half pay beyond 40 hours in a week and eight hours in a day under the new law.

Contentious debate

Democratic supporters often argued that passing this measure was a matter of “fairness,” while detractors, mostly Republicans, said farming isn’t like other professions, as it’s susceptible to uncertainty caused by weather delays, perishable goods, seasonal schedules and external price setting. 

“It’s the same old story of a government that is out of touch with the reality of living, working and doing business in California,” Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Nicolaus, said in a statement.

“If you understand agriculture, you know that this new law will result in lost wages for farm workers,” added Gallagher, who is a partner in his family’s farming business. “There are no real winners with AB1066.”

The matter wasn’t a simple partisan issue, though. Many Democrats either voted against or didn’t vote earlier this year when the measure was defeated.

But through a controversial procedural gimmick known as a “gut and amend,” which circumvents the chamber’s rules, Gonzalez was able to bring the bill back to life. And, with the help of the United Farm Workers, she rallied enough Democratic support for passage.

Of course, even that wasn’t so simple. Days before passage, Gonzalez had brought UFW members to the Capitol for an early morning show of support and to watch the vote from the galleries.

However, there still wasn’t enough support and Gonzalez and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon suffered an embarrassment when the floor session ended without a vote. But after proponents spent the next few days whipping votes, the measure passed.

Democratic Assemblymembers Susan Eggman of Stockton, Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks, Marc Levine of San Rafael and Jim Wood of Healdsburg did not vote.

While farmworkers do get overtime, there is a much higher threshold than other professions — this bill would bring the over-time thresholds more in-line.

Supporters argue it’s a matter of fairness — that farmworkers should have the same overtime and break protections as everyone else. Opponents say farmers can’t afford it and that an industry dependent on weather, perishable goods and external price-setting can’t be regulated the same as other professions.

“This vote boils down to a moral argument,” said Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, who, like many of his colleagues, added that the doomsday economic arguments that workers will lose hours or jobs were either overblown or untrue.

Of course, opponents disagreed. Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, said that increased labor costs would force farmers to reduce those costs, especially as the minimum wage hikes begin to kick in.

“What’s been accomplished? Maybe a noble goal where we can pat ourselves on our back,” Nielsen said, adding that “the victory would be hollow.”

Gut and amend

What made this bill particularly interesting is that the last iteration died a few months ago and so Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, inserted the language into another bill — a process called gut and amend.

By gutting and amending, the San Diego Democrat’s proposal will circumvent some of the normal steps in the legislative process. However, that alone won’t change members’ minds and it’s unclear if Gonzalez or other supporters have secured enough votes in the Assembly for final passage.

The hunger strike was designed link the legislators’ sacrifice of food with the farmworkers’ sacrifice of some overtime pay while plucking the food, bringing attention to the issue in the process.

As the eight or so hunger strikers broke their fast, the bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez tweeted — after handing out bread — that Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon reportedly agreed to call the bill to the floor on Monday (a de Leon spokesman could not immediately confirm the timing). 

.@LorenaAD80 passes out bread. She said Senate Leader Kevin de León will present #AB1066 on Monday. #caleg pic.twitter.com/btaS8sslbW

— Jazmine Ulloa (@jazmineulloa) August 17, 2016

Sausage making

Getting a vote was not really in doubt, as legislators have the right to call up their legislation mostly whenever they want. What made this process particularly interesting, though, was that the last iteration died a few months ago and so Gonzalez slapped the language into another bill — a process called gut and amend.

By gutting and amending, the San Diego Democrat’s proposal will circumvent some of the normal steps in the legislative process, although it’s unclear if Gonzalez has been able to secure enough votes from the 112 non-hunger strikers to pass both the Senate or the Assembly, where it died in June.   

What the bill does

While farmworkers do get overtime, it has a much higher threshold than other professions, and this bill would bring the threshold in line with other professions over time.

Proponents argue it’s a matter of fairness — that farmworkers should have the same overtime and break protections as everyone else. Opponents say farmers can’t afford it, and that an industry dependent on weather and external price setting can’t be regulated the same as other professions.