Proposition 57 — the victorious November ballot measure sponsored by Gov. Jerry Brown — continues to spark controversy over its loose definition of “nonviolent” crimes.

The proposition won easy approval despite harsh criticism from district attorneys around the state. The measure writes into the state Constitution guarantees that those convicted of “nonviolent crimes” can be eligible for early parole if they behave well and take part in rehabilitation programs.

But the measure was crafted rapidly in what critics likened to the judicial version of “gut and amend,” transforming what was originally meant to be a ballot initiative reforming juvenile justice into an expansive measure with far-reaching reform goals. The revision was approved by the California Supreme Court despite a stinging dissent from Justice Ming W. Chin who said failure to subject the measure to normal thorough reviews set a poor precedent and made it more likely to be poorly drafted.

Chin’s point was underscored when it came to the public’s attention through the Brock Turner case in Stanford that under Proposition 57, the former college athlete’s sexually molesting an unconscious female student was considered a “nonviolent” crime — among many sex crimes considered “nonviolent” because of Prop. 57’s reliance on crime category labeling dating back to 1976.

Brown: Trust parole officials to protect public

The governor’s counter was that the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would never prematurely parole someone guilty of a violent sex crime. But many state lawmakers aren’t persuaded, especially given the corrections agency’s history of scandals and problems.

Sen. Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, wants protections against possible early release of sex criminals and other violent felons written into law. She told the Los Angeles Times she is pushing a bill with that goal in hopes of sparking a public debate on what crimes should be added to the list of those technically considered “violent” by the state, starting with violence against children and police officers.

“If you put yourself in the position of a victim in any one of those crimes, you will say, ‘That was violent because that affected me physically and emotionally,’” Bates told the Times.

Bates isn’t the only lawmaker seeking changes.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, R-Roseville, wants cruelty to animals, crimes targeting older people and the kidnapping of children with the intent of using them as prostitutes added to the list.

Assembly members Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, and Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, D-San Diego, want all types of rape involving people incapable of giving consent branded as violent crimes.

There is also likely to be interest in adding assault on a domestic partner to the list.

State budget says no early parole for sex offenders

Brown has dismissed criticism of Prop. 57 in his public comments. But the 2017-18 budget Brown released in January contains a de facto response to critics. It explicitly noted that sex offenders would not be considered for early parole.

That’s still not good enough for many district attorneys, who say parole decisions can be challenged in court because of Prop. 57’s language.

Unless Prop. 57 is revised before the 2018 gubernatorial campaign revs up, it is likely to be an issue in that race.

This is the same governor who billed his 2012 pension reform legislation as a game changer. Baloney.

Supporting an approach that the Sac Bee editorial page likens to sanctioning “spiking by another name” is a farce. So is endorsing CalPERS’ theory that anti-spiking provisions of the state legislation have to be collectively bargained at the individual agency level, as board member J.J. Jelincic said Tuesday.

But Brown’s heart has never been in the reform effort, despite all his rhetorical flourishes and his credit-taking.

Two more examples of fake reform

The fake quality of Brown’s reform spirit has shown itself repeatedly.

The state Public Employment Relations Board, controlled by Brown appointees, has tried to sandbag local pension reforms approved in landslides by voters in San Jose and San Diego.

But worst of all is how — when it came to teachers — the governor didn’t just turn his back on his 2012 promise to have public employees share equally with taxpayers the cost of their pensions; instead, Jerry Brown OK’d a CalSTRS funding change that socked taxpayers even harder while insulating teachers from the pain of the fix. Under Brown’s plan …

… eventually there will $5 billion more a year in state spending to cover CalSTRS’ unfunded liabilities. 70 percent of that will come from districts (and thus indirectly from the state); 20 percent will come directly from the state; and 10 percent will come from teachers.

So much for a 50-50 split of pension funding costs. That’s from Cal Watchdog.

A genius at PR, not governance

When the history of Jerry Brown’s return to the governor’s office is written, the establishment probably will promote the narrative that he was a genius. I think that narrative is built almost entirely on the fact that Prop. 25 makes it easier to pass state budgets and that Silicon Valley — without Brown’s help — is such an amazing economic engine.

The California that I see has the nation’s highest-poverty rate; is on track to have the nation’s biggest public works boondoggle; and operates a public school system more interested in helping adult employees than students.

If this is a success story, the definition of success is … evolving.

California’s oil industry is celebrating the defeat of a bill that would have placed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing — but warned that the fracking war is far from over.

Senate Bill 1132 by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, failed 18-16 on the Senate floor May 28. Four Democrats joined Republicans in voting against it, while three Democrats sat out the vote. The bill was reconsidered the next day, resulting in a loss of two more Democratic votes.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, sent out a congratulatory email to supporters last week:

“The legislation would have banned hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation technologies, putting existing petroleum industry jobs at risk and preventing the creation of potentially tens of thousands of others – not to mention depriving Californians of much-needed state and local tax revenues and enhanced energy security.

“Not surprisingly, anti-oil special interests who fed the public, the state Legislature, and media egregious misinformation about hydraulic fracturing and other oil extraction techniques have vowed to continue their efforts in Sacramento and throughout California’s local communities. WSPA will continue to push for common sense legislation that balances environmental protection with domestic energy security, job creation, and economic development.”

Mitchell: Big Oil ‘polluting for profit’

Mitchell did indeed vow to keep up the fight against an oil-and-gas drilling process that she believes pollutes the environment.

“[She] is proud of the bill’s successful journey in raising awareness around public safety, fossil fuels and environmental justice,” Mitchell said in a press release.  “Although the bill fell short of passage, she is confident that the movement to re-assess fracking, acidization and other well stimulation methods will continue to grow until the public’s concerns are thoroughly addressed.

“We have the momentum, this issue’s gone viral nationally, and it’s just a matter of time before the dangers of fracking prompt people to put it on pause until its safety can be established. When the impacts on the public of a for-profit endeavor are unknown, we try it out first in minority neighborhoods – assuming low vigilance and the need to bring in jobs makes safety irrelevant.

“But we’ve put big industry on notice: That ploy won’t fly forever. People’s neighborhoods aren’t fodder for fracking, environmental justice must come, and one day soon the vote to refrain from polluting for profit will prevail!”

State, feds: Fracking not a danger

But the California agency charged with oversight of fracking assures that more than a half-century of hydraulic fracturing in the country have shown it to not be an environmental danger.

“Hydraulic fracturing was first used in 1947 in a well in Kansas,” states the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. “Since then, hydraulic fracturing has become a regular practice to tap into previously unrecoverable reserves, or to stimulate increased production from existing oil or gas wells in the United States.

“In California, hydraulic fracturing has been used as a production stimulation method for more than 30 years with no reported damage to the environment.”

The Obama administration also has long depicted fracking as safe. In May 2013, at a news conference on draft rules for fracking on 700 million acres of federal land, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell defended the drilling process: “I know there are those who say fracking is dangerous and should be curtailed, full stop. That ignores the reality that it has been done for decades and has the potential for developing significant domestic resources and strengthening our economy and will be done for decades to come.”

SB1132 came hard on the heels of another fracking crackdown bill, SB4, which was approved by the Legislature last year and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. It increases regulations on fracking, including disclosure of the composition and disposition of fracking fluids to state regulators.

It also requires a study be completed by the end of this year on “the hazards and risks that fracking poses to natural resources and public, occupational, and environmental health and safety,” according to the bill’s legislative analysis. “No permits for fracking would be allowed to be issued after Jan. 1, 2015, unless the study is completed and peer reviewed.”

SB1132 would have extended that study an additional six months, and imposed additional governmental reviews before fracking could resume in the state.

Sharp disagreements in Senate floor debate

Democrats and Republicans debated the bill May 28 on the Senate floor.

“SB1132 puts a temporary moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and acidization until they are proven safe by an exhaustive study that looks at many of the concerns and complaints commonly made by the citizens who live and work near the oil fields,” said Mitchell.

She dismissed concerns about potential job loss, saying the oil industry claims that only a small minority of wells are fracked. And she cited media reports that the oil recovery potential of California’s Monterey Shale formation has been cut by 96 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“SB1132 simply calls for a ‘time out,’ if you will, a temporary moratorium pending verification that fracking and acidization methods are safe,” said Mitchell. “Along with many of you, I have no desire to increase our over-reliance on foreign oil. However, the safety of oil drilling is fundamentally an environmental justice issue that I believe we must view with great scrutiny.”

Jackson: No need to ‘frack, frack, frack’

She was backed by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, who said that fracking has caused earthquakes in Ohio and degraded water quality in Texas.

“There would be no harm in hitting the pause button and evaluating specifically and more independently what the impacts are of this process on our water quality, air quality, the public health of people in surrounding communities,” said Jackson. “There is no urgency to frack, frack, frack. Let us be cautious. Let us be circumspect. And let us have the information that we need in order to determine whether we should continue a procedure that has demonstrated negative results in other parts of the country.”

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said that 70 percent of Californians support a fracking moratorium. And he noted that other states have adopted moratoriums.

Two Republican senators representing inland valley areas pointed out that their districts are still suffering double-digit unemployment, which will worsen with this year’s drought.

GOP response cites economic potential, need for fuel

Sen. Tom Berryhill, R-Stanislaus, discussed a trip to North Dakota last year where the economic contrast could not have been more stark due to that state’s oil and gas drilling boom.

“It was mind-boggling,” he said. “There was ‘help wanted’ on every corner and every small business. It was a tremendous opportunity to get people back to work. This technology has the potential to create thousands of jobs and a second gold rush to the local economy in the state of California that we haven’t seen in years.”

Sen. Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, challenged Mitchell.

“Californians require 44 million gallons of gasoline a day,” said Fuller. “Our state refineries provide all of that gasoline, and they must be supplied with oil from somewhere. My question for the author is: What other methods or new technology does this bill propose to use to backfill the lost oil production in California? Tankers, rail, rationing or something that I don’t know?

Mitchell responded, “This bill does not propose to offer an alternative.” The time for that is if the study determines that fracking is unsafe, she added.

That did not satisfy Fuller, who said, “My area produces about 80 percent of the oil and gas. Most of those wells that are being fracked have been fracked for many, many years. Most of them are in an oil well footprint where there’s no groundwater underneath, there’s no residential houses nearby. And they haven’t had safety violations.

“I think that we’ll get [safe fracking] without having to suffer loss of jobs and tremendous economic upheaval in my area. Some of the small cities in my area have 30 percent unemployment now. We’re about to head into a drought in August, and that will probably double [unemployment], because the last time we had a drought there was 30 percent unemployment just from the drought. To have even a day’s loss of this work, which are very good wages and very good health benefits, is absolutely crushing for us.”

Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Tehama, argued that Mitchell’s bill puts up so many obstacles to completion and certification of the study, that it would amount to a de facto ban on fracking.

“Would it affect the citizens of California?” he asked. “Absolutely. We cannot conserve our way to the future in either water or energy.”

Mitchell: You’re crying fire

Mitchell accused her bill’s opponents of being alarmists on the threat of lost jobs.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to cry fire in a crowded theater when we are unable to quantify the actual statistical job loss based on the narrow parameters of this bill,” she said. “We as policy makers have to make a very, very difficult, delicate decision: employment versus public health and safety. I appreciate the challenges many of the districts are experiencing. I hope you appreciate the challenges my constituents are facing who live in very, very dangerous close proximity to wells that are being fracked and where acidization is being used.”

Reheis-Boyd discussed in her blog her organization’s next steps, now that there has been a temporary truce in California’s fracking war:

“[The] defeat of Senate Bill 1132, legislation that would have imposed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation technologies, clears a path for a concerted and collaborative effort to fully implement new statewide regulations embodied in Senate Bill 4.

“The SB 4 regulations put into place a robust set of monitoring, disclosure, testing, land use and research requirements that ensure hydraulic fracturing in California is conducted safely and without harm to the environment. But there is still much to be done to finalize these new regulations, and the petroleum industry is going to be a constructive partner in getting them accomplished.

“For example, we are working with the State Water Resources Control Board and regional water boards to develop groundwater monitoring criteria and planning required by SB 4. Once finalized, these new requirements will give us the data necessary to demonstrate hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation technologies are not adversely impacting California’s precious water supplies.

“We are working with the California Air Resources Board and regional air boards to ensure air quality concerns are addressed as required by SB 4. We are working with the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources to develop the in-depth CEQA analysis of well stimulation operations also required by SB 4. And we look forward to the findings of the science-based study of hydraulic fracturing – yet another requirement of SB 4. …

“As Governor Brown has noted, close to a third of the new wells drilled in California are hydraulically fractured as a way to improve their productivity. These wells are an important part of California’s ongoing, conventional oil production that supplies 37 per cent of our daily petroleum needs. 

“The more than 100,000 men and women directly employed in oil production and transportation in California appreciate the Legislature’s support for the work they do and welcome the opportunity to move forward under the guidance of SB 4 regulations.”

“For more than a decade, lawmakers have ignored the increasing shortfall. Consequently, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System is now $74 billion underfunded, holding only 67 percent of assets it should have.

“Brown now wants to start paying down the debt this year. But he would stretch the installments until 2046, meaning it would take 32 years to restore full funding and that the debt would continue growing for the first 12 years.

“That’s not fiscally responsible; it’s merely less irresponsible than what lawmakers do now.”

It’s not irresponsible enough for Dem majority

And guess what? In the least surprising development of all time, even the governor’s irresponsible plan is too responsible for the Legislature. This is from Dan Walters:

“State legislators heard a heavy litany of complaints from school officials this week about Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to make the State Teachers Retirement System solvent and in response temporarily toned down the bite on their budgets.

“The Brown plan aims to close a $70-plus billion unfunded liability by eventually raising contributions to $5-plus billion a year, with the lion’s share coming from the budgets of local school districts.

“But school officials told a joint legislative hearing that the sharp increases would wipe out much of the gains in state aid they are scheduled to receive during the remainder of the decade.

“In response, the chairs of the two legislative committees involved asked for a modification and on Friday, the Legislative Analyst’s Office released a revised chart that would reach the same level of financing sought by Brown by 2020, but lower the increase in the early years and raise it later.”

Yeah, sure, they’ll “raise it later.” To paraphrase an old Baltimore Sun columnist, no one will ever go broke underestimating the people in charge of the California Legislature.

“Under the present pension funding system, school districts pay 8.25 percent of payroll toward long-term obligations, teachers give 8 percent of their paychecks and the state contributes an amount equal to about 2 percent of the payroll of CalSTRS-covered employees.The Sacbee story noted that the CalSTRS board wants to change the formula by increasing teachers’ contribution to 8.5 percent and gradually upping the state’s contribution to a max of 3.25 percent and gradually increasing school districts’ contributions to a max of 13 percent.”

To put that in context, CalSTRS proposed teachers increase their contributions by 6.25 percent over what they pay now under the current formula; that school districts increase their contributions by 58 percent; and that the state increase its contribution by 62.5 percent. So taxpayers would be expected to shoulder 10 times the burden of additional costs as teachers.

Teachers’ share of contributions would go from 37% to 27%

Here’s what Gov. Jerry Brown proposed on Tuesday in his revised budget:

“Under the funding plan, teacher contributions will increase from 8 percent to a total of 10.25 percent of pay, phased in over the next three years. School contributions will increase from 8.25 percent to a total of 19.1 percent of payroll, phased in over the next seven years. These school contributions will be paid from existing revenue sources. The state’s total contribution to the Defined Benefit plan will increase from approximately 3 percent in 2013‑14 to 6.3 percent of payroll in 2016‑17 and ongoing. In addition, the state will continue to pay 2.5 percent of payroll annually for a supplemental inflation protection program — for a total of 8.8 percent.”

So the 2014 version of the 2007 reform would see teachers increase their contributions by 28 percent over what they pay now under the current formula — much more than 6.25 percent increase contemplated in 2007. The state’s contribution would go up by about the same as anticipated in 2007 — 62 percent.

But school districts would be annihilated. Their contribution increase proposed in 2007 was 58 percent. Under Gov. Brown’s plan, the increase would be 132 percent. The percentage of salary that the districts have to collect to cover its required pension contribution is huge already. Hard numbers aren’t available yet, but it looks like a 3 percent or 4 percent hit on districts’ operating budgets.

That’s going to be devastating for all school districts — especially the many districts which already spend more than 85 percent of their operating budgets on compensation.

Presently, teachers pay 37 percent and taxpayers pay 63 percent of the amount collected by CalSTRS annually. Under Brown’s proposal, teachers would pay 27 percent and taxpayers 73 percent.

School districts would go from footing 38 percent of the pension funding responsibility to just over 50 percent (19.1 percent of salaries vs. teacher contributions and state contributions of 19.05 percent).

CTA might oppose any fix that reduces take-home pay

So much for Jerry Brown’s 2011 pension manifesto. Instead of public employees and their agencies gradually moving toward a day in which pension costs were equally divided — Brown’s bold alleged goal no. 1 — teachers stand to get an even better deal then they had in 2011.

And what’s absolutely crazy about this is that I know some CTA members who don’t think their leadership will settle for anything that leads to a cut in take-home pay. For teachers who have to pay 2.25 percent more of their salary to CalSTRS in a year in which they don’t get a “step” or “column” increase, their paycut will shrink.

How California: a pension deal that protects teachers to a degree not enjoyed by any other government union may not insulate teachers enough to win their support!

On Jan. 24, Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris asked the California Supreme Court to conduct an expedited appeals process that considered the state’s newly filed challenges to a tentative ruling in August and a finalized opinion in November from Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny.

The respected veteran judge concluded that the state High-Speed Rail Authority did not have a legal business plan because it had not identified reliable funding for the 300-mile “initial operating segment,” a cost the authority earlier pegged as $31 billion. Kenny also said the state had not completed adequate environmental reviews for the initial segment.

In a strategy that on its surface seems beyond peculiar, the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris did not challenge the core premise of Kenny’s tentative ruling — that the project didn’t have a legal business plan. Instead, the AG merely said the project could continue for now with the state using federal grants that were already in hand.

But after Kenny reacted by putting out a final judgment that found, yunno, the project still didn’t have a legal business plan, the sniping started from the governor’s office and state Democrats. After a month, it led Harris and Brown to seek an expedited review. In February, the state Supreme Court agreed to review their request — but assigned the chore to the 3rd District Court of Appeal. On Feb. 15, the appellate court said sufficient issues had been raised about Kenny’s ruling and the importance of timeliness to the project and that it would conduct an expedited review.

I thought and still think the most likely explanation for this shoddy legal work is that the governor — playing 3-D chess to the rest of the world’s checkers — wanted the dubious, controversial project killed off ASAP. Lawyers I talked to with no stake in the case expressed disbelief that Kenny would hold what’s known as a “remedies” hearing only to have the state provide no remedies to the legal deficiencies he cited in his tentative ruling.

An unexpectedly slow ‘expedited review’

Remember, in its first appeal — when it was supposed to make its full case — the state didn’t dispute that it was breaking the law. This alone prompted some observers to predict the appellate court would rule within weeks in favor of bullet-train opponents.

Nine weeks later, however, the appellate court still is taking testimony and reviewing evidence. A quick decision affirming Kenny didn’t happen. It sounds to me like this case will drag along — with nothing “expedited” about it.

In the big picture, nothing has changed. The bullet train has no funding options after it blows through its initial $13 billion or so in secured state and federal funding. No investors will come forward without the possibility of taxpayer subsidies to protect them if the project goes south, and such subsidies are against state law. In the sequester era of sharp limits of domestic discretionary spending, Congress certainly isn’t going to fund a hugely costly public works project just for one state.

But in the medium picture, if the appeals judges overturn Kenny or in other ways muck with his opinion, we could soon see the state spends billions of dollars on an initial segment of track for a project that will never be completed.

Stranger things have happened. Every day the “expedited review” drags on makes me worry more that the hoped-for summer 2014 denouement to the bullet-train insanity might not happen. Instead, we’ll have it to kick around for at least another year.

On the bright side, if the Brown administration really does start the initial segment in the middle of nowhere without future funding anywhere in sight, maybe then we’ll finally see the establishment ninnies stop proclaiming Jerry to be a good governor just because budgets pass on time.

A $13 billion abject debacle is pretty tough to ignore.

“There is a lot of disenchantment  among proponents of HSR; the voters have turned against the project; the politicians are looking for a graceful way to exit from what is now regarded as a ‘loser.’  Here is the solution, step by step — a simple and popular solution:

“1. The Legislature passes an initiative which is designed to go before the voters for approval; [the Legislature can do this; no signature gathering is necessary]; the measure could go on the November, 2014, ballot; there is time;

“2. The measure would be blissfully simple and would provide as follows:  all rounds remaining in the Proposition 1A bond fund are to be redesignated and transferred to a new bond fund and placed in that fund; the proceeds are to be used for the following four purposes:  water projects; law enforcement infrastructure improvements; freeway repairs; school building construction; each to receive 25% (avoids squabbling);

“3. This is a win-win for the Legislature:  popular programs that Demos and GOP both support; bipartisan approval;

“4. The voters will love it-high priority programs, much more popular than the ill-fated hsr;

“5. And look at the nature of the  projects:  all infrastructure, using union labor, thousands of jobs! 

“6. It passes; everyone’s a hero! LET’S DO IT!”

Upon examination, not much of a union concession

I don’t like the union payoff much, but it’s a logical way to grease this compromise to approval. And any big state infrastructure projects will have PLAs, so it’s not much of a concession, at least if you support capital-improvement spending on “water projects; law enforcement infrastructure improvements; freeway repairs; school building construction.”

How unusual: a trial lawyer proposing a way to quickly wrap up a case for which he’s probably billing $400 an hour.

Good for you, Mike!