In 2010, for example, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System faced criticism for “thumbing its nose” at a state law written by Sen. Joel Anderson, R-El Cajon, intended to force CalPERS to divest in firms doing business with Iran.

Calpensions.com explained this defiance at the time:

Consultants have estimated that boycotts of corporate stocks to end racial apartheid in South Africa and reform the tobacco industry cost CalPERS and CalSTRS billions of dollars, with no hard evidence of any results.

Now when pressured to sell or “divest” investments, a new policy adopted by the California Public Employees Retirement System last year gives priority to the “fiduciary duty” to manage money for the benefit of retirees.

Pressure to sell or “divest” investments for other reasons is met by “constructive engagement” with targeted corporations, if dumping the holdings and barring future purchases are not in the best financial interest of members of the retirement system.

CalSTRS more pliant than CalPERS

Now CalPERS and CalSTRS are facing new pressure to take stands on issues. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, is pushing a bill that could force the giant pension funds to begin scrapping their coal investments.

CalSTRS is taking a less pugnacious stand than CalPERS did over Anderson’s law. According to Capitol Weekly, “The CalSTRS board directed its staff and consultants last week to evaluate the risk of investments in thermal coal companies, jumping ahead of pending legislation that would require CalSTRS and CalPERS to divest thermal coal holdings.”

But CalSTRS is in a bind over demands from the California Federation of Teachers that it end its investments in gun makers. More from Capitol Weekly:

Last week the California Federation of Teachers led a large and emotional protest of the CalSTRS failure to divest holdings in the manufacturer of an assault rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at a Connecticut elementary school in December 2012.

“CalSTRS has hundreds of billions in investments,” Jeff Freitas, CFT secretary-treasurer, told the board. “Even if we take a loss in removing this portfolio from our retirement fund, it is the right thing to do.”

CalSTRS quickly sold $3 million in stock of two other gun manufacturers. But its holding in the assault rifle manufacturer, estimated at $8.8 million two years ago, is part of a $375 million investment in a long-term Cerberus private equity fund.

If it broke the Cerberus contract, CalSTRS could suffer a major financial loss and, some fear, perhaps the ability to contract in the future with top private equity funds, which are expected to provide above-market returns.

Investment czar: Divesting doesn’t cause change

While CalSTRS seems more willing than CalPERS to change its investments to take political stands, Chris Ailman, its top investment advisor, isn’t convinced this approach makes sense. He made his views known at the last CalSTRS board meeting:

“I’ve been involved in five divestments for our fund,” Ailman told the CalSTRS board last week. “All five of them we’ve lost money, and all five of them have not brought about social change.”

This observation about divestment being symbolic, not consequential, appears particularly on point with gun manufacturers, given constitutionally guaranteed rights of gun ownership.

As CalWatchdog.com reported last Aug. 25:

“State Senator Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, was arrested early Friday morning on suspicion of drinking and driving. He reportedly spent the night drinking wine and tequila in the State Capitol and at a local restaurant with several of his colleagues. Years before, he voted to ban drinking at public beaches.”

Now, the Los Angeles Times just reported:

“The state purchased $540,000 worth of new Ford Fusion Hybrids and other cars for legislators over the last 18 months, prompting criticism from taxpayer activists who call the vehicles unnecessary political perks given at a time when many Californians continue to struggle financially. …

“The 2015 cars were assigned to the more senior lawmakers, Alvarez said, including Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) and Democratic Sens. Ben Hueso of San Diego, Marty Block of San Diego, Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara and Richard Roth of Riverside. The newer cars also went to Republican Sens. Joel Anderson of San Diego and Mike Morrell of Riverside.”

Hueso also worked on a bill to kill Uber, the ride-sharing company. In that instance, Gov. Jerry Brown worked out a compromise to tighten safety while keeping one of San Francisco’s brightest new tech companies — and competitors such as Lyft — going strong in their home state.

In the November election, voters re-elected Hueso with 55 percent of the vote, to 45 percent for fellow Democrat Rafael Estrada.

The car purchases come after de Leon laid off 39 staffers, many of whom wrote the analyses of bills that citizens, journalists and lawmakers rely on to figure out what’s going on in government.

All bills are online at the state’s site, Bill Information. The analyses put into plain English legislative language that often is difficult to understand. And the analyses often include historical information especially useful now that term limits have reduced the “institutional memory” in the Legislature.

The analyses also partly made up for the sharp reduction in news coverage of the state Capitol the past decade as newspapers have cut staffs. It’s this type of gap in information that CalWatchdog.com works to fill.

Anderson has said little, but maneuvering by county GOP chairman Tony Krvaric and former state GOP chief Ron Nehring has made clear much is being done of his behalf. San Diego County Republicans took the unusual step of endorsing Anderson’s undeclared candidacy on Monday. This came after county supervisors voted to limit how much political parties could give in local campaigns, the plainest sign imaginable that the majority Republican board is at odds with Krvaric and Nehring and know what they are up to.

The Filner-DeMaio hangover

In conventional political circumstances, the San Diego GOP establishment’s attempt to oust a well-liked, generally conservative six-term incumbent would seem bizarre. Jacob has been a steady advocate of smart, restrained government and has been part of a long-standing GOP majority on the county board that has steered it to great credit ratings and to a better reputation for delivering services than is enjoyed by most of America’s other most populous counties.

But San Diego’s dynamics are not conventional. Krvaric and Nehring are not reticent at trying to throw their weight around, and they despise Jacob’s campaign manager for helping later-disgraced Democratic Congressman Bob Filner get elected mayor of San Diego in 2012. U-T San Diego politics editor Michael Smolens details this story behind the story:

The firm Revolvis has been the preferred agency by GOP leaders and that’s who many of their candidates hire.

The company certainly has been the choice of Republicans at City Hall, working for Mayor Kevin Faulconer and council members Chris Cate, Mark Kersey and Scott Sherman. Revolvis also consulted for an independent committee that supported Councilwoman Lorie Zapf. (Jason Cabel Roe at Revolvis said the company “won’t be involved in Joel’s race.”)

It’s a different story at the county. Supervisors Greg Cox, Bill Horn, Ron Roberts and Jacob — all Republicans — have relied on longtime San Diego consultant Tom Shepard, despite pressure from some party leaders to drop him.

Shepard was a political adviser to Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders, who clashed mightily with Councilman DeMaio. Shepard had worked to elect Fletcher mayor in 2012 and then shifted to Democrat Filner, further earning him the enmity of Krvaric and others GOP officials.

GOP maneuvering’s checkered record

But as Smolens points out, maneuvering by the county Republican establishment …

… hasn’t always worked out.

During the 2012 San Diego mayoral campaign, the party endorsed Councilman Carl DeMaio over Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, who also sought the endorsement and then later left the party to become an independent (and eventually a Democrat). DeMaio and Democrat Bob Filner knocked Fletcher out in the primary, but the Democrat went on to win in November.

Polls showed that Fletcher likely would have defeated either man in a runoff, possibly becoming mayor as a Republican had the party not endorsed DeMaio.

Also in the 2012 election, many GOP leaders lined up behind Steve Danon, a congressional aide who entered the race against longtime Republican Supervisor Pam Slater-Price in a North County district. Slater-Price decided against running for re-election, but Danon lost to Solana Beach Councilman Dave Roberts, who became the first Democrat on the Board of Supervisors in nearly a generation.

Given Jacob’s popularity and the impression that San Diego County conveys of being well-run — even though it is an impression that arguably isn’t merited — it is difficult to imagine her losing to Anderson. But that result wouldn’t be all bad for Anderson, who would still have two years left as a state senator.

Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed into law a bipartisan bill that would ban the state from cooperating with warrantless spying by the federal government.

Senate Bill 828, co-authored by Sens. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, and Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, would ban state officials from complying with a federal agency’s request for electronic data if the state knows that request is illegal or unconstitutional. The bill is a response to the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance programs that collected phone and electronic data on millions of American citizens.

Lieu stands up for 4th Amendment

Dubbed the 4th Amendment Protection Act, the bill sailed through both houses of the Legislature without opposition.

“I commend Gov. Brown for recognizing that the National Security Agency’s massive and indiscriminate collecting of phone and electronic data on all Americans, including more than 38 million Californians, is a threat to our liberty and freedom,” Lieu said. “We can only hope the feds halt this illegal and unconstitutional practice nationally.”

Supporters of the bill, which include the American Civil Liberties Union of California, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the Consumer Federation of California, say that the new law is a symbolic victory for constitutional principles.

“The federal government’s dragnet collection of millions of phone records and metadata is very troubling,” said CAIR-Sacramento Valley Executive Director Basim Elkarra. “We are happy to see California leading the way in pushing back against the unconstitutional data collection by the NSA and ensuring the observance of the Fourth Amendment, as a basic principle of this nation’s founding and democratic values.”

Orwellian technology exposed by Snowden

As CalWatchDog.com first reported in January, Lieu’s legislation comes in response to last summer’s revelations by former defense contractor and government whistleblower Edward Snowden that the NSA has been collecting phone data on millions of Americans. In December, a federal judge ruled that the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records is likely unconstitutional.

“The almost-Orwellian technology that enables the government to store and analyze the phone metadata of every telephone user in the United States is unlike anything that could have been conceived in 1979,” Judge Richard Leon wrote in his December ruling.

California’s new law covers “electronically stored information,” which is any data stored in a digital form, as well as the metadata surrounding any communication. Metadata is the “data about data” and can include the time, date, location, duration, origin or identity of the persons. In many cases, such information can be as revealing as the content of a call or email itself.

“New technology is demonstrating just how sensitive metadata can be: how friend lists can reveal a person’s sexual orientation, purchase histories can identify a pregnancy before any visible signs appear, and location information can expose individuals to harassment for unpopular political views or even theft and physical harm,” the American Civil Liberties Union of California explained in its February 2014 white paper, “Metadata: Piecing Together a Privacy Solution.”

Feds occasionally rely on state for data

According to the legislative analysis, federal agencies occasionally rely “upon services provided by the state and/or private entities that provide services on behalf of the state” in order to illegally collect data.

“SB 828 makes clear that the state of California will continue to uphold the Fourth Amendment rights of its citizens, even under pressure from the federal government,” said Anderson, the Republican coauthor of the bill. “Our nation is unequivocally dedicated to stopping terrorism, yet we must be ever vigilant that our desire for safety does not come at the expense of the freedoms and liberty our enemies seek to destroy.”

The new law, which is less than 200 words in length, is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2015. Here’s the text of the bill:

Senate Bill 828: 4th Amendment Protection Act

The state shall not provide material support, participation, or assistance in response to a request from a federal agency or an employee of a federal agency to collect the electronically stored information or metadata of any person if the state has actual knowledge that the request constitutes an illegal or unconstitutional collection of electronically stored information or metadata.

SB 639, by Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, is one of several bills making their way through the Legislature that are designed to implement in California the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is scheduled for consideration by the Assembly Health Committee on Tuesday. SB 639 would:

—Limit annual out-of-pocket expenses to $6,050 for single coverage, according to the bill’s legislative analysis (Hernandez says it’s $6,250), and approximately $13,000 for a family.

—Limit deductibles for small group plans to $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family.

—Require coverage to include the four “metal” tiers in Obamacare: bronze (covering 60 percent of medical costs), silver (70 percent), gold (80 percent) and platinum (90 percent).

—Prohibit insurers from offering anything other than a standardized insurance plan in the individual market.

The California Chamber of Commerce opposes SB 639, asserting on its bill priority list that it “[e]liminates lower-priced plans, inhibits competition and innovation, and leads to less affordable coverage for California businesses and their employees.”

The legislation is also opposed by the insurance industry. Although Covered California, which is running the insurance exchanges, announced on Wednesday that 12 insurance companies have signed up to provide coverage in the individual market and six companies will provide insurance for small businesses.

“Covered California and the insurance companies participating in our marketplace have worked hard to secure these contracts, which will mean affordable health insurance plans for millions of people who currently have no coverage or whose coverage is too expensive,” said Covered California Executive Director Peter Lee in a press release. “We are proud of the product mix, the robust provider network and the lower-than-expected premiums.”

Limiting out-of-pocket costs

The main debate on SB 639 took place at the Senate Health Committee hearing on April 17. Hernandez, who was an optometrist before becoming a senator, led it off by touting the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, starting with the limit on out-of-pocket costs.

“For families with health insurance this ends medical bankruptcy,” he said. “No longer will we hear stories about families who lose their houses because of the cost of medical care. It also means that someone with a chronic condition like MS or a serious condition like cancer can budget for the cost of care, knowing that they will never owe more than $6,250 per year.”

Hernandez also praised the standardization of insurance coverage.

“Californians purchasing health care coverage in the individual market face a vast array of products to choose from with different benefit design,” he said. “It makes price comparisons very, very difficult. This bill would require that individual market products sold outside Covered California be standardized to mirror the products sold inside. This will allow consumers to make apple-to-apple comparisons when selecting a product. Standardized products make comparison shopping much simpler for consumers.

“It forces carriers to compete on cost and quality rather than a difficult-to-understand benefit design. It limits the ability for health plans to cherry pick healthy lives. And it ensures that all products offered to consumers in individual markets have undergone a level of public scrutiny before being marketed to them. Keep in mind that a plan can add to it and make it even more robust, but they have to absolutely abide by the absolute minimum requirements.”

Hernandez countered the argument that placing limits on insurers will reduce consumer options in selecting coverage.

“Consumers will still have plenty of options with five tiers of coverage and at least two standards of benefits in each tier and a multiple of insurers in every geographical region in California,” he said. “Consumers will have 50 to 80 different insurance products to choose from within that market.”

The goal: ‘standardizing’ insurance

SB 639 was sponsored by Health Access California, which calls itself “the leading voice for health care consumers in California.” HAC legislative director Beth Capell echoed Hernandez in her remarks to the committee.

“There will be literally dozens of choices that consumers will face when they go to shop on the exchange,” she said. “There will be considerable choice. But what there will not be under this bill is the opportunity for insurers to design products that are intended to attract healthier lives and to avoid those people who have serious conditions. So this is a further effort to help standardize the insurance market.”

Betsy Imholz, with Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, explained why that is so important.

“Our research of consumers has found what we all instinctively know, which is that shopping for health insurance is among the most dreaded consumer tasks,” she said. “To date the wild west insurance market has led consumers to feel confused by the jargon and suspicious that the fine print contains ‘gotchas’ and exclusions that they don’t fully understand. Our research has also shown that the more choices people have, if it’s too much it’s overwhelming, it undermines sound consumer decision making.

“One of the favorite parts of the Affordable Care Act for consumers has been the idea that we would finally at last simplify the individual market and the shopping for insurance policies and make it simple to make those comparisons. And to really understand what’s covered, what’s not and exactly how much it costs. This bill goes a long way to doing that by standardizing the products outside the exchange as well as inside so people can see what’s the best value for their needs.”

Speeding down the road to hell?

But several SB 639 opponents warned that the road to insurance hell is paved with good intentions.

“We appreciate the sponsor and author’s intent to create a healthy and strong marketplace where insurers compete on price and quality,” said Steffanie Watkins, representing the Association of California Life & Health Insurance Companies. “We fundamentally disagree that SB 639 will achieve that goal. On the contrary, we believe that this measure will have a very chilling effect on the market. And it will specifically limit consumer access to new and innovative quality health care options that might better suit their needs.

“Our members have demonstrated a strong commitment toward serving the needs of consumers by offering a multitude of competitive and unique products that cater to the individual consumer. We believe SB 639 will severely impede an insurer’s ability to offer these types of unique benefit options to consumers in the individual market. And make it nearly impossible for insurers to respond to the changing needs and preferences of consumers. And instead grant the exchange sole authority over product design, a role they have had very little comparative experience with.”

Watkins argued that AB 1602, which was approved in 2010, addressed many of the concerns about the difficulty in comparing insurance projects. It required insurers to offer at least one standardized coverage product in each of the four metal tiers.

“We believe the requirements set forth in AB 1602 strike the perfect balance by protecting consumers and providing flexibility in the market, so that individuals obtain the coverage that best suits their needs,” she said. “We believe it is critical at this juncture to put our resources toward implementing the ACA in a seamless way. And in a way that helps all individuals make a very seamless transition into having affordable health care come 2014. We are firmly concerned that [SB 639] places additional and unnecessary limitations on insurers without any commensurate benefits to consumers.”

Nick Louizos, representing the California Association of Health Plans, agreed that SB 639 is unnecessary because current law already provides standardization in the insurance market.

“Taking that extra step in terms of eliminating products outside of the exchange and essentially allowing the exchange board to control the outside market is a big policy question that deserves some debate,” he said.

Julianne Broyles, California Association of Health Underwriters, shares the concern about reducing consumer choice in California.

“We certainly do not believe that there was ever an intention with the federal law to take away all choice outside of the exchange with plans that only mirror exactly what’s inside the exchange,” she said. “We think that’s not what is fair to the consumer and takes away choice and competition, and stops the ability to test innovative new products here in California that might lead to better savings down the line. As ACA goes into effect and we head into open enrollment in October just a few months away, the market should be calming down. It should not be churned up further with legislation such as this.”

Sen. Anderson sees specter of ‘single payer’

The only committee member to comment on SB 639 was Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego, who voted against the bill based on several concerns. The main one was that it appears to be leading toward government-run health care, also known as socialized medicine or single-payer care.

“If we limit what the private sector can offer, then aren’t effectively we making this single payer?” Anderson asked. “I mean, part of the private sector participating in this is their ability to address risk. If they are offering the same product in and out of the exchange, wouldn’t the cost be identical? And therefore why would we need the private products? Why wouldn’t everything just be solely with the exchange with single payer?”

Hernandez responded, “It’s not even close or wouldn’t even mirror any type of single-payer system. [Insurers] still have the ability to have other kinds of products above and beyond products that aren’t in the ten [required benefit] essentials that they can compete to try to bring in those individuals, whether it’s acupuncture, chiropractic services. In the exchange right now there are numerous insurance companies bidding for that new business. So it is not one system paying. It is the free market system that will be within that system.”

Anderson wasn’t convinced.

“By limiting those choices to consumers, we are artificially trying to force people into the exchange that may not want to be there at all,” he said. “And if you didn’t artificially limit it, then people have more choice. At some point if we continue to limit that choice, you’re going to have everybody in the insurance industry going to the PUC and requesting that they be regulated like the PUC. Because we have no longer turned them into insurance companies, we have turned them into payment plans.

“The final point is, I find it somewhat insulting that we are saying that our consumers can’t make choices for themselves and we want to limit their choices, as opposed to giving them a broad opportunity. I want to see the exchange work. But I’m worried that we’re weighing down the exchange and making judgments when I just want to get it to work. We have people in October [when enrollment begins] and the first of the year [when insurance plans go into effect] that are going to be counting on us. And I fear that we are trying to predict too much.”

Despite Anderson’s concerns, the committee voted 6-2 along party lines to pass SB 639.

By Chris Reed

Everywhere one looks in California, school districts are openly using government resources to lobby for Prop. 30, and supporters of the tax-hike measure don’t care if it is against the law. Situational ethics on this issue are the norm in California and they have been for decades. No Democrat wants to get on the wrong side of the CTA. That’s why it’s nice to see bipartisan anger over a childish parting potshot at state lawmakers by a departing government executive:

By JOHN HRABE

Legislators don’t have Herbert Carter to kick around anymore. But, don’t expect Cal State’s spendthrift administrators to interpret the removal Tuesday of Carter as the chairman of the Board of Trustees as a sign they need to clean up their act.

“Herb Carter was basically the fall guy,” Bob Linscheid, the interim chairman of the Cal State Board of Trustees, told the Chico Enterprise-Record. “To basically push him off to the side is real unfortunate and is hard to explain.”

Carter’s downfall isn’t so hard to explain, if you aren’t a member of Cal State’s bureaucratic elite. Under his tenure, the board approved outrageous salaries for top administrators, while cutting faculty pay and raising student fees. In 2004, Carter’s first year on the board, tuition was an affordable $2,334 per year. This fall, incoming freshmen will fork over just under $6,000. The fiscal mismanagement culminated last July, when the board approved a new $400,000 annual base salary for the new president of San Diego State University, Elliot Hirshman, while simultaneously approving a new round of tuition hikes.

Carter’s removal doesn’t end the need for substantive reforms at CSU. CalWatchDog.com has previously reported on the uncanny similarities between the ongoing pay scandal and a scandal 22 years ago. In 1990, then-Chancellor Ann Reynolds was forced to resign after handing out pay raises and lavish perks to top administrators. Carter, then Cal State’s executive vice chancellor, was among the privileged group that received both a 26 percent raise and a new taxpayer-funded vehicle.

Back then, the Orange County Register editorial board cautioned that one bureaucrat’s removal didn’t solve the Cal State’s systemic problems. “Ms. Reynolds is leaving, but the Legislature shouldn’t use her exit as an excuse to allow business as usual at CSU.” This time around, two State senators are vowing to keep the pressure on Cal State. Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Santee, recently told CalWatchDog.com that he isn’t about to let Carter become the scapegoat for other Trustees.

“Students, parents and taxpayers don’t need a Ph.D. to know they are being paid lip service by CSU trustees,” Sen. Anderson said.  “We will continue to insist the best from higher education and demand Trustees who fall short be removed.  With an average compensation package of $372,000 for university Presidents, more than double the governor’s pay, there are no more acceptable excuses.”

Relevant Republican

At a time when some are saying Republican legislators are “irrelevant,” Anderson proves them wrong. He was the first senator to publicly oppose Carter’s reconfirmation, a move that was quickly followed by Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar. A strong stand by a united Senate Republican Caucus forced Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to abandon altogether a floor vote on Carter’s confirmation.

Steinberg also faced dissent within his Democratic caucus.  The Los Angeles Times reported that Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, was among those undecided about Carter’s reconfirmation. Yee told CalWatchDog.com that he remains committed to bringing accountability to higher education, regardless of who is at the Cal State helm.

“While Mr. Carter will not be returning to the Board of Trustees, we must do more to change the culture of CSU,” said Yee. “We must pass real reforms, like SB 967 and SB 1515, to finally stop executive pay and student fee hikes.”

Reform Measures

Yee’s two measures would drastically shake up the Cal State board.  SB 967 would impose a hard cap on incoming executive officers of no more than a 5 percent increase.

SB 967 would be a substantial improvement over CSU’s current executive compensation, which was approved by Trustees in January. Under that policy, the carefully worded cap allowed the board to provide a 10 percent salary boost as well as continue the controversial policy of supplementing executive pay through university foundations. CSU Chancellor Charles Reed, San Jose State’s Mohammad H. Qayoum, San Diego State’s Elliot Hirshman and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s Jeffrey Armstrong currently receive foundation bonuses ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 per year.

SB 1515, the more controversial of Yee’s proposals, would decrease the number of gubernatorial appointees to the board and increase the number of student and employee representatives. While the bill empowers employees with a vested interest in the system, there are some indications that the changes might be good for taxpayers.

Administration vs. Faculty and Students

Cal State’s administration is engaged in open warfare with students and faculty. Last month, the California Faculty Association board scheduled a strike vote for this April, the second such action in the past four months. Yee’s bill has the potential to give a bigger platform to CSU faculty members that have been critical of the wasteful administration. In fact, the CFA has been one of the most vocal opponents of the high executive salaries.

“Working for the university is about performing public service, not becoming a CEO in private industry,” CFA President Lillian Taiz, a professor of history at CSU Los Angeles, fired off in a recent press release. “Furthermore, it is simply repugnant to hear the chancellor cry poor about well-to-do executives having to sell a home at a loss and seeing their pensions capped at a mere $240,000 per year while tens of thousands of students are losing their opportunity to climb into the middle class.”

Yet, somehow Linscheid and the rest of Cal State’s top brass believe the Cal State’s problems are the Legislature’s fault. “The ones to blame for high tuition are the legislators themselves,” the Chico Enterprise-Record reported of Linscheid. “They’ve turned their backs on the students.”