While it hasn’t got nearly the attention, the same tensions between wealthy tech employers and local interest groups – which see the employers as hurting quality of life by increasing congestion and by making housing costlier – are playing out in the June 5 San Francisco mayor’s race. It’s being held to fill the vacancy created by Mayor Ed Lee’s death from a heart attack on Dec. 12. Lee’s death was lamented by tech executives who called him a key to San Francisco’s emergence as a world tech capital.

That sentiment is far from universal. A May 15 Business Insider analysis by Melia Robinson that was featured on the San Francisco Chronicle website was headlined “San Francisco is fed up with Big Tech, and residents are begging the next mayor to do something about it.”

Leading mayoral candidates critical of tech’s effects

It’s difficult to be confident who’s leading the mayor’s race since San Francisco is one of a handful of cities to use a top-three ranked voting system in which a candidate who doesn’t get a majority in the initial tally can still win based on her or his second- and third-place votes. But the consensus top three are all liberal to very liberal Democrats by national, if not San Francisco, standards. They are Board of Supervisors Chairwoman London Breed, who would be the city’s first African-American woman mayor and has the support of former Mayor Willie Brown’s business-friendly coalition; Supervisor Jane Kim, who would be the city’s first Korean-American mayor and is a mostly beloved figure among local progressives; and former state Sen. Mark Leno, who would be the city’s first openly gay mayor and who also runs well to Breed’s left.

Breed, who was deposed as acting mayor by progressive supervisors earlier this year, seems to want the most limited policy changes aimed at tech workers. She has backed limits on short-term rentals by companies like Airbnb and wants to cap the number of ride-hailing vehicles at any given time, and perhaps put restrictions on food deliveries as well.

Kim wants tech companies to improve pay and benefits for lower-rung workers so they can live in the city. She says companies subcontract services for janitorial and cafeteria work so they can avoid responsibility for the poor quality of life for those hired. She has expressed interest in requiring Uber and Lyft to pay a per-rider fee.

Leno wants to impose hiring rules on city tech companies to force them to hire city residents. He says this hiring shouldn’t just be for blue-collar positions but for administrative and sales jobs. He has also called for tech firms and their employers to “invest” in the city by committing to improving its lifestyle for those beyond the wealthy.

Some warn tech firms shouldn’t be taken for granted

The only Republican in the race – business consultant Richie Greenberg – and business groups say that mayoral candidates shouldn’t take tech companies for granted. They note that the city’s tech boom may have peaked in 2016, with exploding housing costs hurting San Francisco more than the broader Bay Area-Silicon Valley tech region in general.

But this point of view is a tough sell going into June 5’s voting. Perhaps the best example of this is a deal orchestrated in 2011 by then-Mayor Lee with the support of Supervisor Kim to revitalize the rough Tenderloin and Mid-Market districts west of downtown by giving a six-year break on city payroll taxes to companies located there. This was meant to keep Twitter’s headquarters from moving out of the city and to attract new tech firms to the area.

The proposal was widely seen as a smart way to maintain San Francisco’s tech momentum in 2011. In 2014, business groups hailed the agreement for keeping Twitter and for creating 13,000 jobs and generating much more revenue for the city than the sums lost because of the tax break.

But that same year, a San Francisco Chronicle analysis noted that the deal was seen by many residents as a sign of the city caving to business pressure – and it has emerged as a reason for progressives to question Kim’s bona fides.

“The voter coalitions that elect moderates in San Francisco are Chinese voters, white homeowners, older renters, and the 10 Republicans left in town, combined with unions that represent building trades, police officers and firefighters,” political consultant Jim Ross told the San Francisco Chronicle the day after Lee’s death. Progressives dominate every other category of voters, especially young tech workers and social justice activists.

While many other names have been mentioned, here are the most prominent likely or declared candidates in the June 5 special election to serve out the last year and a half of moderate Lee’s term:

– Acting Mayor London Breed, part of the moderate faction on the city-county Board of Supervisors who shares Lee’s view that dealing with homelessness is the city’s most important issue. Breed, pictured, is the first African-American woman to serve as mayor. There is a possibility that supervisors will name an interim mayor rather than give Breed months to use her authority as both mayor and supervisor to build support for her expected mayoral bid. This could be supported by moderate as well as progressive supervisors in a city full of ambitious politicians.

– Supervisor Jane Kim, part of the progressive wing, filed paperwork to run for mayor on Wednesday. Kim lost a state Senate bid to moderate Supervisor Scott Weiner last year. She has won national and international attention for her proposed state “robot tax” assessing fees on companies whose use of robots or algorithms has led to the loss of jobs. The money from the fees would be used for worker retraining and other programs meant to minimize the impact of losing jobs to technology.

– State Sen. Mark Leno announced in May that he would run for mayor in 2019 after Lee was termed out. Now he’s running in the June special election, touting his “progressive vision for our city, grounded in a commitment to affordability and civil rights.” A former Assembly member and supervisor, he’s won a reputation as an energetic policy wonk with interest in a wide range of issues, from gender and transgender rights to prison and criminal justice reform to the environment.

– Former San Francisco Supervisor Angela Alioto, daughter of former Mayor Joseph Alioto, has taken out papers to run. An attorney specializing in discrimination cases, she cited homelessness as a key issue and said it was crucial to build a coalition with tech firms to address the issue and larger housing concerns. She has deep ties to moderates both through family ties and years in the city’s political trenches.

– Assemblyman David Chiu, a former supervisor, faces perhaps the toughest decision of any candidate. If the moderate runs in the June mayoral special election, he can’t seek re-election to the Assembly in November – meaning he’d be giving up the safest of legislative seats with more than eight years until he would face term limits. But Chiu is poised to inherit support from the Chinese American community that was so valuable to Mayor Lee, and he has high name recognition and fundraising clout.

Willie Brown still a crucial behind-the-scenes player

Even at 83, former Mayor and former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown remains a key player in San Francisco’s political intrigue. After Mayor Gavin Newsom was elected lieutenant governor in 2010, Brown helped arrange the appointment of Lee – then the city’s chief administrative officer – as interim mayor and gave Lee crucial help in winning a full term in 2011 after Lee broke a promise to progressives to not seek the office.

San Francisco progressives fear that moderate Brown will try to execute the same maneuver with Breed, who is considered one of his proteges.

Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive. 

Against a national backdrop of discord over police killings of black men and deadly anti-police violence, state lawmakers who back law enforcement conduct and transparency reforms are making little progress in Sacramento.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced Senate Bill 1286 to initial success. The measure would have classified internal reports that confirmed serious misconduct by law enforcement officers as public records to be made available upon request. In April, the bill won approval in the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 5-1 vote, leading reform advocates to hope the 2016 legislative session wouldn’t be  as disappointing as the 2015 session.

But the measure has yet to receive a vote or any discussion in the Senate Appropriations Committee, effectively killing it from further consideration this legislative session.

The political influence of police unions was seen as the key factor in the bill’s demise. However, unions also appear to have won a receptive audience from some lawmakers to their complaint that Leno was uninterested in working on less far-reaching reforms they might have been willing to consider. The Los Angeles Police Protective League knocked the termed-out lawmaker for preparing his measure “with no input from law enforcement.”

Law enforcement dead-set against asset seizure changes

Another high-profile reform is back for a second time after being rejected late in the 2015 session: SB443 would change state asset seizure rules to require that an individual be convicted of a crime before his or her assets could be seized by law enforcement. Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Manhattan Beach, are leading the fight for the measure, saying current rules allow law enforcement to disregard due process in pursuit of the budget-boosting money they can get by cooperating in federal asset-seizure programs intended to thwart drug trafficking. California agencies got $86 million in 2015 from the U.S.

Mitchell and Hadley argue that the profit motive warps law enforcement’s judgment.

“When you get outside of [the Capitol] you get a general consensus that something like this in its broad form should not be happening in the United States,” Hadley told the Los Angeles Times.

Nevertheless, they made a significant change to their bill in response to past criticism: a section was added to allow seizure of assets from suspects who flee or can’t be found.

That hasn’t assuaged the coalition of police and prosecutors who thwarted the previous version of the bill in the Assembly in 2015 after it won easy passage in the Senate. Its strongest voices depict asset-seizure reform as “a message to drug dealers that the cost of doing business has gone down,” in the words of Ventura County District Attorney Gregory Totten.

SB443 was rejected by the Assembly 44-24 last September after passing the Senate 38-1 in June 2015. With 63 Assembly incumbents seeking re-election this November — some in districts that now appear more competitive because the “top two” primary change allows moderate candidates to make the general election ballot — the prospects for the measure don’t appear strong.

In the normal dynamics of government scandal and dysfunction, leaders identify a problem and work to address it, seeking to win media and public approval. But what’s going on in San Francisco reflects the normal dynamics of law-enforcement scandals. Police officers who feel underappreciated — even besieged since the Black Lives Matter movement began in 2014 — push back hard at the idea that they’re doing something fundamentally wrong, even when it comes to police killings of unarmed people.

The San Francisco Police Officers Association denounced Mayor Ed Lee’s decision to ask Suhr to quit. “His retirement under pressure is an extreme loss to the department and the city,” a union statement said. “Chief Suhr, at the core, was and always will be a cop’s cop and dedicated to the men and women who don the uniform every day to serve and protect.”

This attitude doesn’t bode well for interim Police Chief Toney Chaplin, who told reporters that his agenda was “reform, reform, reform” because “the department has to move forward.” 

But despite the praise for Suhr from the police union, the fatal May 18 shooting of the stolen-car suspect was one more example of his lack of control over his department. Suhr has long implored officers not to shoot into fleeing cars. The police union had also criticized his response to the text-message scandal, including his demanding that officers sign a pledge essentially promising to not be bigots.

Union: “Protect due process” of accused officers

There are presently 18 police officers accused in the texting scandal. While police union president Martin Halloran condemned “the appalling racist behavior committed by a handful of officers,” he also said the police union would closely scrutinize the disciplinary process to ensure it “protects the due process rights of the officers.”

Those right are so strong that it is often difficult to fire a police officer in California unless he commits a crime or acts in egregious ways with indisputable evidence. It’s also difficult to even find out about officer misconduct, as the Los Angeles Times reported in April.

Nearly 40 years ago, California took its first steps to shield police misconduct from the public when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law in his first term restricting details of officer personnel files from disclosure. A 2006 California Supreme Court decision went further and extended the law’s protections to cases in which civil service commissions weighed in on officer discipline. Today, almost all details about misconduct — including cases in which police officers were found to have used excessive force, engaged in racial profiling or lied on the job — are kept secret outside of court, administrative or civilian review board proceedings.

And although 23 states keep most public employee personnel records confidential, California is one of just three to provide specific protections for police information, according to a recent investigation by WNYC, a public radio station in New York.

Partly in response to the problems in his home town, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced SB 1286 that would open up police records in cases of “serious misconduct.” It passed an initial Senate committee vote last month, but then died without a second vote on Friday.

But as Conor Friedersdorf reported last August in The Atlantic, many police reform efforts have been launched in the Golden State only to go nowhere.

What’s next in San Francisco?

Meanwhile, Mayor Lee is facing pressure from the most liberal members of the city’s Board of Supervisors to go after bad cops. Supervisor Jane Kim, a rising star in city politics, has been pushing for change for more than four years and now has more support than ever.

But the police union thinks that Lee has already done too much to address police controversies.

On May 26th Mayor Ed Lee made some very disturbing remarks to the San Francisco Chronicle. These comments were directed at the SFPD Sergeant who was forced to discharge his firearm in the Officer Involved Shooting last week. The Mayor’s remarks were prejudicial and irresponsible. The POA has always responded to misinformed politicians who make such inflammatory statements and the Mayor is no exception.

That’s from Friday post on the police union’s Facebook page.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department continues its investigation of the San Francisco Police Department, launched in February. It’s not clear when the federal probe will conclude. 

Actually, nearly half of the state’s personal income tax revenue comes from the top 1 percent of earners — 150,000 individual tax returns. And personal income tax revenue is 65 percent of total revenue, which means the One Percent provides 33 percent of the state’s total revenue. 

Besides volatility of the revenue stream — the One Percent’s personal income comes largely from capital gains, which are generally tied to the stock market — what happens if a Mark Zuckerberg or a Larry Ellison — #6 and #7 on Forbes’ list of wealthiest people in the world — leaves the state?

In New Jersey, another top-heavy state, one billionaire relocated to Florida, leaving as much a $140 million hole in the budget. 

Few in California dispute the over-reliance on top earners is an issue. It’s in Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget summary and even the credit rating agencies Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have warned against it. However, there is conflicting opinions of what needs to be done. 

There could be tax reform, but is that a flattening of the tax code? Or a shift to sales tax on services? Higher property taxes? Would the solution be revenue neutral, meaning tax increases in one area are offset with decreases elsewhere? And what are the new consequences that might come with new tax dependencies? 

What requires a frank discussion has so far drawn only whispers. Many on the left feel that while this is a problem, the state is on a good path, with reduced debt, a growing reserve fund, increased education spending and moves to address the state’s unfunded liabilities.

Republicans, on the other hand, lose sleep over the more than $400 billion in debt (including unfunded liabilities), the warnings from credit agencies and outside groups saying the state will falter in an economic downturn and a proposed 12-year extension of a “temporary” tax imposed on the wealthiest of residents that they see as only perpetuating the problem. 

“I’m very concerned about where we’re at today,” said Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley. “You’ve got a very few people paying a vast majority of the revenue collected by the state. That doesn’t put us in a very good spot.”

A downturn is coming likely sooner than later

It’s a question of when, not if, an economic downturn will occur. In Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget introduction released earlier this year, it warned that California is in “its seventh year of expansion, already two years longer than the average recovery.”

“While the timing is uncertain, the next recession is getting closer, and the state must begin to plan for it,” the introduction continued. “If new ongoing commitments are made now, then the severity of cuts will be far greater — even devastating — when the recession begins.”

Tax reform

As a starting point, both sides agree some kind of tax-code overhaul is necessary. However, that’s about where the agreement ends. 

Senate Budget Chairman Mark Leno told CalWatchdog the state is “to a certain degree overly dependent on the highest wage earners,” and suggested increasing the vehicle licensing fee (the “car tax”) because it’s more stable, although he conceded the toxicity of the issue makes it difficult. For example, Congressman Ted Lieu, when he was in the state Senate in 2012, pitched the idea of increasing the car tax, but relented only five days later after backlash from hundreds of constituents, including his wife.

Another idea Leno, the San Francisco Democrat, pitched was extending sales tax to services, to reflect a shift in the state’s economy away from manufacturing, which he again agreed was “a difficult conversation to have.” He lauded the efforts of Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, who is sponsoring legislation to do just that. 

David Wolfe, legislative director for the right-leaning Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, suggested a simplified tax code — not quite a flat tax rate, but close. Wolfe said with the proper analysis sales tax on services is an idea “worth considering,” but it would require cuts elsewhere for their support.

“Of course, the overall sales tax rate would need to be lowered in order to make it revenue neutral because the base is being broadened,” Wolfe said.

Additional burdens

There are a few programs that limit the state’s flexibility, even though the individual programs may be beneficial:

• Prop. 13 capped the rate property taxes could increase annually at two percent.  
• Prop. 98 requires that a large percentage of the state’s general fund be spent on education. 
• Prop. 2, also known as the Rainy Day Fund, sets aside a certain amount of money annually to buffer the budgetary effects of an economic downturn. However, even if fully funded it would only reserve 10 percent of the general fund tax revenues.

“While a full Rainy Day Fund might not eliminate the need for some spending reductions in case of a recession, saving now would allow the state to spend from its Rainy Day Fund later to soften the magnitude and length of any necessary cuts,” according to Brown’s budget explanation. 

Prop. 30 extension

It’s likely that voters will consider a 12-year extension to Prop. 30, which is a “temporary” tax on top earners and a quarter-cent sales tax increase.

It was approved during the last downturn primarily to avoid deep cuts in education. It is set to expire in two years, but proponents saw this campaign cycle as more favorable. 

The Prop. 30 extension only perpetuates the state’s over-reliance on personal income tax, said Carson Bruno, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. 

“Prop. 30 doubles down on this problem by making the income taxes even more reliant on the highest earners,” Bruno said. 

Bruno agreed Prop. 30 expiring would leave a hole in the budget, but said legislators should have been preparing for this, as it was “temporary.”

“If they haven’t been doing that then that’s kind of irresponsible,” Bruno said.

In a statement to CalWatchdog, Rendon, a Paramount Democrat, condemned domestic violence, but said he will not seek action at this time against Hernández, a Democrat from West Covina. 

It was just last month when Rendon announced his leadership team, which included Hernández atop the Labor and Employment Committee, the same leadership role he was in under Rendon’s predecessor, Toni Atkins, D-San Diego. 

“Since the temporary restraining order was filed against Assemblymember Hernández last week, there have been several conversations about what the next steps should be,” Rendon said. “If the allegations are more fully validated, I will be prepared to take further action.”

Calls to step aside

On Thursday, the Democratic chair and vice chair of the women’s caucus, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara and Asm. Cristina Garcia of Bell Gardens, issued a statement calling for Hernández to step down until the matter with his estranged wife, Baldwin Park City Councilwoman Susan Rubio, is resolved.

“In the wake of the serious allegations against Assemblymember Roger Hernández, we believe he should step down from his committee assignments and his position as chair of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee while his case is pending in court and take a leave of absence,” Jackson and Garcia wrote.

“While a determination is still pending on these most recent allegations and we respect his right to due process, it’s important that the Legislature send a strong and consistent message to victims about our commitment to confronting domestic violence and demonstrate that we take allegations seriously when they occur among one of our own,” Jackson and Garcia added. 

Rendon did not expand on what would constitute “more fully validated,” but no charges have been filed against Hernández. The situation places the new speaker in an awkward position between being cautious and appearing to set a soft behavioral standard for members.

“(Rendon) should have anticipated that such a problem would come up,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. “It is not exactly unprecedented for California legislators to face accusations of bad behavior.”

What’s been alleged

Rubio is alleging that Hernández — who is seeking a seat in Congress — pushed, shoved, hit and choked her during their marriage, according to the Los Angeles Times. The couple is 16 months into divorce proceedings.

After an April 5 divorce hearing, Rubio alleges that Hernández “came ‘aggressively’ toward her and began shouting in her face,” prompting her to seek a restraining order. In the filing, Rubio included pictures of a bruised and scratched arm, the Times reported.  

Hernández denied the allegations to the Los Angeles Times on Thursday and other outlets and said he will not take a leave of absence or step aside from committee responsibilities.

Hernández was re-elected to a third and final term in 2014, beating his opponent by 9 points. 

Mostly quiet 

Besides Jackson, Garcia and one Republican assemblyman who has been calling for Hernández to be stripped of his chairmanship since he had security forcibly remove the Republican’s microphone at a committee hearing, other lawmakers have been quiet, as have outside groups.

In a long statement condemning domestic violence, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence issued a statement of “concern” about the situation, but refused to take a position “(b)ecause the case at hand is open and ongoing, we do not have all the facts and cannot presume the nature of the evidence, nor the legal implications thereof.”

Troubles in the other chamber

Not that long ago, several Democratic senators ran afoul of the law. All were eventually convicted, unlike Hernández, who has not been charged. Although some were removed from leadership roles at the first sign of trouble. 

Sen. Roderick Wright of Inglewood was convicted of multiple voter fraud felonies, according to the Los Angeles Times. During the appeals process, he was removed from his committee chairmanship. 

Sen. Ron Calderon of Bell Gardens was removed from the executive board of the California Latino Legislative Caucus and from his legislative committee assignments after allegations of bribery surfaced. He had not been charged with any crimes at the time, but eventually took a leave of absence after federal corruption charges were filed. 

The apex of trouble was when Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco was indicted on charges of gun trafficking and public corruption (while in cahoots with a gangster named Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow). Yee was immediately stripped of all of his committee assignments. 

At the time, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, had had enough. “Every indictment, every arrest, every arraignment and even every suspicion or allegation reflects very poorly on each of us and all of us,” Leno said at the time.

Leno did not respond to requests for comment on Friday about whether those feelings remained and if they applied to Hernández.

History

It’s not the first time Hernández has been accused of wrongdoing. In 2012, an ex-girlfriend accused him of domestic violence, although charges were never filed due to insufficient evidence. 

That same year, Hernández was arrested for drunk driving in a state vehicle, but was acquitted by a jury on one charge, while the jury was hung on another. 

In 2015, allegations of political money laundering against Hernández were dropped by the Fair Political Practices Commission after two key witnesses were unable to testify — one had serious medical issues while the other had passed away. 

But the governor’s proposed $170.7 billion budget ($122.6 billion general fund) for the 2016-17 fiscal year would lead to repeating that mistake when the next recession hits.

Revenues will plunge $55 billion over three years if an average recession hits next year according to the budget summary. That would result in a $29 billion budget deficit in 2020 based on Brown’s current spending proposal, which includes $4 billion in one-time expenditures. If the Legislature instead spends that $4 billion on new or ongoing programs, the deficit would balloon to $43 billion – larger than occurred during the Great Recession.

Recession Expected

California is in the seventh year of economic expansion. That makes it two years overdue for a recession, which has occurred every five years on average, according to Keely Bosler, chief deputy director of the California Department of Finance.

“While there is significant uncertainty in forecasts, there is one thing that is quite certain: and that is history,” Bosler told the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Jan. 19. “It’s this boom-and-bust cycle that this budget really aims to avoid going forward.” But she acknowledged that “the budget in the state of California does remain precariously balanced over the long term.”

Her cautionary words were echoed by committee Vice Chairman Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Tehama.

“We must keep in mind that though times are a little bit better, some parts of our economy have not improved,” he said. “And therefore we must exercise constraint and not get overly ambitious. And that will be what governs our progress in the budget. Let’s not get overly ambitious, and let’s not let government get out of control.”

Examine the Department of Finance 2016 Budget Slides here

But Democratic legislators are eager to spend some of the budget surplus on ongoing social programs, particularly for the developmentally disabled, instead of socking it away in the state’s rainy day fund – despite the likelihood that doing so could once again bust the budget.

“It shouldn’t surprise any of us that a recession is at hand. The question is when, not if,” said committee Chairman Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. “At the same time, an additional $2 billion set aside in the rainy day fund above and beyond what voters told us they’d like to see in it – that I think will be at least part of the playing field of our debate.

“What is appropriate for continuing payment of debt and for reserves, at the same time recognizing that so many Californians who have been hurt at the time of the recession have not seen much recovery or reinvestment in the programs for which they rely for their quality of life?” Sen. Leno asked.

Rainy Day Fund

Proposition 2, passed in 2014, requires that $2.6 billion in this year’s budget be placed in the rainy day fund. Brown has proposed adding an extra $2 billion to the fund. That would bring the total to $8 billion (with previous funding), equating to two-thirds of the constitutional target of 10 percent of general fund revenues, according to Bosler.

But legislative analyst Mac Taylor warned the committee that, while it’s good to beef up state reserves, the Legislature would be unnecessarily tying its hands by going along with Brown’s extra $2 billion in the rainy day fund, which is known formally as the Budget Stabilization Account.

“We would caution you not to put extra money into the BSA,” Taylor said. “Once you put it in the BSA, it’s governed by the rules in the BSA. You can only take out half the monies, if you have a downturn, in the BSA. You might imagine a situation when you might want to take out more in the first year.”

Also up for grabs by the Legislature for whatever purpose it chooses is $1.1 billion from a tax on managed care organizations, an expenditure that Brown left unspecified, according to Taylor. In addition, he told the lawmakers that they could decide to siphon off some or all of the $2.5 billion Brown has proposed to spend on infrastructure, including $1.5 billion for state facilities.

Infrastructure Spending

“When it comes to one-time spending, the governor has focused on infrastructure,” said Taylor. “We think that’s a very positive thing. But keep in mind you have other one-time things that you can spend on. We have very high-cost pension and health retiree liabilities that are accruing costs at 7½ percent a year. So you may want to make additional payments to help fund those and pay those liabilities off. There’s no right choice.”

If the lawmakers do decide to spend the money on infrastructure, they should exercise more control on how it’s spent, instead of leaving it to the administration, Taylor said.

“You don’t want to lose control,” he said. “I think you’ve already lost way too much authority for capital outlay projects. You have given it to both university systems and the administration. Stop doing that. I think you should be exerting a lot more control over capital outlay projects.”

But Leno was more concerned about providing enough “human infrastructure” to help the state’s neediest residents.

Social Services Budgeting

“What I’m hearing is regarding developmentally disabled services that housing units are being lost, facilities are being closed,” Leno said. “Employees at the community-based organizations that supply services are leaving because the employees can find much better jobs than the $13-$14 per hour that some are being paid after 20, 25 years of service. What happens to that infrastructure?”

Taylor responded that there’s been a large growth in spending on the developmentally disabled due to the large increases in caseload. “But you can have just about every program and area of the budget come and tell you that they need a lot more,” he said.

Spending on regional centers for the developmentally disabled has grown by 24 percent in recent years, according to Bosler. “This is well beyond caseload and inflation,” she said. Contributing to the higher costs is California’s aging population, which requires more services and support, along with the rise in autism.

But Leno wasn’t satisfied, saying that the cuts made to social services during the Great Recession have yet to be fully restored.

“Do we want to suggest that even in these boom times that this is our new normal?” he asked. “Or do we have a goal of getting back to where we were at least in adjusted dollars to the 2008 level at some point? If not now, then the question is when. It certainly won’t happen during the next downturn, and quite likely we will have to make additional cuts. We continue to create a new normal level funding which is ever, ever lower.”

Power Over the Budget

Nielsen called the budgeting process itself into question, asserting that it gives too much power over spending to the governor.

“We’ve abdicated our authority over the budget,” he said. “I believe that we are almost making the Legislature irrelevant. Maybe we go through the exercise and pound our chest and try to think we’re important. And this has been a steady erosion over a long period of time.”

Taylor responded that budgetary authority is hard to get back after being given away. He cited the state’s ballot measures as contributing to the problem.

“Almost every initiative that has increased a tax in the last 20 years has dedicated the funds for particular purposes,” he said. “From a budgeting perspective, that’s just a terrible development. No matter how well meaning or how well purposed they may have been in the first year that that measure was passed, that’s not what budgeting is about. It’s about changing priorities, as you know, and being able to make decisions.”

Legislative budget committees plan to hold numerous hearings in the coming months to gain more insight into and provide input on the budget before the governor’s planned budget revision with updated revenue and expenditure figures in May.

Brown said the six bills had several worthwhile ideas. “Unfortunately, taken together there are various technical and conflicting issues that make the over 50 proposed reforms unworkable. Some prudent prioritization is needed,” he wrote.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, who co-sponsored Senate Bill 660, the most sweeping reform measure, expressed disappointment and dismay. So did Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, the Lakewood Democrat who will take over as speaker in coming months.

The measures were intended to limit back-room dealings in which PUC officials and board members met surreptitiously with representatives of the state’s powerful investor-owned utilities. The most notorious example was a 2013 meeting in a Warsaw, Poland, hotel between then-PUC President Michael Peevey and a Southern California Edison executive at which the parameters were set for a later-approved deal in which ratepayers bore 70 percent of the $4.7 billion cost of the shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear plant. Southern California Edison is San Onofre’s majority owner and San Diego Gas & Electric is the minority owner. The meeting and its central role in the bailout approved by the PUC wasn’t disclosed until February of this year.

Ex-PUC president’s home searched by investigators

Peevey is the subject of state and federal criminal investigations over the San Onofre deal and other PUC decisions. He left the PUC under pressure in late 2014. Soon after, his La Canada Flintridge home was searched by investigators looking for evidence of improper relationships with the utilities he used to govern.

Within weeks after the raid, the PUC released emails that raised troubling questions about the cozy ties between Peevey and top officials at Pacific Gas & Electric, the giant Northern California utility. This is from a February CalWatchdog account:

Emails show Peevey pressured PG&E to give money to oppose Proposition 23, the failed 2010 ballot measure opposing AB32; appeared to link his support for rate hikes to PG&E actions on unrelated issues; and was open to PG&E efforts to influence inquiries into a San Pedro pipeline explosion that killed eight people. … He sought to prop up a project by the Hydrogen Energy California (HECA) firm by constantly reminding PG&E how much he had done for it.

The Brown administration promised to work with lawmakers on a more streamlined reform proposal in coming months. But in the meantime, as Hueso told the Union-Tribune, the PUC has “little incentive to work toward a culture of openness and accountability.”

The agency has been accused of being excruciatingly slow in releasing crucial documents, whether to criminal investigators, the Legislature or journalists. It also appears to be shrugging off growing calls to scrap the deal on how to cover the $4.7 billion cost of closing San Onofre.

Michael Aguirre, the San Diego attorney who led testimony against the San Onofre plan last fall, had the sharpest reaction to the governor’s decision. He told the Union-Tribune that “Jerry Brown’s vetoes show he is helping — not stopping– the dishonest practices known to the people of California.”

Brown chose aide to replace Peevey, not outsider

A previous decision by the governor already suggested he doesn’t share the prevailing view in Sacramento that the PUC is badly in need of a culture change. When Peevey was forced out in December of last year, Brown could have appointed an outside energy expert with a history of independence. Instead, he named PUC board member Michael Picker as president. Though Picker has only been on the board since January 2014, he is an energy establishment insider, working for Brown — and with the utilities  — from 2009 as a senior energy adviser until joining PUC management.

Despite continued criticism of PUC secretiveness, Picker’s selection as board president was ratified by the state Senate a month ago.

Thomas Hawk / flickr

A momentous court settlement has given new shape to California’s multi-year struggle with the courts over its criminal justice system, rolling back the state’s reliance on solitary confinement as a way of dealing with gangs and violence in prison. “Many such prisoners are left in solitary confinement indefinitely, with severe psychological effects,” The New York Times observed; “over the years, hundreds have spent more than a decade in isolation.”

A sudden shift

The practice had come under special scrutiny as Gov. Jerry Brown ameliorated overcrowding through his controversial strategy of “realigning” inmates with lesser sentences to county jails. “Under the terms of the settlement, state authorities will only send inmates to solitary if they commit new and serious crimes in prison, like murders or violent assaults,” NPR reported. “California prison officials have a year to review files of inmates in isolation now. The process is designed to send many of those prisoners back into the general prison population.”

California’s secretary of corrections and rehabilitation Jeffrey Beard said that over 1,000 inmates had been released from solitary, telling the Los Angeles Times that “the prison system was largely unable to make the case for change, and show solitary confinement could work, until dealing with overcrowding problems that had inmates sleeping in bunks set up in prison gyms and day rooms.”

Filed three years ago, the now-settled lawsuit took shape as a class action “brought on behalf of thousands of inmates who had filled the Pelican Bay State Prison isolation wing for alleged gang affiliation,” the Huffington Post noted. According to one of the plaintiffs, the Center for Constitutional Rights, over 500 inmates “had spent more than a decade locked in solitary at the time the lawsuit was filed,” reported the Huffington Post, with 78 prisoners locked in the so-called Security Housing Unit for over two decades.

Legal shifts

Solitary confinement has earned the ire of California’s criminal justice activists for years on end, and with the state’s legal woes surrounding its prison system, some in Sacramento took up the cause. In collaboration with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, authored Senate Bill 124, focusing on the extension of solitary to state and county juvenile detention centers. The bill “would ban the use of solitary confinement for longer than four hours at a time,” East Bay Express reported, barring facilities from doling out stints in solitary to punish young offenders and authorizing the practice only “when juveniles pose an immediate, substantial risk to themselves or others.” Inmates whose mental illness factored into their behavior would also be safe from solitary confinement.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, which had angrily mandated a reduction in California’s crowded state prison population, also seemed to be circling around the state’s use of solitary. Considering an appeal this summer from one of the state’s prisoners on death row, Justice Anthony Kennedy “had his law clerks dig up an 1890 case in which the Supreme Court had decided that even for those prisoners sentenced to death, solitary confinement contained a ‘particular terror and a peculiar mark of infamy,'” Benjamin Wallace-Wells noted in New York magazine.

A spate of prisoner protests in California fueled a growing sense that solitary confinement had become too routine and too ineffective around the country. As the New York Times observed, “a number of corrections officials across the country have increasingly come to see locking up inmates for years at a time as ineffective. Some human rights groups have assailed it as torture, and tens of thousands of inmates across California have participated in hunger strikes since 2011 to protest the state’s use of solitary.”

Although the state’s agreement will remove gang affiliation from its list of offenses punishable by isolation, few have speculated what was likely to happen once thousands of formerly solitary inmates were returned to prisons’ general populations.