O.C. congresswoman running for top post in the House

Good morning! Happy Tuesday. Let’s dig in with some news from Washington: Congresswoman Mimi Walters is preparing a run for a high-ranking spot in House Republican leadership, the Irvine Republican confirmed on Monday.

The House Republican chair position is not yet vacant, but with Washington Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers reportedly close to being selected to head the Interior Department in the Trump administration, Walters is locking up support for the #4 spot.

Walters lauded McMorris Rodgers’ “tireless” work on behalf of both her constituents and fellow Republicans, confirmed her own intentions to run for the post if and when it becomes available and said she’d already been seeking support.

“I am humbled by the support I have received in preliminary conversations, and I look forward to speaking with all the members of our Conference,” Walters said.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• Water: “California’s beleaguered farmers had their hopes for a better 2017 rekindled as landmark water legislation delayed for years finally passed Congress. But the political cost to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a key supporter, has been high, with outgoing Sen. Barbara Boxer digging in her heels against the bill and pushing for White House opposition. The strife has underscored the difficulty California Democrats have had in smoothing over internal disagreements over core policy issues that have risen to the surface of contention after years of all but one-party rule in the state.” CalWatchdog has more. 

• Another Republican woman on the rise: “The California Republican Party has picked Kristin Olsen, a former assemblywoman from Modesto, to be its vice chair.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• More bills coming: “Just minutes after taking the oath of office last week, new and returning members of the California Assembly received an early holiday gift, one that no lawmakers in Sacramento have been given for more than two decades. They’ll be able to write more bills, an extra allotment totaling as many as 800 new pieces of legislation that could circulate through the state Capitol before the next election in 2018.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• Women: “At the start of a new legislative season, the number of female elected officials in the state Capitol has dropped to 27 of a total of 120, down from a peak of 37 in 2006. That’s a sharp contrast to Los Angeles County, where the Board of Supervisors, representing the nation’s most populous county, recently installed its first female “supermajority” in history. And just days after four women took their place on the five-member board, the body began tackling a number of key women’s issues.” Politico has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till January.

Gov. Brown:

• In Coronado at 9:30 a.m. From event announcement: “Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. will join regional leaders from around the world tomorrow in Coronado to launch the International Alliance to Combat Ocean Acidification, which will work to protect coastal communities and economies from the effects of rising ocean acidity.”

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @lnjvr

The House Republican chair position is not yet vacant, but with Washington Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers reportedly close to being selected to head the Interior Department in the Trump administration, Walters is locking up support for the #4 spot.

Walters lauded McMorris Rodgers’ “tireless” work on behalf of both her constituents and fellow Republicans, confirmed her own intentions to run for the post if and when it becomes available and said she’d already been seeking support.

“I am humbled by the support I have received in preliminary conversations, and I look forward to speaking with all the members of our Conference,” Walters said.

Walters was elected to Congress in 2014 and was quickly picked as freshman representative to House Republican leadership — an honor aided by her generosity to other members during the campaign. At the time, the Orange County Register reported Walters had given 10 percent of her campaign funds to others, which the paper noted as “unusual for a freshman.”

No longer a freshman, Walters was recently elected as the sophomore representative to leadership. 

Prior to Congress, Walters served in the California Legislature from 2004 to 2015. During that time, she formed a close relationship with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, while both were sitting Assembly members.

Walters’ actions were first mentioned in Politico Playbook over the weekend.

Hernández, a West Covina Democrat, is currently under a temporary restraining order from his wife, with whom he is getting divorced.

At divorce proceedings on Wednesday, Susan Rubio, a Baldwin Park City Councilwoman, alleged that Hernández assaulted her more than 20 times during a three year period, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“Given the serious and growing list of accusations, Assemblyman Hernández’s continued presence in the state Assembly brings dishonor to the entire California state Legislature,” Sen. Patricia Bates of Laguna Niguel said in a joint statement with Rep. Mimi Walters of Irvine and Harmeet K. Dhillon, the vice chair of the California Republican Party.

Other calls for action

Last month, the top Democrats in the Legislative Women’s Caucus, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara and Asm. Cristina Garcia of Bell Gardens, called on Hernández to step down from his committee responsibilities, including his leadership post atop the Labor and Employment Committee, and to take a leave of absence until the legal matter with his wife is worked out.

Hernández has not been charged with a crime and he previously denied the allegations to media outlets and in court filings. His office did not respond to requests for comment.

This might hurt his run for Congress

According to the Times, Hernández’s attorney said in court that Rubio came forward with the allegations to hurt his political career. Hernández is termed-out of the Assembly and is running for Congress against incumbent Grace Napolitano, D-Norwalk.

“As a member of the California Congressional delegation, I urge Assemblyman Hernández to step down from his position and withdraw his name as a candidate for California’s 32nd Congressional District in light of the current accusations of serial abuse,” Walters said in the statement.    

Newest allegations

In court, Rubio gave detailed accounts of eight alleged incidents: One was of Hernández choking her with a belt, another was of Hernández dropping her to the ground and beating her with a broom and another was of Hernández threatening her with a knife after accusing her of having an affair, according to the Times.

“Domestic violence is a very serious issue in our society, not a ‘private matter’ to be brushed under the rug by a man holding public office,” Dhillon said.

Tepid response

The three women’s statement called on Democrats to “echo the demand” that Hernández step down. 

Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, previously told CalWatchdog that he would take further action against Hernández “if the allegations are more fully validated.” And on Thursday, a spokesman said there was no update. 

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. 

Henry T. Perea’s decision to leave office early cost Fresno County at least a half million dollars.

Henry T. Perea’s decision to vacate his Assembly seat early cost Fresno County a half-million dollars — enough to pay for four sheriff deputies — and has reignited a discussion on the cost of special elections.

The Fresno Democrat announced last year that he’d be leaving the Assembly to pursue a position with the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, counties are saddled with the cost of special elections regularly. And while they have become less frequent, at least temporarily, a CalWatchdog review of expenses shows that since 2013 counties (and one city) have spent $21.7 million on special elections to replace state lawmakers.

Few would decry a legislator stepping down if the officeholder or his or her family member fell ill. And of course sometimes scandals create a vacancy. But most of the time these seats are vacated by politicians looking to cash in with a high-paying lobbying position, trade up for higher office (perhaps to avoid being forced from office by term limits), which then creates a mad dash to fill the gaps behind them.

For example: In 2013, Curren Price created a vacancy in the state Senate when he won a seat on the Los Angeles City Council, which are elected in odd-numbered years. Holly Mitchell then won Price’s seat in a special election, leaving a vacancy in the Assembly. That vacancy was filled by the current occupant, Asm. Sebastian Ridley-Thomas.

That game of musical chairs cost Los Angeles County $2.4 million. And had Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell not one outright in their respective primaries, forcing a run-off, the cost for the overall costs for the special election would have approximately doubled.

Nonpartisan

Price, Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell are all Democrats, but Republicans do it too. In 2014, Mimi Walters won a seat in Congress in an open Orange County district after former Rep. John Campbell retired.

After winning, she vacated her state Senate seat, which was filled by now-Sen. John Moorlach, costing the county $1.24 million.

One approach

On Wednesday, an Assembly panel will consider a proposal from Asm. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, which would require that legislators use leftover campaign funds to pay down the cost of the special election they’ve caused, leaving exceptions for health and family reasons.

Perea still has more than $800,000 according to the campaign finance filings from the end of 2015. Instead of giving money to Fresno County, which is allowable under state law, Perea made some political contributions and paid for a few holiday parties.

Other ideas

A measure by Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, was approved by one panel earlier this month. The bill would require the state to reimburse for the entire cost of the special election for vacancies of state lawmakers. The state used to contribute to the cost of special elections, but has since ceased the practice.

“Fresno County was forced to hold a special election today to fill a vacant Assembly seat, which is costing the county more than a half- million dollars,” Vidak said in a statement last week following the election to replace Perea. “That’s money that could have been used for police, fire, health, education and other vital services.”

Others have suggested the governor appoint a replacement to serve until the next scheduled election. But critics claim that gives the unfair advantage of incumbency to a replacement if he or she decides to run for another term, and gives the governor too much political power.

“Sure, it’s a tradeoff,” said Raphael Sonenshein, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles, noting that if the seat is held only until the next scheduled election then no one would hold the seat for more than two years. “Special elections have very low turnout. It’s at least arguably a budget savings and one less election.”

Turnout

Voter turnout is a persistent issue in California. Some argue that the abundance of special elections contributes to the problem. Most of the special elections have even lower turnout.

In 2013 in Los Angeles, 23 percent of voters turned out for the regularly-scheduled city elections when Price was elected. Later that year, only 5.55 percent of voters turned out to elect Mitchell to the state Senate and then 8.47 percent turned out to elect Ridley-Thomas to the Assembly.

In 2014, the regularly-scheduled gubernatorial election that sent Mimi Walters to Congress drew about 43 percent of voters, while John Moorlach was elected to the state Senate only a few months later with only a 15.42 percent turnout.

Kathay Feng, the executive director of the left-leaning good government group California Common Cause, suggests moving all local elections to the normal presidential and midterm/gubernatorial voting schedule — and during the vacancy, until a successor is elected, the seat could either stay unoccupied or a “caretaker” could be appointed.

“Will a group of people be unrepresented for a short period of time? Potentially.” Feng told CalWatchdog. “But this is insane to elect people by five or six percent of the population and still call it a democracy.”

Cost

The money that is spent on special elections goes to things like: printing ballots, hiring poll workers, securing locations, paying for postage and producing vote by mail ballots. 

Many special elections are unbudgeted and all are unplanned and sometimes they overlap. According to Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk, it can be particularly taxing on the county registrar and confusing for voters who could be receiving election packets from the city they live in and then the county a few weeks later, like Los Angeles residents in 2013.

Logan did not advocate a particular path forward, as it’s not his role as registrar. However, he has at least raised questions over the current process and the drain on resources since at least 2010.

“And we already have a crisis of participation even in our regular election cycles, but the turnout in these special vacancy elections is extremely low,” Logan told CalWatchdog.

Term-limits

Some argue that the 2012 modification of term limits, which allowed legislators to spend more time in each chamber, may reduce the number of special elections. While the change hasn’t been around long enough to say for sure, there has been a reduction in special elections since it was passed.

There were 12 special elections (including primary and general/run-off) in 2013, two in 2014, four in 2015 and only one so far this year.

David Bowser was charged with using nearly $44,000 of congressional office funds of his former boss, former Georgia Republican Congressman Paul Broun, to pay one of Broun’s campaign consultants, according to the Athens Banner-Herald. Bowser was also charged with obstructing a congressional investigation and making false statements.

Politico reporter John Bresnahan broke the news of the resignation on Twitter Thursday.

/1 David Bowser, chief of staff for @RepMimiWalters, has resigned following indictment on federal criminal charges, per her office.

— John Bresnahan (@BresPolitico) April 7, 2016

/2 Bowser was indicted for alleged campaign finance violations, making false statements, lying to OCE while working for ex-Rep. Paul Broun

— John Bresnahan (@BresPolitico) April 7, 2016

Walters, an Irvine Republican, was elected to Congress in 2014, after years in the state Legislature.

“David Bowser tendered his resignation on April 6, 2016,” according to a statement issued by Walters’ office. “The charges against him involve incidents alleged to have occurred in the office of former Georgia Congressman Paul Broun in 2012-2014, before Rep. Walters became a member of Congress.”

This story has been updated to include the statement from Walters’ office and to correct the day of Bowser’s resignation.

U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer’s retirement announcement earlier this month kicks off a major demographic shift in California’s congressional delegation, as aging Democratic women move closer to retirement. Democratic women are the oldest group in California’s congressional delegation from both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

California’s Congressional Delegation: Democratic women oldest group

The 104 women in the 114th Congress make up 19 percent of the members. In California, that percentage doubles — with women claiming 21 of 55 slots, or 38 percent.

Those numbers don’t tell the full story. There’s only one Republican woman from California in Congress, Rep. Mimi Walters of Orange County. Twenty Democratic women represent California in Washington, D.C. — near parity with their 21 Democratic male counterparts. Yet that parity is likely in jeopardy due to one factor: age.

At 81 years old, Dianne Feinstein is the oldest member of the United States Senate. She isn’t alone. Of the 15 members of California’s congressional delegation that are 68 years old or older, Democratic women take up 11 slots. The average age of California’s representatives in the 114th Congress, including both U.S. Senators, is 59 years old. For Democratic women, that figure jumps nearly a decade to 67 years old.

Even when you exclude Boxer and Feinstein from the tally and just go with House members, Democrats from California bring up the average age of the delegation. Five of the six oldest members of California’s congressional delegation are Democratic women:

• Rep Grace Napolitano of El Monte, age 78;
• Lois Capps of Santa Barbara, age 77;
• Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, age 76;
• House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, age 74;
• Lucille Roybal-Allard of Commerce, age 73.

Rep. Alan Lowenthal of Long Beach, another 73-year-old California Democrat, is a few months older than Roybal-Allard.

1992 Year of the Woman

Many of California’s Democratic women first claimed a spot in Congress in 1992’s “Year of the Woman.” While the history books highlight the record number of women elected to the U.S. Senate, California also sent Lynn Schenk, Jane Harman, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Anna Eshoo and Lynn Woolsey to the House of Representatives.

Robin Swanson, a California political strategist who has worked for the state’s top Democratic politicians, is optimistic that California is ready for another wave of women.

“We’re long overdue for another Year of the Woman,” she said.

More Democratic retirements around the corner

The remaining members of the class of 1992 are now among the oldest members of Congress and are, obviously, more likely to retire.

When asked about a possible retirement in 2016, Napolitano’s office was unambiguous. “Congresswoman Napolitano is not retiring,” said Jerry O’Donnell, her press secretary. “She plans to run for re-election.”  Despite her advancing years, Napolitano isn’t slowing down. Last week, she reintroduced H.R. 291, “W21: Water in the 21st Century,” a plan to provide “new incentives and investments to help local water agencies, residents and businesses to conserve, recycle and manage limited water supplies.”

A spokesperson for Capps was less emphatic, saying it was still too early to know whether the eight-term Central Coast congresswoman would call it quits this term.

“It’s been less than two weeks since the 114th Congress began, so her focus isn’t on 2016 yet,” said Capps’ spokesperson Chris Meagher. Her focus is “on representing the people of the Central Coast and fighting for the issues they care about.”

Intra-party challengers not waiting for retirements

Even if Capps and Napolitano decide to seek reelection, they could face upstart intra-party challengers —  thanks to California’s Top Two primary system. Older House Democrats have faced spirited challengers from younger politicians in the last two election cycles.

In 2012, then 80-year-old Rep. Pete Stark was unseated by fellow Democrat and 31-year-old challenger Eric Swalwell. Last November, Ro Khanna came within a few points of knocking off 73-year-old Rep. Mike Honda.

Age was a clear factor in both races, where the younger challengers portrayed the seasoned veterans as out-of-touch, especially on technological issues. Honda, according to emails obtained by San Jose Inside, needed his government staff’s help to “set up his personal Netflix account.”

In 2016, state-level politicians eager to move up California’s political food chain could get impatient, knowing un-elected Democratic challengers, such as Swalwell and Khanna, have cut in line.

Shift in Congressional demographics: 113th to 114th Congress

The 113th Congress, according to the Congressional Research Service:

• An overwhelming majority of Members of Congress with a college education.
• The dominant professions of Members are public service/politics, business and law.
• Most Members identify as Christians, and Protestants collectively constitute the majority religious affiliation.
• Roman Catholics account for the largest single religious denomination, and numerous other affiliations are represented.

In the 114th Congress, according to The Hill:

• There is a record number of female lawmakers at 104, alongside 430 men, following the departure of former Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.).
• Lawmakers have an average age of 57. The Senate is older than the House, with an average age of 61 to the lower chamber’s 57.
• Democrats on average are older than Republicans in both chambers, at 62 to 60 in the Senate and 59 to 54 in the House.

By Dave Roberts

California business owners have plenty to worry about with the weak economy, high taxes, complex regulations and susceptibility to costly litigation. But rather than reducing those burdens in order to strengthen the state’s economy, Democratic politicians continue to pile on the obstacles to doing business in California.

On Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would add family caregivers to the list of protected classes against job discrimination. While that sounds like a compassionate measure — who wouldn’t sympathize with someone discriminated against for taking care of their sick mother? — SB 404 is written so broadly that it essentially places every worker in this protected classification and thus able to sue for discrimination if something is not to their liking in the work place, according to the California Chamber of Commerce.

“We are concerned with the expansion of litigation that this bill will create,” Chamber policy advocate Jennifer Barrera told the committee. “‘Familial status’ as set forth in the bill is anyone who is, who is perceived to be, or who is associated with somebody who provides medical or supervisory care to a family member. That’s pretty broad. I don’t know who that doesn’t cover in the workplace. So the fact that we’re essentially protecting everyone in the workplace means that we’re not protecting anyone.

“All we’re doing is providing new avenues of litigation on which to file a claim…. Any time an employer tries to make a management decision in the workplace that’s adverse, it will automatically be susceptible to being challenged based on familial status. [Workers sill claim,] ‘That you must have demoted me or disciplined me not because of the objective basis that the employer states but because of my actual, perceived or associated familial status.’ Which makes it extremely difficult for an employer, especially a small employer, to manage their work place.”

Protected class

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, argued that family caregivers deserve to be in a protected class against discrimination under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, just as there are protections based on sex, race, color, national origin, religion, disability, marital status and sexual orientation.

“Real people are suffering in real ways,” Leno said. “And we are trying to find a way to end that and give them some protection so they can go about their lives.”

Barrera responded, “It would be a different perspective from business if only those cases that have merit are filed. But the problem is that from the business perspective we see a lot of frivolous litigation around these types of classifications just to challenge any decision we make.”

Leno was skeptical that frivolous lawsuits are filed by employees against employers, arguing that neither the employees nor their lawyers would benefit by doing so.

Barrera countered that businesses need to look out for the bottom line when deciding whether to contest lawsuits in court, whether or not they are frivolous.

“From our perspective, the plaintiff and attorney do benefit because in a lot of the cases — and I don’t have the specific percentage, I would say it’s in the 90 percent that cases settle — once a case is filed a lot of businesses see it as a business decision,” she said. “It’s not necessarily, ‘Hey, we were right, and I’m going to spend all of the money to prove that at trial.’ Because it’s costly. It’s more, ‘How can I resolve this at the cheapest cost, because I don’t want to impose a higher cost on my business.’ It’s more expensive to go all the way to trial and have your day in court to show that you were right than it is to just get rid of it and settle it immediately.”

‘The system works’

The bill’s author, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, was not convinced.

“I would respectfully disagree that it creates frivolous lawsuits,” she said. “I don’t think there’s any documentation that demonstrates that. We do have a Fair Employment and Housing Agency that does take a look at these claims before they are allowed to go to litigation. And I believe the Chamber just indicated that many of them, probably at least half of them, are rejected. So the system works that we have today.

“But I don’t think this is a claim that has historic accuracy to it that we will then end up with frivolous lawsuits. We will end up with this clarity as to what the expectations are for both employers and employees. This measure doesn’t give any additional rights to family caregivers. It just gives them equal footing. In today’s world, we just see more and more people doing this kind of care. I think it’s about time after three cracks at it that we put this into law so that everybody knows what’s expected of them, and people who are caregivers are simply treated equally by their employers.”

This is actually the fourth crack at giving protected status to caregivers. SB 836 was vetoed by then-Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2007. He wrote in his veto message:

“California has the strongest workplace laws against discrimination and harassment in the country. These laws provide workers necessary protections from unfair retaliation, discipline, and termination for matters unrelated to job performance. Although I support these laws, expanding workplace protections to include something as ambiguous as ‘familial status’ is not appropriate. This bill will not only result in endless litigation to try and define what discrimination on the basis of ‘familial status’ means, it will also unnecessarily restrict employers’ ability to make personnel decisions.”

In 2009, AB 1001 died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. And last year, AB 1999 was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Schwarzenegger’s concern about the ambiguity of “familial status” was echoed at Tuesday’s hearing by Chris Mullahy, representing the California Grocers Association, which is also concerned about SB 404 leading to more lawsuits. He noted that the bill’s definition of protected classes, including familial status, includes the “perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.”

Mullahy observed, “The language is extremely broad, clearly would cover just about anyone.”

Confusing language

Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Irvine, noting that she’s one of the few committee members who is not a lawyer, said, “I’m confused about this language.” She asked Jackson to clarify what it means that there is a “perception” that someone has familial status.

Responded Jackson, a former district attorney:

“This is terminology that applies to all characteristics in the Fair Employment and Housing Act. We are modeling it and paralleling all the terminology within the Fair Employment and Housing Act. It’s not added. It’s what’s already in existence. It’s what’s used in all instances under fair employment and housing limitations and specifications. It’s not a new phrase.”

That non-explanation further confused Walters, who joked, “And that is why I’m not a lawyer,” as many laughed.

Barrera concluded her testimony by noting that there are already 17 laws on the books protecting employees against discrimination.

“Here in California, we have the California Family Rights Act,” she said. “It allows you to file litigation if you’re discriminated against for taking leave for a family member with a serious medical condition. We have the Kin Care law in California that requires an employer to allow an employee to take up to 50 percent of their sick leave to care for a family member. And you can file litigation if you’re discriminated on that basis. We have pregnancy disability leave. We have sex discrimination, gender discrimination, marital status discrimination laws. We also have the federal laws, the Equal Pay Act, the Title VII discrimination laws.

“So there’s a host of litigation avenues already available if discrimination like this occurs. The average verdict or settlement is $500,000 for these cases. Employers are already being sued when this type of discrimination occurs. So from the Chamber’s perspective, we’re very concerned with including a classification where protection already exists and just opening up new avenues of litigation that could seriously hamper an employer’s ability to grow and create jobs here in California if they are being struck with frivolous litigation under this bill.”

The committee passed SB 404 on a 5-2 vote with Walters and the other Republican, Sen. Joel Anderson, opposed. It has been referred to the Appropriations Committee.

By Steven Greenhut

STOCKTON — Workers for the city of Stockton who attended the unveiling Wednesday night of a new report detailing trends in public-employee compensation in California complained about cuts in their compensation packages that are causing hardship for them and their city.

But the report, prepared on behalf of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation and released at a meeting of the San Joaquin County Taxpayers Association, left me searching for the world’s smallest violin — that metaphorical instrument I play whenever my kids, or anyone else, starts whining about something that’s largely their own fault.

Stockton is bankrupt, following more than a decade of Bacchanalian feasting on taxpayer dollars, including a lifetime medical benefit bestowed on city employees and a most-generous “3 percent at 50” pension plan for its highly paid public safety workers.

The city burned through its pension-obligation bonds — the equivalent of a family taking out a loan to pay the mortgage — and is now trying to stiff its bondholders in bankruptcy. There was no obvious complaint by city unions or employees during the tax feast, but now that they are facing “cuts” — some real, but others that are merely rollbacks in expected raises and limits on special-pay gimmicks — they and their members are playing the victims.

But the numbers tell the story.

Consider this nugget from the blandly titled study, “California State Employee Compensation Trends,” prepared by Steven B. Frates of the Center for Government Analysis: “Total expenditures by the state government of California to finance salaries and pension benefits for state government employees increased almost three times as fast (29 percent) as the per capital personal income of all Californians (9.8 percent) from 2005-10.”

As Frates put it, in plain English: “They [public employees] were getting richer three times faster than the general population.”

Tax increase

Californians are stuck watching those dreadful union-financed campaign TV ads supporting Proposition 30, which would push our highest income-tax rates to the stratosphere and boost sales taxes. The main rationale for high taxes, we’re told, is that California is slashing public school funding and laying off teachers.

But if the raises and benefit boosts granted the state’s public employees from 2005-10 had been merely at the 9.8 percent rate of income growth experienced by the rest of us, the state government would have saved $2.1 billion in 2010 alone — enough to pay for nearly 25,000 new teachers, more than the number that have been laid off.

We’ve heard Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature’s Democratic majority bemoan draconian cuts in government. But even in the thick of the financial mess, state government has been hiring. The number of state government employees increased 5 percent during 2005-10, which is slightly higher than the job-growth rate in the general population.

State Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel, kicked off Wednesday’s program with an under-the-Capitol-dome look at the state’s efforts at pension reform.

She confirmed what this column and others have been saying. The governor announced a 12-point pension-reform plan in 2011 but did nothing to promote it. After Republicans offered legislation advancing the Democratic governor’s pension reforms, the governor’s fellow party members refused to give it a hearing.

On the last day of session, the Democrats cobbled together something that Walters calls “pension change” rather than “pension reform” given that it does little, mostly applies to future workers and is not a constitutional change — meaning that future legislators can easily kill these modest changes. It does nothing about the unfunded health care promises of the sort that sent Stockton into the poorhouse.

The state’s leaders view pension reform as public relations to convince Californians that they are “doing something” so that voters are more willing to approve yet another tax hike.

Pension problem

But the compensation report showcases the reality of the pension problem. During 2005-10, the growth in pension expenses soared 45 percent for all categories of state government employees. The cost of pensions for public-safety workers increased 94 percent. Figures for employees of local governments no doubt are similar to this state data.

The state data is two years old, so the situation surely has worsened, but the California Public Employees’ Retirement System likes to stonewall and delay. As the report noted, “CalPERS’ tardiness in posting relevant data in a timely manner is unseemly in an open democratic society.”

Everything about this pension mess is unseemly, indeed.

Those of us who oppose tax increases know how the government spends money. This data on pay and pensions for public employees reveals, as Frates said, that the government’s priority has not been providing better services, but boosting salary and benefits for those who work for government.

What will happen if California voters approve Prop. 30? Check out the many bills that moved through the Legislature this session, as legislators crafted new proposed programs and benefit increases for their public-employee constituents.

Before the Wednesday presentation, I gave Frates a tour of central Stockton. We drove by the impressive port, on the edge of the Sacramento Delta, past the Ivy League-reminiscent campus of the University of the Pacific, through the leafy old neighborhoods near Victory Park, and around the mostly vacant downtown, with its restored Fox Theater and historic buildings. It’s a beautiful old city, but Frates noted the decrepit situation: pothole-pocked streets, litter, old shopping carts, graffiti and scary characters hanging out in the parks and on street corners.

The purpose of government is to provide services to the public, not to enrich the people who work for it. The compensation report, and the conditions in the city where it was released, remind us that if elected officials focus on the latter, we get far less of the former.

Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Write to him at: steven.greenhut@franklincenterhq.org.

“I am deeply disappointed that the Pension Conference Committee today ended public hearings without debate, discussion and a vote on the Governor’s pension reform language. The Legislature must provide the Governor with the courtesy of an up or down vote on his reform plan before it is cast aside in favor of a special interest plan that protects the status quo.

“The Governor’s pension reform plan, which is drafted word for word in SB 1176 (Huff) and SCA 18 (Huff) and supported by the entire Senate Republican Caucus, represents the minimum level of reform necessary to address the unsustainable costs and abuses of current public employee pension systems at both the state and local government levels.

“Unfortunately, it has become apparent that the work product of the Pension Conference Committee will consist of minor tweaks to the current system that are far too weak to address the underlying problems and growing costs that will be a burden on current and future generations of Californians. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for these public pensions while funding for education and public safety continues to suffer.

“I believe the people of California deserve the opportunity to weigh in on the Governor’s pension changes at the ballot in November 2012 and it is the responsibility of this Legislature to give them that opportunity.”

FEB. 28, 2012