Chu’s bill to ask state voters if California should become the third state to opt out of changing the clocks once in the spring and once in the fall to maximize after-work daylight hours in warmer months won its first committee vote this month. He is optimistic about his chances.

The reason the move has to be ratified by state voters instead of just being imposed through the legislative process is because daylight savings time is mandated in California by a 1949 ballot measure. Proposition 12 was sold to voters with expansive arguments — that it would reduce juvenile crime, industrial accidents and car wrecks, and help agriculture and save water.

Chu questions such claims and notes that daylight savings time could lead to more energy use because of air conditioners being used by 9-5 workers who get home while it’s still hot. He also cites evidence that time changes are associated with accidents and health problems.

One argument cited by daylight savings fans in northern, colder states doesn’t hold here, especially in Southern California. It’s that since it’s cold most of the year and the sun goes down by 4 p.m. for several months a year, residents get a chance to maximize their time to go outside while it’s warm. 

Why Hawaii, Arizona disdain time change

But California has one of the nation’s mildest climates, at least among the most populated communities near the coast. And the closer one gets to the equator, the less difference there is between length of day in the summer and in the winter.

These arguments explain why Hawaii has never had daylight savings time since achieving statehood and why Arizona lawmakers voted to opt out of daylight savings in 1968 in their warm state — though Arizonans also emphasized the point Chu makes about air conditioning.

The bill, AB385, passed a Senate committee on a 9-2 vote, overcoming criticism from Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, who said she looked forward every spring to the arrival of daylight savings. Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, told the Sacramento Bee that he liked the “variety” provided by daylight savings.

The state Senate Appropriations Committee will take up the bill next, but a hearing has not been scheduled yet.

AB385 passed the Assembly unanimously last year. But that was when it was a mundane measure addressing how local governments deal with solid waste. Chu gutted and amended the bill to use it as a vehicle to target daylight savings. The new version will get a new Assembly vote at some point in coming weeks, unless Rendon decides to use his authority as speaker to sideline it.

To become law, the measure needs to be approved by two-thirds of the Assembly and two-thirds of the Senate, then by signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. If that happens quickly enough, it could join one of the most crowded ballots in state history, with 18 or more initiatives expected to be put before voters in November.

A 2014 Rasmussen national poll of 1,000 Americans found 43 percent opposed to continuing with daylight savings. In an online, unscientific poll this February on the Sacramento Bee website, over 80 percent of voters backed California ending daylight savings.

Daylight savings ‘literally creates chaos’

Chu’s proposal is winning attention. A recent article by Riley McAtee on The Ringer — a Los Angeles-based website run by former Grantland boss Bill Simmons — argued that daylight savings was an established public health risk.

Obviously, humanity has to count time — it’s one way we make order of our chaotic existence. But daylight saving time runs opposite to this idea: It …  literally creates chaos: Car crashes, workplace accidents, and even heart attacks are more likely to occur on the first Monday after daylight saving time than on most other days of the year. And it doesn’t even save energy or help farmers, both of which are common misconceptions. Why the hell are we even observing this tradition? …

So, congratulations to California for questioning societal norms and pushing us toward a more efficient future. It’s nice that in a world that increasingly feels like “House of Cards,” there’s a pocket of political activity that more resembles “The West Wing.” Take a bow, Assemblyman Kansen Chu. This is the type of sweeping reform that young political activists everywhere dream of.

According to a summary from the health committee, SB277:

“Eliminates non-medical exemptions from the requirement that children receive vaccines for certain infectious diseases prior to being admitted to any public or private elementary or secondary school, or day care center. Specifically, this bill:

1. “Deletes the exemption based on personal beliefs from the existing immunization requirement for children in child care and public and private schools. Deletes related law requiring a form to accompany a personal belief exemption (PBE).
2. “Exempts students enrolled in home-based private schools or in an independent study program from the existing immunization requirement.
3. “Permits the California Department of Public Health (DPH) to add diseases to the immunization requirements only if exemptions are allowed for both medical reasons and personal beliefs.”

Assemblyman Devon Mathis, who has been a vocal critic of SB277, said in a prepared statement, “This bill, and my opposition, is not about vaccines, it is about combating an overreaching government from infringing on our Constitutional Rights, Parental Rights, Religious Freedoms and protect the relationship between the patient and their chosen medical professional.”

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who voted yes on SB277 in the health committee vote, tweeted on Tuesday:

“#SB277 passes the Assembly Health Committee, 12-6. Proud to have voted AYE for science and children’s health. Next stop, Assembly floor.”

The bill now goes to the Assembly for consideration.

As CalWatchdog reported previously, supporters of SB 277 discovered that its original wording could be interpreted as unconstitutionally depriving some children of an education.

Last month, the ACLU began raising the constitutional alarm. Kevin G. Baker, legislative director of the ACLU of California’s Center for Advocacy and Policy, wrote the bill’s sponsors to suggest some possible alternatives, according to the Los Angeles Times: 

“In his letter, Baker suggested that a 16-month-old state law, AB 2109, should be given more of a chance to work before taking such a drastic step. That legislation requires health professionals to discuss the benefits and risks of immunization with parents before they are allowed to file belief exemptions, and it has already led to an increase in vaccination rates.“

Lawmakers, however, did not respond. Rather than taking such a circuitous path, they focused on honing SB 277 to a point where the force of the constitutional objections could simply be blunted. The core provisions of SB 277 went unchanged as legislators retooled its language. Co-authored by state Sens. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, and Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, the bill “would eliminate personal belief and religious exemptions for vaccines, and unvaccinated children could not attend public or private school in California,” as the San Jose Mercury News noted. Students barred from school attendance would, under the bill’s requirements, be homeschooled.

Narrow changes, big consequences

To evade the possibility of selective educational discrimination, however, Pan and Allen rewrote the bill to permit broader access to educational resources for unvaccinated kids. Summarizing the changes, California Healthline reported that one new provision allowed them to “enroll in private home-schooling programs that serve multiple families, rather than programs that serve just one family,” while another enabled them to “[p]articipate in independent study projects that are overseen by school districts but do not include classroom time.”

Moreover, a small but significant carve-out was created to allay some persistent concerns about the scope of legislative authority over vaccination. Legislators tweaked the bill “to include a new provision that would limit vaccinations to only those 10 vaccines currently required by California Department of Public Health,” according to the Bee. “Parents would be allowed to obtain a personal belief exemption for any vaccine added in the future.” Under state law, the personal belief exemption has been understood to encompass the religious belief exemption.

Although the changes impacting private schooling and independent study made the more immediate difference in terms of the bill’s prospects, the vaccine-limiting provision carried much greater legal significance. Critics of the bill had argued strenuously against eliminating California’s religious and personal belief exemptions altogether, without regard to changes in medical opinion or future legislative requirements.

More hurdles

Although SB 277 in amended form has now cleared the Senate Education Committee and will find stronger support as it heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee, further changes were predicted before its final form takes shape. “Several senators said additional amendments will likely be needed as the bill moves forward to ensure that unvaccinated kids are not denied the education guaranteed to them by the California Constitution,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “Several lawmakers said they would like to see more school options for those who aren’t immunized, other than home school and independent study.”

Additionally, the Chronicle reported, the bill may need approval by the Senate Appropriations Committee before moving to the full Senate, and requires five affirmative votes in the Judiciary Committee to proceed. “The five Democrats on the committee,” however, “are either supporters of the bill or have previously voted in favor of it.”

But a new investigation suggests which parents are actually more likely to seek vaccination waivers for their kids.

The scientists, technologists, and engineers who populate Silicon Valley and the California Bay Area deserve their reputation as innovators, building entire new economies on the strength of brains and imagination. But some of these people don’t seem to be vaccinating their children.

A Wired investigation shows that some children attending day care facilities affiliated with prominent Silicon Valley companies have not been completely vaccinated against preventable infectious diseases. At least, that’s according to a giant database from the California Department of Public Health, which tracks the vaccination rates at day care facilities and preschools in the state. We selected more than 20 large technology and health companies in the Bay Area and researched their day care offerings. Of 12 day care facilities affiliated with tech companies, six — that’s half — have below-average vaccination rates, according to the state’s data.

And those six have a level of measles vaccination that does not provide the “herd immunity” critical to the spread of the disease. Now, this data has limitations — most critically, it might not be current. But it also suggests an incursion of anti-science, anti-vaccine thinking in one of the smartest regions on Earth.

But before you reach any broad conclusions, watch out. People who understand math will see a flaw that makes the Wired report open to questions about overkill and exaggeration. Consider this sentence:

Of 12 day care facilities affiliated with tech companies, six — that’s half — have below-average vaccination rates, according to the state’s data.

So if you have 12 day-care facilities, how many would one logically expect to have below-average rates? That would be six — six below average, six above average.

Are vaccination rates awful at some tech firms’ day-care center? Wired makes that case about the facility run by iconic Pixar. But based on the numbers the magazine cites, its broader indictment of Silicon Valley doesn’t appear to hold up.

That’s why one of my favorite stories in many years was this December 2011 L.A. Times account of the student revolt over school lunches forced on them by Nanny State food fascists:

“It’s lunchtime at Van Nuys High School and students stream into the cafeteria to check out the day’s fare: black bean burgers, tostada salad, fresh pears and other items on a new healthful menu introduced this year by the Los Angeles Unified School District.

“But Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez don’t even bother to line up. Iraides said the school food previously made her throw up, and Mayra calls it ‘nasty, rotty stuff.’ So what do they eat? The juniors pull three bags of Flamin’ Hot Cheetos and soda from their backpacks. ….

“For many students, L.A. Unified’s trailblazing introduction of healthful school lunches has been a flop. Earlier this year, the district got rid of chocolate and strawberry milk, chicken nuggets, corn dogs, nachos and other food high in fat, sugar and sodium. Instead, district chefs concocted such healthful alternatives as vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles. ….

“’It’s nasty, nasty,’ said Andre, a member of InnerCity Struggle, an East L.A. nonprofit working to improve school lunch access and quality. …. ‘Like dog food,’ said Christian Campus, 14.”

A form of massive civil disobedience

Now a government report says LAUSD-style school-food policies championed by first lady Michelle Obama and the public-health establishment have triggered what can be called massive civil disobedience:

Here’s the current legal situation. As Megan McArdle has detailed at Bloomberg Businessweek, the rapidly growing $1.5 billion-dollar industry is about collide with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Since experts are not yet convinced that there are significant health risks to “smoking” e-cigarettes (or “vaping,” as they say), the campaign against the free public enjoyment of the devices has fallen back on a trinity of moralism, fearmongering and progressivism.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), for instance, is currently co-sponsoring the Protecting Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act. “We cannot risk undoing decades of progress in reducing youth smoking by allowing e-cigarette makers to target our kids,” she insists.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel deployed the same rhetoric in his own successful anti-e-cig campaign. “Having worked with the FDA,” he declared, “having encouraged them to take steps to protect individuals and children, they are usually an agency that leads from behind. And when it comes to the city of Chicago, when it comes to the people of the city of Chicago, when it comes to the children of the city of Chicago, I do not believe we should wait.”

Michael Bloomberg himself, of course, surprised no one by being the first mayor of a major American city to crack down on vaping. Sure enough, as the New York Post reported, “city Health Commissioner Tom Farley said allowing electronic cigs in public places would make smoking socially acceptable again among youths and undermine gains in curbing tobacco use. He said they look like regular cigarettes, mimic the action of smoking, and are popular with youths.”

And so, as McArdle explains, one of “the FDA’s most difficult decisions will be determining whether e-cigarettes will be a gateway product, encouraging young smokers to develop a nicotine habit that might lead to tobacco use. After all, many of the things that make e-cigarettes attractive to smokers make them even more attractive to minors.”

L.A. next front in ‘vape’ fight

A municipal vaping ban is now on the agenda for Los Angeles. A proposed ordinance to treat e-cigs like regular cigarettes is now headed to the L.A. City Council. “Lawmakers,” recounts the Los Angeles Times, “acted after Jonathan Fielding, director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said e-cigarettes threaten to make smoking socially acceptable after years of advocacy to discourage the habit. Young people who get hooked on the nicotine in e-cigarettes may then turn to tobacco use, he said.”

Can anything stop the regulation’s momentum? It’s possible that an appeal to logic and reason could prevail. At least one former surgeon general, Dr. Richard Carmona, has written forcefully against the ban, arguing that it would actually hurt anti-smoking efforts. In fact, he attributes his decision to join the board of NJOY, “the leading independent e-cigarette company,” because its “ambitions” are “to make obsolete the tobacco cigarette entirely.”

On the other hand, California’s social mores might do more to complicate life for anti-vape regulators. In the Los Angeles metro area, for instance, the public use of e-cigarettes is particularly appealing for a complex set of reasons. Take the city’s outdoor culture, permissive parenting, soft school discipline and widespread recreational marijuana use. Add tight municipal bans on cigarette smoking, and you’ve got all the makings of some broad opposition to e-cigarette restrictions.

At first blush, it would seem that the anti-vape crowd could rally public support based on reports that L.A. kids are using vapes to get high in class. But it’s one thing to prohibit, say, drinking alcohol at school — and another thing to impose such strictures on the general public. Plenty of people in Los Angeles still like to smoke, and not in the privacy of their own homes, either. It’s not difficult to find bars in town that have found careful, quiet ways around the city’s tough regulations.

Still, support for cigarette smoking in public spaces is probably not as strong as L.A.’s tacit support for discreet marijuana smoking. In a city where even smokers respect those who don’t want secondhand smoke anywhere near them, vapes offer everyone what some locals might describe as a more chill vibe.

Lax on pot but tough on e-cigs? Unlikely

Using e-cigs to deliver a marijuana high takes that unofficial agreement a step further. Conduct yourself with a minimum of self-control, and nobody in Los Angeles is apt to turn you in for leaving the house under the influence of pot. The huge number of “medical” dispensaries in the city — just a fraction of local pot suppliers — is a stunning testament to the strength of market demand for the drug. It’s not outlandish to conclude that in L.A., the pot industry and the e-cig industry are poised for a much closer partnership than ever had time to develop in, say, Chicago or New York. That means it’s harder in Los Angeles to fully associate e-cigs with regular cigarettes. In a perhaps unexpected way, the city’s fairly lax pot regime probably makes it harder to mobilize public compliance with e-cig bans in the spirit of “saving the children.”

That sets up the L.A. City Council with two hurdles. Not only does the anti-vaping ordinance have to pass in the first place; it then must be enforced. Of course, a cynic might say that today’s bad governance puts a great deal of energy into passing flavor-of-the-month legislation, but much less energy into dutifully executing the minute and detailed rules. California cities like Los Angeles are primed for widespread public disobedience of anti-vaping laws. L.A.’s experience with e-cigarettes may well speak to the larger issue of how long American politicians can build support around regulations that lack strong support from experts and citizens alike.

No way, as illustrated by a new report from state Auditor Elaine Howle on “high-risk” government programs that got cursory coverage from the Capitol press corps. The state teachers’ pension system, the prison system, emergency preparedness, computer systems and public health efforts are all found wanting. Those are some pretty crucial categories of government operations.

Here’s a sample of Howle’s warnings:

“The funding status of the Defined Benefit Program of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) has not improved, and it remains on the high-risk list. … The inability to adjust contributions, as well as poor investment returns due to economic recessions, have caused the funding ratio of the CalSTRS Defined Benefit Program to decrease from 98 percent in 2001 to 67 percent in 2012, well below the 80 percent considered fiscally sound. At the current contribution rate and actuarially estimated rate of return on investments, the Defined Benefit Program’s funding ratio will continue to drop and assets will eventually be depleted. Similarly, the State’s estimated accrued liability of $63.85 billion related to retiree health benefits is almost completely unfunded and continues to increase. …”

“We have added the 2011 realignment of funding and responsibility between the State and local governments as a new high-risk issue. Realignment shifts the funding of and responsibility for many criminal justice and social services programs from the State primarily to county governments. The funding for these programs totals approximately $6 billion. The State does not currently have access to reliable and meaningful data concerning the realignment. As a result, the impact of realignment cannot be fully evaluated at this time. Even so, initial data indicate that local jails may not have adequate capacity and services to handle the influx of inmates caused by realignment.”

Infrastructure, workfore prep, emergency records all weak

“Maintaining and improving the State’s infrastructure remains on our list of high-risk issues. The State’s investments in transportation and water supply and flood management infrastructure have not kept up with demands. The California Transportation Commission estimated that the State faces a funding shortfall of more than $290 billion to adequately maintain its transportation infrastructure for the 10-year period from 2011 through 2020. Similarly, the State’s water supply and flood management infrastructure requires significant investments. …”

“The State continues to face challenges related to its workforce and succession planning as the proportion of employees approaching retirement age increases. While state agencies we reviewed had generally developed workforce and succession plans to ensure continuity of critical services, we identified notable exceptions. Further, with the recent reorganization combining the State Personnel Board and the California Department of Personnel Administration into the California Department of Human Resources, the State faces the general risk associated with this type of structural change.”

“The State’s emergency preparedness remains an area of high risk. Two key California agencies that oversee statewide emergency management — the California Department of Public Health (Public Health) and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) — lack fully developed strategic plans to guide their emergency preparedness efforts. “

Home to Silicon Valley still a joke on IT front

Then there’s the hardy perennial: the state’s computer klutziness.

“The high costs of certain projects and the failure of others continues to make the State’s oversight of information technology (IT) projects an area of high risk. As of July 2013 the California Department of Technology (CalTech) reported that 46 IT projects with total costs of more than $4.9 billion were under development. In our August 2011 high risk report, we discussed four large IT projects that would have a major impact on state operations — the State Controller’s Office’s 21st Century Project, the Judicial Branch’s California Court Case Management System, the California Department of Finance’s Financial Information System for California, and Corrections’ Strategic Offender Management System. With this update, we examined the status of these projects, as well as the California Department of Motor Vehicles’ IT Modernization Project. We found that three of the five IT projects experienced major problems that require either part of the project or the entire project to be suspended or even terminated. “

“Finally, Public Health and the California Department of Health Care Services (Health Care Services) remain on the list of agencies exhibiting high-risk characteristics. Public Health continues to face challenges and weaknesses in program administration and is slow to implement audit recommendations with a direct impact on public health. Its unresolved recommendations have increased from 20 to 23 in the past two years. Many of these recommendations have a direct impact on public health and safety and, if not implemented, could adversely affect the State.”

This doesn’t exactly paint a picture of a well-run government. Somehow I doubt The New York Times or any of the other Jerry Brown fans in East Coast newsrooms will get around to mentioning any of this.

By Katy Grimes

The Senate Health and Human Services Subcommittee No. 3 conducted a hearing last week and discussed the current status of the the Department of Developmental Services and its controversial developmental centers.

At the hearing, the Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended the Legislature create an independent Office of Inspector General to strengthen the oversight of the Sonoma Development Center. And the LAO recommended the cost of $500,000 to $1 million to do this come out of the DDS budget.

A report last year found the Sonoma Developmental Center was rife with licensing violations, including sexual assault, stun gun injuries, overall abusive treatment of the developmentally disabled residents, failure to provide appropriate medical treatment, and an unsafe environment. “Individual freedoms have been denied or restricted without justification,” the report read.

Past hearings have covered the horrific nature of abuses on some residents living in the developmental centers, but changes are so slow in coming, and ongoing allegations of abuse continue.

Following the discovery, the Legislature held hearings last year and demanded corrective action. But little has actually changed, according to lengthy testimony at an October hearing.

At a hearing in November, DDS Director Terri Delgadillo said “corrective action is ongoing.” She added that the agency is paying consultants to advise on corrective actions.

But lobbyists for the developmentally disabled told me that 10 years ago the agency did the same thing and hired consultants, but never implemented the recommended corrective actions.

What are the issues?

One important issue is that many developmentally disabled people living in state institutions are older and do not have family members who oversee the quality of their care or advocate for them.  When the state closed several developmental centers decades ago, some older parents were against the closings.

Most of these parents and their disabled children were older and were afraid of the unknown, and how the emerging community “group homes” located in residential neighborhoods would work for them. Their children were born at a different time, and had not been allowed to attend regular school, as now is the common practice.

“People were cruel to them and life was difficult,” one mother recently told me.

Shielded from the cruel public, ostensibly living with “well-trained and caring  staff,” the developmental centers seemed like the best option at the time. Unfortunately, most of the institutions have historically lacked oversight.

The Sonoma Developmental Center, located in the town of Glen Ellen, has more than 500 residents with developmental disabilities. Recently, four of the center’s 10 Intermediate Care Facility units lost their federal certification based on the multiple incidences of abuse, neglect and poor caregiving.

What is the DDS?

Despite cases of abuse, sexual assault, injuries and even death, California’s state run institutions for the developmentally disabled are continually defended by DDS officials.

The DDS is a massive state agency which claims to have historically inadequate budgets. But many experts in the state say the agency could cut $500 million from its annual budget just by getting rid of the antiquated institutions that many developmentally disabled have lived in for decades.

The DDS employs 6,000 people and maintains a budget of $4.7 billion, of which $550 million funds five state-run residential care developmental centers.

Institutions not needed

According to experts who care for the developmentally disabled, the institutions are not needed because there are plenty of licensed care homes in the communities that take care of a smaller number of people more efficiently.  These homes are usually located near the residents’ families, allowing family members to visit on a regular basis. Residents of these facilities attend local day programs, sporting and entertainment events, and have easy access to community health care.

Living in the smaller licensed care homes, they are seen by more people in the community so there is less chance that issues of abuse will go unnoticed.

Many of the experts say the DDS is unwilling to give up the developmental centers because it doesn’t want to lose such a large part of the agency budget. This may be a serious enough issue. The Legislature will need to step in and force the closures. The loss of federal certification and funds should be an indicator enough that this antiquated system needs a long-overdue overhaul.