The latest of these has caused extra heartburn for county sheriffs — a sharp uptick in illegal drug use and trafficking. While the state of California struggles to pass judicial scrutiny, the big decreases in sentencing and prison time authorized by Proposition 47 have gone into effect.

“Judges expect that tens of thousands of Californians may seek to have their felony convictions reduced,” reported the Los Angeles Times. “Courts have had to scramble to handle the surge in workload, and some agencies are planning to ask for more public funding to cover the added duties.” In Long Beach, said City Prosecutor Doug Haubert, the changes have approached “the point of absurdity.” In Humboldt County, claimed ABC Channel 23, Prop. 47 created “havoc on the streets.”

Against that uneasy backdrop, criminals and wrongdoers involved in the illicit drug trade have begun gaming the system to appease judges, using technicalities and loopholes to supply the growing inmate and gang demand for hard drugs.

Unintended consequences

Earlier in the year it had become clear that many local jails were unprepared to handle the volume of incarcerated felons directed their way from state prisons by Brown’s “realignment” program. The Legislature passed some prison reforms, but these sometimes addressed challenges at the relative margins of the realignment problem.

In one instance, legislators sent to Brown a bill, AB966, that would eventually give free condoms to state prison inmates. Sexual activity in prison is not permitted by law, but HIV and AIDS have spread anyway. AB966, known as the Prisoner Protections for Family and Community Health Act, tasked the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation “to develop and institute a five-year plan to make the prophylactics available in all 34 麻将牌 of its adult prison facilities,” as UPI reported.

Now, county sheriffs have raised the alarm over the way drugs have widened the scope of realignment’s unintended consequences. In an Associated Press report, officials went on record that, in addition to bringing “tougher inmates to jails,” realignment has created an opportunity for offenders to use jails as a revolving door for the drug trade.

The culprit is “a provision allowing parole violators to serve 10 days in the local jail instead of months in prison.” This rule, dubbed “flash incarceration,” was “intended to give authorities a way to avoid sending parolees back to state prisons.” But, as AP reported, it has been “used by some offenders to bring drugs, hidden inside their bodies, into county jails,” according to state sheriffs’ offices.

A shifting target

Some uncertainty has arisen as to how the abuse is to be properly measured. While Adam Christianson, president of the California State Sheriff’s Association, called the drug spike a veritable “freight train,” AP noted counties could have an interest in playing up realignment’s adverse and unintended consequences, whether out of a desire for increased funding or decreased responsibility for adapting poorly to the state’s halting reforms.

Nevertheless, California officials cannot get around the fact that realignment has caused more unlawful activity, on pace to grow unless regulations change. Reform advocates had expressed enthusiasm last month that the Golden State had begun to turn the tide on incarceration, with voters approving Prop. 47’s downgrade of nonviolent felonies, including drug possession, to misdemeanors.

“As many as 10,000 people could be eligible for early release from state prisons, and it’s expected that courts will annually dispense around 40,000 fewer felony convictions,” observed Matt Sledge at the Huffington Post, in a report characterizing Prop. 47 as a blow to prisons and the drug war.

Rather than a clear-cut victory against an out-of-control incarceration regime, however, California’s conflicting and competing criminal justice reforms could better be described as a policy target that keeps shifting in uncomfortable ways.

As the Los Angeles Times reported, the judiciary has kept the pressure on state officials to push even more felons out from behind bars. Federal judges gave the state until the new year to roll out parole hearings for second-time felons who have served half their prison time.

Policies set in motion by Brown designed to satisfy the courts “cut California’s prison population by 1,000 inmates,” the Times cautioned, “meeting short-term goals even though state projections show inmate numbers will continue to rise.”

By John Hrabe

When Grammy-award winning funk legends Earth, Wind and Fire performed at Cal State Fullerton’s 2011 Front and Center fundraising event for the Cal State Fullerton Philanthropic Foundation, Honda Center attendees were promised a “winter entertainment extravaganza.”

And the foundation spared no expense to deliver on its promises: $225,000 for entertainment, $249,424 in facility costs, $118,173 on food and beverages and $30,253 in other direct expenses. According to its 2010-11 tax return, the foundation spent more than $622,850, or 78 percent of the event’s gross receipts, to treat each guest like “a shining star, no matter who you are.”

The Orange County Register’s People Watch columnist recounted the festivities as one of the O.C.’s major social events of the month.

“Of all California State University Fullerton’s ‘Front & Center’ events I’ve attended at the Honda Center, I have to say that Saturday night’s headliner, Earth, Wind & Fire, took top honors for pure entertainment,” raved the Register’s Donna Bunce. “Entertainers such as Chicago, the Doobie Brothers, Natalie Cole, Tony Bennett, Kenny Loggins, Reba McEntire, Stevie Nicks, and the Steve Miller Band performed some great shows, but the Grammy Award-winning and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees on Saturday electrified the audience of 9,000, 960 of whom attended the black-tie dinner and silent auction preceding the show.”

And the 2011 event wasn’t an isolated incident. Over the past two years, the Cal State Fullerton Philanthropic Foundation has hosted more than a dozen high-overhead fundraising events that have returned pennies on the dollar to the university. More than $1.41 million, or 59 percent of Fullerton’s gross receipts, has been spent on facility costs, food and beverages, entertainment and other direct expenses, according to Schedule G of the foundation’s Form 990 tax returns.

Cal State Fullerton did not respond to email requests for comment on the foundation’s spending practices.

Cal State Foundations: Slush Funds for Presidents

Fullerton isn’t alone. In fact, it’s doing better than some Cal State foundations, which lose money every year on fundraising ticket sales. As Cal State administrators cry poor from state budget cuts and campaign for November’s multi-billion dollar-tax increases, they continue to use college foundations to pay for luxurious parties, cocktail receptions, golf tournaments, and star-studded “winter extravaganzas,” all under the auspices of raising money for the college.

“It is my belief that the foundations have always operated as a slush-fund for presidents,” Kevin Wehr, president of the Sacramento State University chapter of the California Faculty Association, told CalWatchDog.com earlier this year. Foundation tax records support Wehr’s observation.

In May 2012, the Scripps Howard News Service reviewed tax filings for more than 37,987 charities and other nonprofit groups that collected at least $1 million in revenue. The average fundraising expenses for the 22,598 nonprofits that reported such figures was “about 7 cents for every dollar they raised.” That means Cal State Fullerton’s 2011 Front and Center event exceeded the national average 11 times over.

Foundations Facing Greater Scrutiny with New Pay Policy

Earlier this year, the Cal State Board of Trustees adopted a new executive compensation policy that shifted the financial burden of presidential pay raises from taxpayer funds to nonprofit foundations. In so doing, Cal State has increased the need for public scrutiny of its little-known nonprofit auxiliary groups.

Trustees are expected this week to authorize spending nearly $85,000 in nonprofit funds on bonuses for three incoming campus presidents. College officials defend the controversial practice as needed in order to retain executives with proven fundraising abilities.

“If we can pay a little extra to a president who’s going to go out and do more to bring in money for the university, students benefit and the community benefits,” Larry Sharp, the executive director of the Philanthropic Foundation at Cal State San Bernardino recently told the Los Angeles Times.

Then again, how successful are Cal State’s fundraising efforts?

“Front and Center” Winter Entertainment Extravaganza

Billed on its website as “the annual winter entertainment extravaganza,” Fullerton’s Front and Center event was created to “cultivate prospective supporters for the university, and provide funds for academic enrichment and student scholarships such as the President’s Scholars program.” The school’s public affairs department  considers it “the university’s signature community outreach and fundraising event for scholarship programs.”

In reality, Fullerton’s retains only a small percentage of the gross receipts for scholarships, while giving top administrators the chance to mingle with celebrities.

When Fullerton’s president Milton Gordon announced his retirement, a school profile highlighted the long list of celebrity guests who have “shared the stage with Gordon” at Front and Center events, including “Walter Cronkite, Tony Bennett, Bill Cosby, Natalie Cole, Michael Eisner, Christopher Reeve, Stevie Nicks, Reba McIntyre and John Lithgow.” In the above picture, Gordon celebrates with McEbntyre.

In 2010, the Steve Miller Band impressed attendees, while “Criminal Minds” TV actress and Cal State Fullerton alumna Kirsten Vangsness served as emcee. Of the $629,502 in gross receipts, two-thirds of the revenue went toward expenses, with $102,434 spent on facility costs, $88,774 on food and beverages, $204,128 on entertainment and $20,122 in other direct expenses.

“Front & Center has ensured that hundreds of exceptional students achieve their dream of obtaining a four-year college education,” explains the event website. The school’s tax returns tell a different story. If Cal State Fullerton reduced its fundraising expenses by half, or spent just $705,000 in event overhead, the school could have provided more than 100 students with full scholarships this fall.

Tower Foundation Fundraising Events: $53,349 in the Red

While Fullerton administrators revel in celebrity entertainment, San Jose State University hits the links.

SJSU’s President’s Cup is billed as the university’s marquee annual fundraising event. Guests are entitled to a day of golf at the “pristine” Cinnabar Hills Golf Club, with the chance to win up to $1,000 in multiple cash contests before enjoying a hosted reception and “a festive banquet featuring the fabulous wines of Madorom Vineyard of Napa.”

“Your enjoyment and satisfaction are of the utmost importance,” promises the 2012 brochure. In addition to raising funds for athletes, “Another top priority is to provide each and every participant with a memorable day of golf, fun, and camaraderie.”

According to its most recent tax return, San Jose State University’s Tower Foundation lost $14,022 on its four fundraising events in the 2010 tax year. Since 2008, the Tower Foundation has reported $53,349 in losses on ticket sales to its fundraising events. Foundation officials admitted that ticket sales don’t always cover event expenses.

“We don’t always expect ticket sales to cover all expenses,” confirmed Larry Carr, SJSU’s Associate Vice President of Public Affairs. “But, sponsorships and donations (also shown on the tax return) at the event make each one of these events profitable, netting additional funding for the programs the fundraisers support.”

“Fundraising events raise money not just from the sale of tickets to attend the event, but also from other activities that take place during the event,” Carr added.

CalWatchDog.com asked a professional fundraising consultant whether it was normal to lose money on fundraising ticket sales. “If I lost $14,000 a year, my clients would and should fire me,” said Justin Matheson, managing partner of AimPoint Inc, a fundraising firm with a combined three decades of fundraising experience for political and nonprofit clients.

Portantino: Practices Defy Explanation

The high-overhead fundraising practices could draw greater scrutiny from the state Legislature, which recently approved legislation to cap presidential salaries after Cal State Trustees failed to act.

“The tone-deaf nature of these practices defies explanation and continue to negatively reflect on these institutions,” said Assemblymember Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, one of legislature’s leading critics of wasteful spending. “Their first responsibility is to our students, not fundraisers that lose money and an effort to find every loophole to increase president pay.”

CalWatchdog.com has previously reported on the ethical problems arising from Cal State’s new executive compensation policy. Cal State presidents commonly maintain a powerful influence over foundation boards, which ethics experts say, creates a conflict of interest.

In May, following several CalWatchDog.com reports on inconsistencies in executive compensation data, Cal State Chancellor Charles Reed admitted that the system had “erroneously calculated” the total compensation for university officials on past IRS documents.

———————————-

YouTube: Earth, Wind and Fire perform at Front and Center in 2011:

Milton Gordon with the Doobie Brothers:

Milton Gordon with Tony Bennett:

Milton Gordon with Natalie Cole:

Milton Gordon with Kenny Loggins: