But education reformers warned that pent-up demand for raises from powerful local teacher unions could lead school boards and superintendents to divert LCFF dollars to compensation.

The LAO report doesn’t come out and say that is what is happening. Instead, it implies many districts appear to be going through the motions and trying to create the appearance of compliance.

The whole point of the law, remember, is to provide direct, tangible, quantifiable additional assistance to English learners and struggling students. That this intent is not being honored is plain in two of the LAO’s key conclusions:

Districts Rarely Differentiate Between New and Ongoing Actions. In most LCAPs, we found that districts are not distinguishing between actions that are a continuation of efforts from the prior year and those that are new for the upcoming school year. Without such differentiation, we could not determine whether districts were using the new funding generated under LCFF to pursue new actions to improve performance or to continue or expand prior activities.

Districts Often Fail To Provide Sufficient Information on EL/LI Student Services. Often, districts’ descriptions of services for EL/LI students consist only of recapping the actions they will pursue on behalf of all students and indicating those actions also will benefit EL/LI students. In addition, few districts provide clear or compelling rationales for using their supplemental and concentration funds on a districtwide and schoolwide basis.

A reform? Or a disguised political favor?

This gets to a point that Cal Watchdog and nearly nobody else in the California media has made since the LCFF moved quickly through the Legislature to enactment two years ago. If this was the biggest change in state education policy in nearly 20 years — since classroom-size reduction agreed to by Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature — it was unlikely to pass without the tacit support of the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, the most powerful special interests both in the Capitol and in most cities around the state.

It is difficult to look at the failure of local school districts to properly account for LCFF dollars and not wonder if what was billed as reform was actually a way to do a disguised favor for the urban and Central Valley chapters of the CTA and CFT — the ones with the most English-language learners.

The LAO said that some of the 50 school districts it surveyed tried harder than others to meet the letter of state law with the funds. But how many of the 50 actually complied with the law’s requirements?

The LAO said not a one.

Along with then-Mayor Jerry Sanders and then-Councilman Carl DeMaio, Faulconer, 47, was a key member of a cadre of San Diego GOP pols who brought sweeping reforms to City Hall in recent years. But in this campaign, he did all he could to obscure his party membership. He wooed the police officers’ union and celebrated its support. He defended gay marriage and in general avoided every last social conservative issue.

And while he won decisively, it’s worth noting that Faulconer beat an inexperienced, second-tier Democratic opponent. David Alvarez, 33, only became a known figure in city politics in 2010, when he won a City Council seat that traditionally goes to union-backed Latinos. The list of San Diego Democrats with higher profiles and better resumes is a long one: former Councilwoman Donna Frye, Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, state Sens. Ben Hueso and Marty Block, Rep. Susan Davis and interim Mayor Todd Gloria.

Faulconer will serve the remaining 33 months of the term that former Rep. Bob Filner won over DeMaio in 2012. Filner  resigned in August 2013 after an ugly sexual-harassment scandal.

Faulconer, a former communications consultant and San Diego State University student body president, will face tough sledding with any conservative reform agenda. He is certain to be replaced on an interim basis on the City Council by a Democrat, giving them a veto-proof 6-3 majority until Faulconer’s council term ends in December.

Alvarez and at least two of those other Democrats are interested in or ready to nullify or impede three voter-approved reforms, starting with a money-saving measure in which city workers compete with private firms for the right to provide certain government services.

And in the June primary and November general election, Democrats have a solid shot at winning Faulconer’s coastal seat and a central San Diego district configured to encourage the election of an Asian-American council member. The Republican now representing the latter district, Lorie Zapf, is running for Faulconer’s old seat.

Democrats may soon hold 7 of 9 San Diego council seats

By year’s end, Democrats could have seven of the nine City Council seats.

Even with Faulconer’s election, many business interests already have given up on the City Council as a constructive force for job creation and economic growth. They’re using ballot measures to try to overturn City Council decisions to vastly increase fees on commercial development and to rezone a shipyard industrial area in a way that business owners say will destroy thousands of jobs.

Direct democracy appears to be their only chance of getting big things done going forward. San Diego’s parallels with California at large are plain. A well-crafted, conservative ballot measure can still win passage, if voters believe it is constructive or in their best interests.

As for Faulconer, he may be forced to play defense until his 2016 re-election bid — fighting to protect the reforms that until 2012 made San Diego seem a poster city for small-government activism.

By Katy Grimes

It’s the first day of May. If you haven’t noticed, the California Democratic Supermajority is killing all reform efforts. And the targets are not just Republican bills.

Just yesterday, the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality killed  a bill which would have stopped the California Air Resources Board from assessing a very expensive administrative fee on California colleges for implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

SB 497, by Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Irvine,  said the committee’s failure to approve the bill will likely result in fewer students being able to attend California’s higher education institutions, and higher tuition costs for those who do.

The Senate Education Committee killed SB 441, by Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, which would merely have suggested school districts around the state to assess the performance of teachers and school administrators.

This week SB 453, by Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, was also killed. SB 453 would have allowed school districts to make staffing decisions based on performance evaluations and factors other than a teacher’s simple date of hire.

“Similar legislation introduced by Senator Huff three years ago was stopped by the Senate Pro-Tem (Darrell Steinberg) and denied a vote on the Senate Floor to enable a ‘cooling off’ period so more so called ‘stakeholder’ meetings could take place,” Huff said in a statement after the hearing. “A year later, the Chair of the Senate Education Committee stopped the bill from moving forward, claiming that more time was needed to work on the issue. This year the Democrats have once again walked away from kids.”

Democrats on the Assembly Public Safety Committee blocked legislation by Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway, to improve the supervision of registered sex offenders once released from state prison.

Assembly Bill 1334 would have the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation supervise the parole of all registered sex offenders upon release from prison.

“Under the Governor’s public safety realignment law, only sex offenders that are determined to be ‘high risk’ are subject to state parole supervision,” Conway said in a statement. “Those who are not considered ‘high risk’ – including felons convicted of sexual batter, lewd and lascivious conduct with a child 14 years of age or older, or the production of child pornography – are instead released to community supervision.  They are also not subject to GPS monitoring.”

And the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6, killed an important transparency bill Tuesday before it was even heard. Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R- Modesto, hadn’t even testified on ACA 4 before the bill was sent to the suspense file by the committee. This tactic prevented the committee members from even voting for or against increasing transparency in state government.

ACA 4 would have ended the last-minute gut-and-amend process and require that proposed legislation be in print for 72 hours before a vote can be taken. This would allow lawmakers and the public to review and analyze bills before they are votes on.

The Senate Committee on Public Employment and Retirement voted last week to kill two bills which would have preserved the state retiree health care benefits for public employees by reigning in escalating costs. SB 774 and SB 775, by Sen. Mimi Walters, were killed on party line votes.

And earlier this week, the Assembly Public Safety Committee refused to pass two tough on crime bills, AB 1123 and AB 63, by Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, which sought to increase penalties for gang members and for parolees who remove their GPS tracking devices. The bills, were killed on party-line votes with Republicans in support and Democrats in opposition.

This is just a sampling. There are many other reform bills that have been killed. Next I’ll highlight some of the bad bills being passed.

By Katy Grimes

In 2012, the state Legislature passed 80 budget “spot” bills — empty bills with no details. Such measures just sit on a shelf and await last-minute bill language, then are put forward for late-night passage on the last day of the budget session.

These are often the most controversial bills of each session. When lawmakers use them to avoid the legislative process, which requires committee hearings for all bills, it is clear that their goal is to avoid transparency and public involvement.

This has long been the norm. It has arguably been encouraged since the 2010 adoption of Propositions 25 and 26 into the state Constitution, allowing the Legislature to pass a budget on a simple majority vote and requiring a  supermajority vote to pass fees and taxes by the Legislature, respectively. Lawmakers routinely take major policy changes and potential tax increases and drop them in trailer bill language.

Gorell and other Assembly Republicans target ‘waste, fraud and abuse’

To counter this practice, Assembly Republicans are pushing budget reform and  transparency measures.

ACA 11 by Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, is intended to open up the budget process to lawmakers and the public.

“Waste, fraud and abuse is rampant,” Gorell said at a recent meeting with the press. “The Legislature has significantly abandoned its responsibility. This gets us going back in the right direction.”

ACA 11 would:

* require budget bills to be available to the public for at least three days before passage;

* limit the definition of a budget bill to one passed each year;

* mandate that trailer bills be identified in the main budget bill, and that they be in their final form in order to be passed;

* require the Legislature to convene a one-month session in July of even-numbered years to conduct program oversight and review all state programs on a rotating basis.

“There have been 1,850 bills introduced this cycle,” Gorell said. “Term limits have made the Legislature bill-centric. By mandating one month out of 24 for oversight, this forcibly requires all members of the Legislature to comply.”

Additionally, in the event of a fiscal emergency declaration by the governor, ACA 11 would require the Legislature to pass bills to address that emergency within 45 days. If the emergency bills are not passed within the 45-day deadline, the governor would be authorized to make cuts to the general fund by executive order.

Lack of transparency in the budget process

Advocates of more transparency in state government are very critical of the spot-bill process.  Recently, the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation gave California a “D” grade on its transparency report card on how it made legislative information available to the public.

California received an “F” grade when it comes to government spending transparency, according to “Following the Money 2013: How the States Rank on Providing Online Access to Government Spending Data,” the fourth annual report of its kind by the CALPIRG Education Fund.

Oddly, Gov. Jerry Brown shut down California’s old transparency website in 2011. Information on state contracts is now managed by the Department of General Services eProcurement branch in a fox-guarding-the-henhouse scenario.

In addition to ACA 11, several other Assembly bills address the lack of transparency in state government:

ACA 1 by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, would hold unelected agencies accountable for the regulations they create.

AB 289 by Assemblyman Brian Nestande, R-Palm Desert, would require the governor to submit a report listing the state’s key liabilities along with his budget proposal each year. These liabilities would include unfunded pension obligations and infrastructure debt, which are often glossed over in annual budget debates.

Passage of AB 54 by Gorrell, would allow ACA 4 from 2009 by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, part of a budget deal with Republicans, to the June 3, 2014 ballot. ACA4 is now scheduled for the November 2014 ballot but is anticipated to be postponed again.

Gorell said he has spoken with some Democratic lawmakers about the need to change a flawed process. “Budget reform is not alien to Democrats. But it’s an important vote for Republicans to play this year.”

Gorrell added, “Strange things happen in this building.”

By Chris Reed

Gov. Jerry Brown’s eagerness for California to be the first state to implement the federal Affordable Care Act is being reported matter-of-factly by state newspapers. Completely absent is any big-picture explanation of what this will mean for health providers, companies and individuals in the Golden State. We’re less than a year away from the state implementing policies that give employers a financial incentive to stop providing health coverage and that give individuals, especially the young, an incentive to not buy health insurance. I wrote about these enormous looming headaches last week for the U-T San Diego editorial page:

• Beginning next Jan. 1, most companies with at least 50 full-time employees have to offer health insurance. But if they don’t, the fine is a pittance -– $2,000 per employee per year –- compared with the cost of providing health insurance. This creates a gigantic incentive for businesses to drop health coverage and push their employees toward getting insurance though government-run exchanges set up by Obamacare. If a struggling company could swiftly become a prosperous one by offloading 70 percent or more of the cost of providing health coverage, many thousands are going to do it. Some might face shareholder suits if they don’t.

• Also beginning next January, individuals without employer-provided health insurance will face fines under an income-based formula that mandates a penalty of less than $1,000 for those making under $40,000 a year. That $40,000 is significantly higher than the median household income for adults younger than 35, a subset that’s much healthier than older adults. All adults will have an incentive to only buy health insurance when they get sick; under Obamacare, they can no longer be rejected for pre-existing conditions. But these young, healthy adults will have a gigantic incentive.

Aren’t these angles, yunno, news? Not to most of the media in the Golden State, which focus on the logistical headaches of setting up the state health exchange in which people shop online for insurance. Why not focus on the larger problems with the Affordable Care Act? No idea, but my working theory is that not just sheep but incompetent sheep follow the herd.

Want an appointment? Tough luck

How bad is this refusal to say a discouraging word about Obamacare? Consider this angle, which should be a front-page story and which invariably surprises people when I mention it to them:

“California already has both shortages of family doctors in most regions and the nation’s oldest cohort of family doctors, with nearly 30 percent older than 60. If you add 2 million people to those being treated by these family physicians –- the minimum California increase expected in 2014 because of Obamacare -– what happens? It becomes far harder to get an appointment, and the headache gets progressively worse as more aging family doctors retire.”

This has gotten some coverage from the Golden State’s media. But given the importance of health care in everyone’s lives, one would think it would get far, far more coverage. We already have a shortage of family doctors in most parts of the state — and it’s a shortage that’s about to get far worse because of physician retirements and Obamacare.

Huge news? Of course.

But not to the sheep in the herd.

By KATY GRIMES

An Assembly committee voted unanimously on Wednesday to pass a bill that would disincorporate the charter for the Southern California city of Vernon.

AB 46, authored by Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles), takes an approach that clearly concerns many who believe the decision should lie with a vote of local residents — all 96 of them.

The push for the disincorporation of Vernon began after the former city administrator, Donal O’Callaghan, last October was indicted by a Los Angeles County grand jury on three felony counts of conflict of interest and misappropriation of public funds. It is the third time in recent history that a Vernon city official has been charged with public corruption.

The California attorney general’s office also has been investigating Vernon after charges were levied against the city’s officials of high salaries, lofty pension costs and lavish travel bills for former and current officials.

Spilling out into the hallways, the hearing room overflowed with several hundred supporters and opponents, leading Capitol Sergeants to open the overflow room upstairs.

“Vernon is a city whose corruption is the worst we’ve seen in the state,” said Pérez as he urged members of the Committee on Local Government to support his bill calling for the dissolution of the city. “The responsibility is ours to act now,” added Pérez, whose district includes Vernon. “We have the authority and the moral obligation to clean this up.”

Joining Perez in support of Vernon’s disincorporation was Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and supporters from the surrounding cities of Boyle Heights, Maywood and Huntington Park.

Vernon’s Defense

Gene Erbin, a Sacramento attorney representing Vernon, testified on behalf of the city and said that the bill was unconstitutional. He questioned the Legislature’s legal authority to remove the charter of a charter city. There were no city officials present at the hearing.

Erbin explained to the committee that using “classic special legislation, Vernon was created in 1905, but did not become a charter city until 1988,” for the purpose of unapologetically promoting the city to manufacturing companies and businesses.

Erbin warned that if Vernon is disincorporated, the city’s 1,800 businesses and 55,000 employees will probably have to leave the state, and not just the area, because of Vernon’s special incentives for particular businesses. “Ask why the businesses located in Vernon didn’t locate in Los Angeles County,” Erbin said.

Erbin asked the committee to hold the bill while the city is engaged in “serious efforts to reform,” and told the committee that there has been only one criminal conviction. Vernon has put up a special Web site to defend itself: SaveVernonJobs.com.

Constitutional Issues

A lobbyist who represents another California city quietly explained to me at the hearing that Charter cities have much more control over their business affairs than general law cities. He said Vernon adopted a specific charter that outlines how its government operates, explaining the predominance of manufacturing and industrial types of businesses. The charter leads many to the question of constitutionality of Pérez’s bill to disincorporate Vernon.

The Los Angeles Times reported, “Some experts said valid legal questions exist about whether the state can disband a charter city. The state Constitution affords special home-rule powers to charter cities, which Vernon could invoke in its defense, said Michael Jenkins, a local government attorney and an adjunct professor at the USC School of Law.”

Business owners, employees and labor organizers spoke on behalf of Vernon, and said Pérez’s bill would cause a tremendous loss of jobs. Several talked about the reform process, and said that Vernon can be reformed.

Peter Corselli, a manager at U.S. Growers Cold Storage in Vernon, said the company has been in Vernon for 60 years, and warned that businesses are planning on leaving the state. “We need to maintain the stability of our economic environment,” said Corselli. “This bill is creating havoc. The sooner this bill dies, the better.”

Committee Chairman Cameron Smyth, R-Santa Clarita, asked Perez to address the issue of jobs and businesses leaving if Vernon is disbanded. “No one takes jobs more seriously than I,” said Pérez. The Speaker said he has been working with stakeholders and said that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the body in authority of Vernon should the city be disincorporated, has the ability to allow Vernon to keep its charter should it choose. But Pérez stressed that the decades-long corruption needed to come to an end.

Assemblyman Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) described Vernon as “a long-running joke” in the local government community and invoked the uprising in Libya as a comparison.

Assemblyman Chris Norby (R-Fullerton) shared his frustration in trying to contact Vernon city officials to discuss the issues. Norby said he had alternatives to disincorporation to present to the council, but, “I never met with any of the council — they just kept sending lobbyists and lawyers.”

Committee members commended Pérez for having the courage to take on the issue.

“Enough is enough,” said Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville). “The day of reckoning for Vernon is today.”

Each of the seven legislators on the Local Government Committee voted to support Pérez, who reiterated his promise to add provisions to the legislation to protect businesses.

The bill is headed to the Assembly floor for a vote.

UPDATED 8:15 p.m.

By KATY GRIMES

As nearly 2,000 Republicans from around the state met in Sacramento over the weekend for the California Republican Party Convention, the elephant in every room was the divide within the party. The convention was not without plenty of drama, including bungled public relations moments, opposing Republican factions fighting, outbursts from legislators, policy debates and even several attempts to silence media coverage.

Chaos erupted as hundreds of Republican Party convention attendees and delegates arrived at the Saturday luncheon to hear key-note speaker, conservative pollster and pundit Frank Luntz. Confused volunteers shuffled members of the media off to the side of the room, explaining that “proprietary” information would be covered and the media were not going to be allowed in.

After several members of the media challenged the decision, heated words were exchanged with incoming state party Chairman Tom Del Becarro. However, he seemed to smooth over the misunderstanding calmly, and agreed to let the media remain during Luntz’s speech. The media were told by Republican Party Communications Director Mark Standriff that Luntz would just revise his speech instead.

However, when Luntz began to speak, he said he decided to stick with the original plan and talk about how the GOP should use words.

Luntz announced that he didn’t want the California Republican Party to take the heat for the decision. And he told the media it was his idea to close the meeting to the press so he could have a frank discussion with the Republican attendees. However, he said he decided that nothing he was going to impart was a secret, “and the Republican Party has nothing to hide.”

The evening before, several journalists reported that they were removed from another meeting much the same way. While Luntz appeared willing to take one for the team, not many were buying the explanation.

After he told a few Jerry Brown and Hillary Clinton jokes to loosen the crowd up, Luntz moved on the subject of his speech, and the words he said that Republicans need to know.

• * “Imagine.” Luntz said he believed in pulling forms of communication, not pushing, and added that rhetorical questions are important for communicating.
• * “No excuses.” Luntz told Republicans, “We want someone to stand up and look us straight in the eyes. If you have to read a speech, you are failing.” And Luntz specifically told candidates to stop reading speeches. “Stop reading and start communicating to people.”

Audience Interaction

Instead of standing on the stage behind a podium, Luntz wore an ear microphone and walked around the room, talking directly to the crowd. He often made fun of his own appearance, and publicly embarrassed those who had not silenced the ringers on cell phones.  At one point in the speech, Luntz took the cell phone from one audience member after it began to ring loudly, and handed it to a 19-year-old young man. “I’ll pay you $20 to change his ring tone to ‘Play that funky music white boy’.”

Returning to the speech, Luntz said,

• * “I get it.” He explained, “This means you are listening and will do something about it.” Luntz suggested to anyone giving a speech to ask the audience questions first, and let the questions dictate the direction of the speech.
• * “The people of California have the right to know exactly how the money is spent.” Luntz said, “No more budget gimmicks, no more accounting tricks, and no more empty promises.” He told the audience to “hold them accountable.”
• * “Enough is enough. Enough waste, fraud and abuse, and mismanagement,” said Luntz.
• * And all of Luntz’s advice led up to, “If Republicans vote to raise taxes, hell hath no fury like a taxpayer scorned.” Luntz said that the electorate is skeptical of Republicans, and reminded the audience, “They did not vote Republican in 2010 — they voted anti-Democratic.”

Presidential Poll

Luntz did an informal presidential poll of the audience, tossing out names of candidates or potential presidential candidates. “Mitt Romney,” he started with, and received cheers and clapping. “Newt Gingrich” also received exuberant claps. “Sarah Palin” did not get much clapping from this audience.

But then Luntz asked the audience whether or not they would support New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as a presidential candidate. And even though Luntz said Christie is not running, the audience roared, demonstrating the support for sincere reform candidates.

When someone from the crowd yelled “Donald Trump,” Luntz shouted, “Get out! No really, I mean it. Get out!”

The issues necessary for Republicans to remain focused on are tax reform and ways of connecting with new voters, according to Luntz.

And then, as the luncheon wound down, Luntz asked the group to go forward not just as Republicans, but as Americans. “We need to come together or we will fail divided. Please come together.”

UPDATE: Mark Standriff sent me a clarification about Luntz’s speech: ” Frank actually did not give the same talk anyway–in fact, he actually published an article in HuffPo on “The 11 Words for 2011” three weeks ago and he punted to give that speech instead. We’ll bring him back to talk about his “Words That Work for California” sometime soon.”

I’ve heard Luntz’s talk about “The 11 Words for 2011,” and recognized some of it as he spoke Saturday, but did not know it was not part of his prepared speech. My favorite of the 11 “words” is, “You decide.” Luntz wrote, “The lesson of 2010 is that Americans want control of their lives back, and they don’t want Washington or Wall Street making their decisions for them. So add the phrase “you’re in control” and you’ve said exactly what Americans want to hear.”

I’d add one word: “Reform:” Californians want real reform, not rhetoric, and not the same old playbook.

Any reform that will actually help fix the ongoing California government’s fiscal mess (serious spending limits, pension reform, limits on union power, cutbacks in the size of state government, educational privatization, etc.) cannot possibly pass, given political realities. Anything that can actually pass will not fix anything – or might make things worse. We’re in a pickle, and it’s unclear how it will all play out.

Hence, as I’ve noted before, most of the current ideas revolve around the elimination of the two-thirds legislative vote requirement to pass budgets and raise taxes. Many people – including business leaders who should know better – think that giving Democrats carte blanche to raise taxes will fix things. Oh right. Another idea – to make it tougher for California voters to pass initiatives – comes up routinely, but all these ideas evade the real problems faced by the state.

The problem with the latter idea is that without the often-abused and frequently troubling initiative process, Californians are left wholly dependent on their legislators to pass reforms. In my view, the voters tend to do a better job than the legislators, although that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Of course, the latest slate of initiatives circulating for the November 2010 ballot might give initiative-reform advocates more than their share of ammunition. There are some doozies on this list.

It’s cheap to begin circulating initiatives ($250) but costs around $2 million to seriously qualify one for the ballot. It can cost tens of millions of dollars to wage a winning statewide initiative campaign. So there’s no sense taking too many of these seriously at this point, but a number of the circulating initiatives posted on the California Secretary of State website no doubt have serious interest-group money behind them.

Here’s a quick preview of the scariest California initiatives that have been approved for circulation – you may see scruffy-looking people collecting signatures at a grocery store near you for some of these (for $1 to $2 a pop!):

Ending free speech as we know it: The California Citizens Initiative would "hold candidates for public office, government officials and employees, and members of the media criminally liable for intentionally making a false statement of ‘material fact’ about legislative acts, elections for public office, or the employment or dismissal of government employees." This has a nearly zero chance of becoming law, but it’s a shocker. If a candidate or journalist misrepresents a fact, then they could face two to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 to $500,000 fine. This would essentially shut down free speech in California, given that any allegation about public officials or government workers could lead to a costly court battle to determine whether the speaker or writer committed a crime.

Drug testing for legislators: Another proposal would require "all legislators elected subsequent to the passage of this initiative to be tested for the illegal use of drugs and the ‘habitual use of alcohol.’ Prevents a legislator who tests positive from performing his or her official duties or from getting paid until that legislator completes a substance abuse program at his or her own expense." This is another low-probability initiative designed to exploit honest frustration at elected officials, who gleefully mandate all sorts of measures dealing with the public, but often seem to exempt themselves from similar things. If passed, this would wreak havoc on the bar scene in Sacramento.

Chasing out remaining wealth producers: California government has basically been at war with wealth producers and businesses, much to the benefit of Nevada and other neighboring states. A wealth-tax initiative that "imposes [a] one-time tax of at least 55 percent on property in California exceeding $6.7 million if single" would put the final nail in the coffin. Of course, all those nasty rich people would be sure to high-tail it out of state before the initiative goes into effect, given that it also "imposes one-time tax … on income exceeding $10 million when resident dies or leaves California." Socialism at its finest, but this is too Soviet-esque even for Californians.

No more divorce in California: The initiative would ban divorce but still allow annulments. This is perhaps the funniest proposed initiative, something that would probably wreak more havoc in the state than anything else. It’s clearly meant as a joke – an opportunity by supporters of gay marriage to point out the perils of deciding marriage-related issues in the voting booth. My vote would be to separate marriage and state and leave the government out of all such decisions.

You must sing Christmas carols: Here’s another one designed to make a point rather than become law, but one that might actually move forward – a mandate that public schools "offer an opportunity for students to listen to or perform Christmas music during the holiday season." I’m all for Christmas music, and have no problem with it being performed at my kids’ schools, but this is mostly pointless symbolism. (Yet another initiative "exempts speech based on biblical authority from existing constitutional and statutory restrictions applicable to all other speech …" which would ignite bitter church-state battles.) The real answer is to separate school and state and let people send their kids to the schools that best reflect their values (and we parents should pay for our own kids’ schooling rather than use the state to pay for it), not to wage these religious fights over school curriculum.

There are plenty of serious and scary ones circulating also – such as those mandating a constitutional convention, reducing the two-thirds legislative vote requirement to pass taxes and budgets and imposing more restrictive term limits on legislators.

There are some good ones designed to limit public-sector union power and reduce pensions for new government employees. That’s life in the world of initiatives, where the good, bad and the silly can all vie for the public’s attention. It’s a bad system, but correcting it will surely make things worse.

-Steven Greenhut