California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara’s recent decision to put a one-year moratorium on insurance companies refusing to renew policies on homes in areas adjacent to recent devastating wildfires has garnered widely mixed reaction.

Lara’s decision ensures roughly 800,000 homeowners can have policies renewed. It’s allowed under Senate Bill 824, which Lara shepherded to passage in 2018 while a state senator representing Bell Gardens. An estimated 350,000 policies had not been renewed in California since the beginning of 2015.

“This wildfire insurance crisis has been years in the making, but it is an emergency we must deal with now if we are going to keep the California dream of homeownership from becoming the California nightmare,” Lara said in a statement.

Lara has won praise from consumer advocates who say insurers are too quick to cancel policies held by homeowners who have dutifully paid premiums for years without ever filing claims. He’s also gotten kudos for his November decision to expand the state-overseen FAIR program, which is run by a pool of insurers and provides bare-bones insurance to homeowners otherwise unable to get policies. Beginning in April, FAIR is supposed to offer plans that cover $3 million in damages, up from the present $1.5 million.

But an analysis by The New York Times suggests that Lara has misjudged the risk that insurers face in an era of hotter, drier weather and that the industry could be on the road to ruin. It noted that the $20 billion that insurers offering policies in the state lost because of devastating wildfires in 2017 and 2018 “wiped out a full quarter-century of the industry’s profits” from California operations, according to the Milliman consulting firm.

Lara told the Times that all he was doing was “hitting the pause button on non-renewals” to stabilize the home insurance market and let insurers and regulators catch their breath and carefully evaluate future steps.

Parallels seen to Hurricane Andrew, Northridge earthquake

But Milliman actuary Eric Xu compared the massive losses suffered by insurers since 2017 to the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in Florida in 1992, when insurers lost a similar amount and about a dozen went bankrupt.

Karl Susman, owner of a Los Angeles-based insurance agency, told the Associated Press that the present crisis reminded him of the fallout from the Northridge earthquake in 1994, which led many insurers to either stop renewing earthquake insurance policies or to get out of the field entirely. He questioned whether the historic model of home insurance was “sustainable” in California, given fire risks. 

Home insurers in the state requested about 80 rate hikes in 2018, far more than the norm. But the hikes are generally rejected unless it can be established that they are needed because of demonstrated risk – not the higher risks that insurance actuaries expect because of a hotter climate.

“That works, until it doesn’t,” Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, an insurers’ trade association, told the New York Times. He questioned how the industry could survive unless it was allowed to factor in future risks.

Insurers have grumbled but otherwise taken no formal steps to challenge Lara’s moratorium on non-renewals, which is in effect until Dec. 5, 2020. 

But the insurance companies which pool to provide the FAIR “insurance of last resort” program are openly defying Lara. FAIR officials were supposed to provide an operational plan by Dec. 14 of how they would expand the program and increase coverage limits, as the insurance commissioner had ordered. Instead, they sued Lara just before the deadline, saying he had grossly overstepped his authority.

A bill with the potential to worsen California’s already-frosty relationship with the Trump administration passed the Legislature on a near-party-line vote in late August and was presented to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature last week.

Senate Bill 349, by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (pictured), D-Bell Gardens, is a direct response to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s embrace of the tactic of detaining unauthorized immigrants when they come to state courthouses to deal with matters in the California criminal justice system.

Exact statistics are not provided by ICE on its detentions. But there have been regular reports of ICE raids at state courts and their parking lots in California – especially in the Fresno area – as well as in Arizona, Texas and Colorado within the last year.

ICE officials issued a formal notice in January of their intent to go after targeted individuals when they have scheduled appearances in state courts. Some have said they moved to adopt new policies after the California Legislature adopted and Gov. Brown signed “sanctuary state” legislation last year limiting state cooperation with federal immigration officials.

Lara’s bill would specify that state court officials have the authority to block activities that interfere with the proceedings and operations at state courts. It would require federal immigration agents to have a warrant before they can enter schools, courthouses and state buildings to arrest or question people. It would ban civil arrests in courthouses and authorize the state Attorney General’s Office to pursue civil claims against individuals who violated SB349’s provisions.

The legislative aides who wrote the analysis of the bill cited historical evidence that the practice of not picking up people at courthouses for offenses unrelated to their visits – known as “the common law privilege for civil arrests” – goes back hundreds of years and far predates any controversy over illegal immigration.

Brown and state Attorney General Xavier Becerra have been joined in their sharp criticism of ICE’s tactics by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. In a statement issued last month, she blasted arrests at state courts as “disruptive, shortsighted, and counterproductive … . It is damaging to community safety and disrespects the state court system.”

Some sheriffs want more cooperation with feds

Nonetheless, conservative sheriffs in some counties who oppose “sanctuary” policies are supportive of ICE’s aggressive tactics, according to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims is openly looking for ways to increase her department’s cooperation with ICE in spite of the state law.

That suggests that even if Lara’s bill is signed by Brown, some police agencies may be far less enthusiastic about enforcing it than others. Court battles over what exactly “sanctuary”-style laws compel these agencies to do seem likely.

At issue is the scope of the generally accepted doctrine that the federal government cannot compel state law enforcement agents to enforce federal regulations and that state laws prevail unless they directly conflict with federal laws.

Historically, conservatives in the post-Reagan era and Southern Democrats in the 1950s and 1960s have had more of a “states’ rights” approach to interpreting this doctrine, while liberals have leaned more toward the idea that the federal government deserves deference in gray areas open to different interpretations.

In the Golden State, these political roles have been swapped in the Trump era.

While sharply critical of the Trump White House on many immigration issues, Brown has not commented specifically on Lara’s bill. He has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto it and the hundreds of other passed bills he has not yet made a decision on.

Lara is the Democratic candidate for state insurance commissioner on the November ballot. He is running against Steve Poizner, who is now an independent after serving as insurance commissioner from 2007-2011 as a Republican.

State Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, is renewing his push to reform health care in California, this time proposing new legislation to cover illegal immigrants’ health care.

“Two years ago we passed #Health4All children in California & now the Senate is fighting to cover our seniors in the CA budget. #Health4AllElders is the answer to every child who asked: What about my grandfather? What about my abuela? They deserve to age with dignity and security,” Lara tweeted to promote the bill.

While Lara originally intended to have the bill cover all undocumented immigrants, the bill was reportedly amended in the Senate appropriations process. It now covers minors up to 19 and undocumented adults 65 years and older. 

Currently, most illegal immigrants in the state rely on emergency rooms for care – a reality that drives up health care costs for everyone in the state, supporters of the bill argue.

Lara, who’s currently running for insurance commissioner in Tuesday’s primary, has taken several steps in defiance of the Trump agenda, putting himself at the center of the so-called “resistance” – like his failed efforts to pass a universal health care bill last year.

More broadly, it comes at a time of rising health care costs in the Golden State, with about 60 percent of the state’s uninsured being those here illegally.

“It has been 32 years since Congress last passed comprehensive immigration reform for those already living in the U.S., and their failure should not fall on our elders’ shoulders,” Lara added in a press release. “Dysfunction in Washington and Trump’s constant attacks on immigrants should not distract California from doing the right thing and extend health care to those who have given so much to our state.”

And in the Assembly, a similar bill has passed. Introduced by Democratic State Assemblyman Dr. Joaquin Arambula, that legislation expands the Medi-Cal program to cover undocumented young adults up to age 26.

“The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions,” Assembly Bill 2965 reads. “The federal Medicaid program prohibits payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law.”

Offering such coverage would cost the state around $3 billion next year, according to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

However, the bill comes with the risk of heavy political blowback, with Republicans in the state already energized in opposition to California’s sanctuary state law and the gas tax heading into the November elections.

“It’s another freebie given by an out-of-control Legislature,” GOP gubernatorial candidate John Cox recently said on Fox News about the policy. “We’re a compassionate society but there’s a limit on what we can afford to do.”

Is California now a deep blue state in which moderate conservatives no longer have a chance of victory in statewide elections? Or do such candidates still have hopes if they pass on the two-party system and run as independents apart from the partisan fray?

The former theory has been the topic of recent stories in the national media. But it’s the latter view driving the candidacy of tech entrepreneur Steve Poizner, who was elected California insurance commissioner in 2006 as a Republican and is seeking a second term this year while running as an independent. (Incumbent Dave Jones is termed-out and is running for attorney general.)

Poizner, a resident of Los Gatos in Silicon Valley, is a lock to advance past the June 5 primary to a November general election race against state Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens. The other two candidates in the race have little name recognition and are lacking in institutional support.

But a Poizner win would seem to be a long-shot in the general election, based on 2014’s results. That year, several Republican candidates ran for statewide office with plausible claims to Arnold Schwarzenegger-style moderate conservatism. Since they were not going up against incumbents, two of these candidates – Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, who ran for controller, and Pepperdine University administrator and civic activist Pete Peterson, who ran for secretary of state – were thought to have decent chances. Both lost by at least 500,000 votes.

Yet Poizner has factors in his favor that those 2014 GOP candidates didn’t.

The first is Lara’s struggle to define the campaign on his terms. Since Poizner got generally good marks as insurance commissioner for balancing the interests of consumers and insurers, Lara has focused on Poizner’s strong anti-undocumented immigrant positions in 2010, when he sought the Republican gubernatorial nomination but lost to former Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman. Poizner now disavows those positions. In endorsing Poizner, the editorial boards of the Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury-News and the San Francisco Chronicle focused instead on Poizner’s readiness to deal with such difficult insurance issues as autonomous vehicles and increasing wildfire risks.

Meanwhile, the “issues page” of Lara’s own campaign website lists nine topics, including transportation and criminal justice – but not insurance. It appears designed for a gubernatorial candidate. Poizner’s website focuses primarily on his dealings with insurers in his previous term and his endorsements.

Lara’s history as co-sponsor of Senate Bill 562 – which would commit the state government to adopting a single-payer health care system – is also proving a double-edged sword. His high-profile support of the proposal has won raves from the California Nurses Association and progressive Democrats.

But SB562, which passed the Senate last summer before stalling in the Assembly, has faced a backlash from across the ideological spectrum for being vague and incomplete. The measure’s language doesn’t specify how its estimated $400 billion annual tab would be covered; how it could overcome a California Constitution provision blocking sharp increases in state spending; and how it would be able to divert federal health dollars for unprecedented use on a single state’s unique program.

Poizner campaign literature suggests questions about the cost of SB562 will be a focus of his fall campaign ads.

Should high-risk homes get insurance protection?

Lara’s similarly populist position on wildfire costs may also play better with progressives than with voters in general. He has proposed legislation to make it more difficult for insurers to consider recent fires when setting rates and deciding on whether to offer coverage in high-risk wilderness areas.

This has won praise from officials and homeowners in rural counties. But the measure has also faced criticism from insurers, who say if Lara’s proposal is enacted, millions of homeowners in low-risk areas would have to subsidize the rates of those in wilderness zones.

Still, Lara has a conventional but potent ace in the hole: his ability to run a fall campaign ad blitz reminding Californians of Poizner’s history as a Republican in a state with a dwindling number of Republicans. The latest state registration data show only one-quarter of voters identify with the GOP – a record low.

A Probolsky Research poll from last month put Poizner ahead of Lara. But most of those surveyed were undecided or didn’t want to take any position.

Poizner, a 61-year-old tech entrepreneur, was California’s insurance commissioner from 2007 to 2011, and besides Arnold Schwarzenegger, is the last Republican to successfully win statewide office.

In a comment to SFGate, Poizner argued that it makes more sense to have the position be held by an independent, saying that “there’s no room for partisan politics. The insurance commissioner needs to be fiercely independent.”

Additionally, Republican registration in the state has continued to decline – and the party only faces increased hurdles in the Trump era, with the state firmly situating itself at the center of the so-called “Resistance.”

Under 30 percent of the electorate in California is Republican. 

When Poizner lost his 2010 primary for governor to Silicon Valley CEO Meg Whitman, he ran as a hardline opponent of illegal immigration, a position unlikely to help him in his campaign. However, he’s since said that his views on the issue have “evolved.”

But despite his history of advocating for a Republican agenda in the deeply liberal state, the tech mogul has the ability to self-fund, giving him the opportunity to present a more formidable challenge to Democrats even without a party infrastructure backing him.

For example, Republican Peter Kuo has just under $4,000 cash in his campaign account, according to recent financial disclosures.

If he’s successful, Poizner will be the first Californian to win statewide as a “no party preference” candidate. But he may be situated in the middle of an emerging trend, as an increasingly sizable segment of the voting population – nearly 5 million California voters – cite “no party preference” on their registration.

Meanwhile, among Democrats, State Senator Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and San Gabriel Valley pulmonologist Dr. Asif Mahmood are also running for the seat.

Current commissioner Dave Jones is termed out and running for attorney general.

And while the job of insurance commissioner is to oversee regulation of the state’s insurance markets and act as a consumer protection advocate, political beliefs on issues outside of the position’s core roles will likely factor into voters’ decisions.

Denise Cross / flickr

In an effort to bolster its relevance during the next presidential election, Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a new law moving California’s primary from June to early March.

A March primary gives the Golden State an opportunity to be political flashpoint moving into 2020. In 2016, by the time June rolled around, the presidential primaries were essentially over.

“Candidates will not be able to ignore the largest, most diverse state in the nation as they seek our country’s highest office,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said. “California has been a leader time and time again on the most important issues facing our country – including immigration, education and the environment. The Prime Time Primary Act will help ensure that issues important to Californians are prioritized by presidential candidates from all political parties.”

The move is also seen as a potential boost to possible Democratic candidates like Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, rising stars in the party who would benefit from having their home state vote earlier in the primary process.

The legislation also moves up congressional races, taking effect in 2019. Now, the elections will fall “on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March,” making California part of the so-called “Super Tuesday” states.

Furthermore, an earlier primary will have a significant effect on fundraising, beyond candidates raising money earlier.

“With an earlier primary, our elections could have major national implications in the electoral college and down ballot races,” Los Angeles-based GOP fundraiser Charles Moran told CalWatchdog. “D.C. will have to pay attention to us for more than just our money.”

This isn’t a first for California, as there was a February primary back in 2008, leading to the “highest voter turnout for a primary election since 1980,” according to Padilla.

Joining the “Super Tuesday” fray also appears to be an effort to thwart President Trump, or least give California a greater opportunity to set the anti-Trump agenda for Democrats nationally.

State Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, who authored the bill, hinted at that motivation, saying that “we have a responsibility to drive a different agenda at the national level and promote inclusion and consensus not the politics of division.”

California has positioned itself at the center of the so-called “resistance” against the Trump administration, suing over the travel ban, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and the border wall.

SACRAMENTO – During the California Democratic Party convention in Sacramento last weekend, the spiciest news was outgoing chairman John Burton dropping an f-bomb on a group of activists demanding that the party embrace a single-payer health system. It’s not really news when the notoriously foul-mouthed Burton says such things, but the fracas highlighted the pressure party leadership faces to embrace government-run medical care.

Yet the foulest rebuke to advocates for single payer this week did not take place at the convention. It took place nearby at the state Capitol, in the form of an appropriations committee report that found that a single-payer bill working its way through the state Senate would cost more than double the state’s total budget.

Senate Bill 562, which had previously passed the Senate health committee, was placed in the “suspense file” by the appropriations committee on Monday as legislators analyze the huge price tag. They have until the end of the week to move it out of the file, or it will die this year.

The committee made clear the size of the undertaking: “The fiscal estimates below are subject to enormous uncertainty,” it explained. “Completely rebuilding the California health care system from a multi-payer system into a single payer, fee-for-service system would be an unprecedented change in a large health care market.”

The appropriations analysts estimate an annual cost of $400 billion a year, which soars above the projected $180 billion state budget. Of that cost, the committee explained, about half of it would be covered by existing federal, state and local health care funding. That leaves a $200-billion hole, which the committee says could be covered by a 15 percent payroll tax. Even if the calculation includes reduced health care spending by employers and employees, the committee still estimates a $50-billion to $100-billion shortfall.

And, quite significantly, these costs could be understated given the kind of demand that would be created by this system. Its main advocates, Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, view health care as a “human right,” so the system the bill would create would provide nearly unlimited access to medical care. In fact, the Senate health committee report opined that “SB562 will change health care in California from commodity to a right.”

“Under the bill, enrollee access to services would be largely unconstrained by utilization management tools commonly used by health care payers, including Medi-Cal,” according to the committee report. “The ability for enrollees to see any willing provider, to receive any service deemed medically appropriate by a licensed provider, and the lack of cost sharing, in combination, would make it difficult for the program to make use of utilization management tools … . Therefore, it is very likely that there would be increased utilization of health care services under this bill.”

And the committee only is talking about predicted costs. It’s not its job to engage other policy debates, such as those touching on subjects including rationing, waiting lists for services if the demand overwhelms supply and the quality of care. The bill would apply to illegal immigrants, which raise critics’ concerns about the state becoming a worldwide magnet for “free” health care.

The bill is fairly short given the complexity of the subject. But the Mercury News captured the gist of the single-payer approach in a March news article: “Instead of buying health insurance and paying for premiums, residents pay higher taxes. And those taxes are then used to fund the insurance plan — in the same way Medicare taxes are used to provide insurance for Americans 65 and over.”

This bill would put control of health care in the state under the authority of a nine-member panel and essentially eliminate the role of insurance companies – thus replacing them with a government bureaucracy. But the size of the tax bill and state costs even have Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown expressing what the newspaper calls “deep skepticism.”

The analysis makes some other important points. For instance, it’s not clear that the federal government would go along with this, and it is totally discretionary whether the feds would grant the necessary waivers involving Medicare and Medicaid services. The bill’s funding is based heavily on the ability to divert federal funds from those programs.

The analysis also notes, “There are several provisions of the state constitution that would prevent the Legislature from creating the single-payer system envisioned in the bill without voter approval.” In Colorado this past November, voters defeated a single-payer initiative, Amendment 69, with an overwhelming 79 percent to 21 percent “no” vote.

Supporters of the measure claim that it will reduce “waste” by putting all health plans under a single umbrella, thus ending the duplication of multi-plan systems. But critics note that competition is the best way to keep costs low – not putting a system under one giant governmental entity. Advocates see it as a way to ensure proper health care for everyone, but the appropriations report confirms critics’ concerns that such a system could obliterate the state budget and kill job-creating private enterprise because of the high tax bite.

As the Democratic Party protests illustrated, we can expect the debate to become even more acrimonious and obscenity laden as the days go on.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Will progressive lawmakers challenge Gov. Jerry Brown over his decision to dash their big dreams for the 2017-18 fiscal year? Or will they acquiesce as they mostly have in recent months of May after Brown released revised budgets without money for new or expanded government programs?

Despite the pleas of Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, and Senate President Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, that he take a break from his usual frugality, the governor’s revised 2017-18 $124 billion general fund budget released last week is far more concerned about helping public schools and beefing up the state’s rainy-day fund than any new liberal cause.

With a month until the June 15 deadline to adopt a state budget, that means Democratic lawmakers – especially those from liberal districts in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County – have a big decision to make: Do they accept a wipeout? Or do they put pressure on Brown by sending him bills popular with Trump-agitated grass-roots Democrats and making him veto them?

This is the dynamic created by the fact that Democratic legislative leaders entered the current session in January with ambitious hopes for bold new programs making college much cheaper, expanding state affordable housing efforts and providing health care for all.

Ambitious legislation not taken seriously

The governor doesn’t even think the ideas are worth discussing.

Brown’s budget rejects the basics of Assembly Bill 1356, by Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton, which would have added a 1 percent surtax on California families earning $1 million or more to cover the cost of fees and tuition for in-state students at the University of California, California State University and the California Community College system. The governor also dismissed without comment Assembly Democrats’ push to help cover basic living expenses for 350,000-plus UC and CSU students from families which make less than $150,000 a year.

Brown’s budget makes no mention of SB562, a bill by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, that would create a government-run single-payer health care system. It’s won some early committee victories, despite not having a fiscal analysis that explains how or who will pay for the program.

And a push supported by dozens of Democratic lawmakers to impose a fee on real-estate transactions to provide a steady stream of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding for subsidized affordable housing projects was flatly rejected by Brown as inadequate to addressing California’s housing crisis.

At a Thursday press conference, the governor said, “I don’t think we should throw money at the housing problem if we don’t adopt real changes that make housing production more efficient and less costly. We’ve got to do that first.”

For nearly two years, the governor has pushed for laws reforming the California Environmental Quality Act to give builders fewer obstacles to constructing new housing units. But legislative Democrats have heeded their union, trial lawyer and environmental allies who say CEQA shouldn’t be weakened.

Brown and top Democratic lawmakers pulled off a big win last month on an issue they agreed on: the urgent need to improve California’s decaying infrastructure, both for quality-of-life reasons and to help the economy by reducing the drag on the economy caused by bad, clogged roads. They pushed through gas tax hikes to pay for a 10-year, $52 billion infrastructure improvement and repair initiative.

But Brown’s pragmatism about government spending has been the calling card of his second stint as governor. Given his high approval ratings, the governor seems unlikely to believe he needs to make concessions if Democratic lawmakers send him spending bills he doesn’t like.

University of California President Janet Napolitano could face her roughest week in nearly four years as leader of the state’s flagship college system as lawmakers react sharply to a

Legislative oversight hearings could be held as soon as Tuesday, according to the San Jose Mercury-News, after state Auditor Elaine Howle’s second damning report in 13 months. Napolitano’s and UC regents’ reaction is far different to the second report than the first, suggesting new dynamics that could put Napolitano’s job at peril or lead to the revival of a 2014 proposal that would ask voters to strip UC of the independent autonomy it enjoys under the California Constitution.

UC regents had backed Napolitano in 2016 in her dismissive response to Howle’s complaint that UC had admitted out-of-state students who paid much more in tuition than nearly 4,300 California students “whose academic scores met or exceeded all of the median scores of nonresidents whom the university admitted to the campus of their choice.” Howle said UC officials did this for nearly a decade in response to the state’s reducing funding during the revenue recession and in lieu of even basic attempts to control costs.

Napolitano could have blamed policies she inherited. Instead, she blasted Howle’s report as inaccurate. Though Napolitano’s defense lacked exculpatory evidence, UC regents largely dismissed Howle’s findings, with Regent John Perez even saying the report reflected an unseemly bias again out-of-state students.

Napolitano, regents change tone from last harsh audit

Napolitano’s reaction to the new Howle report, however, is conciliatory. Her office challenges the assertion that $175 million in reserves was hidden, saying that the funds were committed to various tasks and couldn’t have been used to head off tuition hikes. Otherwise, its official response to the audit thanked Howle for her work and said her recommendations would be implemented.

Some regents and lawmakers expressed disbelief that they as well as the general public weren’t told of the reserves even as Napolitano was lobbying hard for tuition hikes.

“Unbelievable,” said Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to the Bay Area News Group. Newsom, a regent and an early front-runner in the 2018 governor’s race, said the era in which regents served as “lap dogs” for the Office of the President had to end and that regents should look hard at rescinding the tuition hike.

Perez declined comment.

The University of California enjoys a unique status among state agencies that goes beyond its constitutionally guaranteed autonomy. Taxpayers only directly pay for a little more than one-tenth – about $3.6 billion – of UC’s $32 billion budget. The rest largely comes from tuition, federal grants and reimbursement for services UC does for the federal government, including operating and managing three national scientific laboratories.

But Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders still see UC as an agency using public dollars that needs to be fully accountable. This has led to eight recent audits, many of which – including the latest – depict UC as having few basic financial controls and as being unable to document how and why it divvies up the various funds it receives. Howle’s analyses have consistently shown a UC system with no interest in belt-tightening.

Bad blood remains from 2014 tuition hardball

Where the contretemps goes this week is anyone’s guess. Some coverage has suggested that Howle’s critique goes overboard. But Napolitano doesn’t have a history of strong relationships with state lawmakers, some of whom see her as behaving in imperious fashion, and that could be a stealth factor in how the Legislature responds to Howle’s latest audit.

In late 2014, when the UC president got UC regents to endorse a five-year, 28 percent tuition hike that would go into effect unless the Legislature increased UC funding, Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, introduced a Senate constitutional amendment that they hoped would go before voters in 2016. It would have limited UC’s independence by giving the Legislature a veto on tuition hikes and pay raises for top UC executives, among other provisions.

The bill was shelved in 2015 after Brown and Napolitano reached a compromise on state funding. But resentment of Napolitano’s belief that she could push the Legislature around and try to embarrass it to get her way endures.

In a fresh bid to reform California’s criminal justice system, Sacramento lawmakers have begun to advance several bills, many aimed at softening juvenile punishment. “Democratic state senators Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles and Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens are proposing four bills intended to keep more youthful offenders out of the criminal justice system,” as the Associated Press noted.

“State senators in California on Monday introduced an eight-bill justice reform package focused on juveniles that would create a minimum age incarceration standard, a ban on sentencing minors to life without parole and Miranda rights protections,” according to Courthouse News. “Senate Bill 190 would extend financial relief to families with children in the justice system by nixing court administrative fees, and Senate Bill 395 would require minors to consult with an attorney before waiving their rights during interrogations.” Senate Bill 439, another piece of legislation, would tweak jurisdictional rules to ensure minors under the age of 12 do not wind up in juvenile court.

String of changes

At a recent hearing around the bills, lines of support and opposition took familiar shape. “Witnesses urged lawmakers to support legislation they said would ensure the fair treatment of children under the law,” the Los Angeles Times recalled. “But law enforcement groups and prosecutors said it could keep authorities from holding offenders accountable and hinder officers from carrying out investigations.”

At a recent appearance at a Sacramento elementary school, the bills’ two sponsors worked to portray their changes in rational and moral terms. “Mitchell, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, acknowledged some minors are involved in serious crime,” Capital Public Radio reported. “But she spoke out against incarcerating children under 12 years old as if they were ‘pint-sized’ adults.”

Activists pushing to further liberalize California’s incarceration laws have seen statewide success focusing on the fraught relationship between crime and child punishment. “In recent years, state legislation and propositions have attempted to create greater court protections for young offenders and to lower the population of incarcerated youth, as research on brain development has found that children learn differently from adults and should be afforded a criminal justice approach centered on rehabilitation,” the Times noted separately. “The latest victory for criminal justice advocates was Proposition 57, which will now require a judge’s approval before most juvenile defendants can be tried in an adult court.”

Curbing prison culture 

But adult justice also received some attention, with proposed amendments “weakening drug enhancement sentencing procedures, nixing public defender reimbursement fees for individuals found innocent by the court and sealing arrest records of those not convicted of a crime,” according to Courthouse News. “The lawmakers hope the reforms will reduce county costs related to minor drug sentences and remove employment barriers for people accused but not convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.”

Other recent criminal justice reforms have advanced quickly in Sacramento. One, targeting abuses in prison snitch rewards, passed its first legislative test with flying colors. “Assembly Bill 359 on Tuesday sailed unanimously through the state Assembly Public Safety Committee,” as the Orange County Register noted. “Under the bill, snitches like Mexican Mafia members Raymond “Puppet” Cuevas and Jose “Bouncer” Paredes would no longer be able to live like kings behind bars, raking in as much as $3,000 a case as well as cartons of Marlboro cigarettes, fast food, Xbox machines and other perks.”

“The bill caps all monetary and nonmonetary payments to informants at $100 per case, including any investigatory work. Currently, the cap is $50 per case for testimony and no limit in compensation for investigation,” the paper observed. “Additionally, the bill requires prosecutors to keep databases that track informant work and locations, and to turn detailed informant histories over to defense attorneys no later than 30 days before the preliminary hearing.”