U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Jan. 4

While none of the four U.S. attorneys’ offices in California have taken high-profile enforcement steps to date, at least two may be inclined to take on legal marijuana in some way – especially given that Sessions has already complained that pot being grown in the state is being trafficked in other states where it remains illegal.

In the California Eastern District based in Sacramento, President Donald Trump nominated McGregor “Greg” Scott to serve as U.S. attorney, returning to a job he held under President George W. Bush. He was sworn in Dec. 29. His large district is mostly inland California, from the Oregon border to the Inland Empire, including Humboldt County, ground zero for the Golden State’s pot culture.

Cannabis advocates worry about Sacramento U.S. attorney

While the Sacramento Bee editorial page hailed Scott’s selection, the Bee’s newsroom reported earlier this month that marijuana advocates are on edge because of Scott’s history of aggressively targeting medical marijuana in his first stint on the job. Scott’s office received national attention in 2008 when it secured 20-year and 21-year sentences for two Modesto men whom Scott said were running a criminal empire – not a clinic.

The Cal NORML marijuana advocacy group blasted Scott for urging local prosecutors to refer medical marijuana cases to his office, calling it “particularly notorious for harsh sentences against medical marijuana defendants.”

“He used to be a hardcore, anti-cannabis drug warrior,” Sebastopol criminal defense attorney Omar Figueroa told the Bee. “I hope he has evolved.”

Scott offered no overview of his intentions beyond issuing a statement saying he would review marijuana cases “in accordance with our district’s federal law enforcement priorities and resources.”

Cartel prosecutor takes reins in San Diego with tough statement

The other California U.S. attorney who might be inclined to take a hard line on pot is Adam Braverman in the San Diego-based Southern district. Braverman was sworn in Nov. 16 after years as a hard-charging prosecutor in the San Diego office targeting drug cartels which operate on both sides of the U.S-Mexico border. His statement echoed Sessions’ remarks that individual states should have no expectations that federal drug laws would go unenforced just because their voters or legislators had approved legal use of pot.

“The Department of Justice is committed to reducing violent crime and enforcing the laws as enacted by Congress. The cultivation, distribution and possession of marijuana has long been and remains a violation of federal law,” Braverman’s statement said. “We will continue to utilize long-established prosecutorial priorities to carry out our mission to combat violent crime, disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations, and stem the rising tide of the drug crisis.”

Earlier this month, former prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer Nicola Hanna was named interim U.S. attorney for the Central District, based in Los Angeles. Hanna, who is expected to get the job on a permanent basis, has kept quiet on Sessions’ announcement. His office refers questions to Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

Any crackdown on cannabis might be difficult just from a resources perspective for Hanna. His office serves an area with 18 million residents in Los Angeles and Orange counties and five adjacent counties – by far the most heavily populated of any office. It is often responsible for complex cases involving not just drugs and white-collar crime but also national security.

Views of acting U.S. attorney in San Francisco unclear

In the Northern District based in San Francisco, U.S. Attorney Brian Stretch resigned within days after Sessions’ policy change, though he said the decision was unrelated.

Alex G. Tse is serving as the acting U.S. attorney after being Stretch’s second-in-command. Tse has kept a low profile to date on Sessions’ policy reversal.

However, his office was known for its aggressive targeting of Oakland’s Harborside Health Center, which the Feedly marijuana news website says is “perhaps the state’s best-known dispensary.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, threw out prosecutors’ case against Harborside in 2016, saying they had ignored Congress’ direction that medical-marijuana dispensaries operating within state laws should be left alone.

Because of your support, we remain California’s top-ranked political blog and investigative news site.

California has too few journalists covering what is really going on in Sacramento and throughout the state. That’s exactly why CalWatchdog exists – to report to you, straight down the middle, with no sensationalism and not pass off opinion for general news. 

Your tax-free contribution will help us in 2018 to focus on a digital video program and increase our social media marketing dollars to increase our civic engagement. 

CalWatchdog is a non-profit (501)c(3) that is supported by individual donors like yourself. If you like our work, would you please consider donating online?

You may donate securely online at https://calwatchdog.com/donate/  or address a check payable to CalWatchdog, 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA  94111. Your contribution is fully tax deductible.

Thank you for your support.

The CalWatchdog Team

Some advocates for police reform worry about what a new Trump administration will mean for these discussions given the president-elect’s expectedly different approach toward the matter than President Obama’s Department of Justice. But others argue the election will send reform back to where it really belongs: at the local level.

Two northern California cities, Sacramento and San Francisco, are good examples of the latter. They are currently plowing ahead with major oversight and accountability proposals for their police departments – the result of local policing scandals that have little to do with national political changes. Sacramento takes up the matter at a City Council meeting on Tuesday.

The Sacramento reforms were prompted by a video of two police officers in pursuit of a mentally ill homeless man, Joseph Mann, who was armed with a knife and acting erratically. As the Sacramento Bee reported, the video sequence shows “the officers gunned their vehicle toward Mann, backed up, turned and then drove toward him again, based on dash-cam video released by police. They stopped the car, ran toward Mann on foot and shot him 14 times.” One officer is recorded saying “f— this guy” shortly before they shot him.

The killing raised questions not only about the appropriate use of force in such situations, but about the city’s willingness to provide the public information about what transpired. Top city officials – the police chief, city attorney and city manager – didn’t release the video of the event until after the Bee acquired the footage from a private citizen. The shooting led to community protests and has been a source of strife – and council debate – ever since.

In September, the newspaper’s Editorial Board published this pointed editorial: “The city could have been upfront with Mann’s family about how many times he was shot and how long the investigation into the shooting would take. Instead, his brother, backed by enough activists to fill City Hall, had go before the City Council to beg for information. The city could have been clear about what training officers receive to handle people who are mentally ill. Instead, police still haven’t responded to a Public Records Act request for a copy of the department’s policy.”

Reformers argue that the proposed policy doesn’t go far enough, although backers argue that it is about as far as it can go given state law. Specifically, the measure would transfer power of the civilian oversight committee from the city manager’s office to the mayor and City Council – thus providing a more independent level of oversight given that the city manager also oversees the police department. Council members are at least beholden to voters.

The city’s proposal also does the following: “This resolution requires the city manager to ensure that all police officers of the Sacramento Police Department abide by council specified guidelines with regards to use of force. Key components of the resolution include the timely release of video after an officer involved incident occurs and the immediate notification of family members after an officer involved shooting.” That attempts to deal with the public-records issue.

Civilian-oversight commissions are still limited by the state Supreme Court’s Copley decision. In that 2006 case, the San Diego Union-Tribune tried to gain access to a disciplinary hearing regarding a deputy sheriff who was appealing his termination. As the newspaper reported, “The court ruled that police disciplinary hearings are closed — and the public has no right to learn about allegations of police misconduct, even when they are aired in a civil service commission.” Legislative efforts to roll back parts of the decision have repeatedly been stymied by police union lobbying.

In San Francisco, officials have been reacting to controversy following three officer-involved shootings and a scandal involving racist text messages that were allegedly sent by police officers. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported in April, “The messages are loaded with slurs and ugly stereotypes, and include one from an officer responding to a photo of a blackened Thanksgiving turkey. ‘Is that a Ferguson turkey?’ the officer asks, referring to the city in Missouri that saw widespread protests after police fatally shot an unarmed African American man in 2014.”

National politics plays a bigger role in the San Francisco case. That’s because the federal Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services department published a study last month looking at San Francisco’s police department. The mayor and former police chief had asked the department to review police practices following these scandals.

As the report’s summary explained, “Although the COPS Office found a department that is committed to making changes and working with the community, it also found a department with outdated use of force policies that fail the officers and the community and inadequate data collection that prevents leadership from understanding officer activities and ensure organizational accountability. The department lacked accountability measures to ensure that the department is being open and transparent while holding officers accountable.”

San Francisco officials have vowed to implement the 479 recommendations made in the Justice Department report. “We will continue to implement the recommendations for reform which will be built on the most current policing policies and practices, fostering an environment of trust and strong relationships with our communities,” said acting Police Chief Toney Chaplin.

In Sacramento, Mayor-elect Darrell Steinberg, who is inaugurated on Dec. 13, told the Bee “the public certainly has a right to know whether a particular officer who has been accused of misconduct continues to serve in the role of police officer. … There ought to be a clear presumption of openness and the burden ought to be on the city attorney and police to demonstrate in a compelling way why anything is not public.” There’s concern that a federal lawsuit by Mann’s relatives will allow the city to shut down public access to information about the shooting.

This much is clear: Whatever changes a new administration makes at the Department of Justice, local officials throughout California are on the front lines of the police-reform movement. 

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

A group tied to the neo-Nazi and white supremacist movements found itself at the center of a bloody political firestorm in Sacramento, heightening election-year populist and nationalist tensions. A few dozen members of the Traditionalist Worker Party did battle with left-wing antagonists from a counter-protesting group many times larger in size, the Los Angeles Times noted. 

“The incident may fuel concerns about the potential for violent protests outside the major party conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia this summer and in the run-up to the Nov. 8 presidential election,” Reuters suggested. 

The aims of the Traditionalist Worker Party have raised alarm among anti-hate organizations who track fascist and racist groups around the country. “We reject anti-white social engineering projects like forced busing, the ‘disparate impact’ shakedown racket, and the numerous other ways that our government is stacking the deck against white families,” the TWP platform reads, according to The Advocate. 

Under attack

But observers have noticed that the street battle mirrored the dynamic of a similar riot in Southern California, which far-right protesters did not instigate either. “The Sacramento stabbings came several months after another violent confrontation between members of a Ku Klux Klan group and counter-protesters at an Anaheim park,” the Los Angeles Times noted. In that ordeal, five out of 12 protesters arrested were let go “after police determined that they were acting in self-defense against counter-protesters,” the Orange County Register reported. Some conservatives groups have alleged that the unrest is part of a calculated plan by far-left organizations to foment violence. 

Although the Klan group, like the far-right group in Sacramento, has been suspected of willingly courting attacks, counter-protesters in both cases appeared to have planned for a bloody encounter in advance. “When six Klansmen pulled up in a black SUV about noon Saturday, about 30 counter-protesters were there waiting for them, police said,” according to the Register. CHP Capitol Protection Service spokesman George Granada told Reuters that, in Sacramento, “counter-protesters immediately ran in — hundreds of people — and they engaged in a fight.” 

The Trump factor

Trump supporters have pointed to the similarities as evidence that violence at their candidate’s rallies comes more from outside sources than from Trump fans themselves. “In recent months Trump has blamed ‘professional agitators’ and ‘thugs’ for violence that has broken out at many of the Republican candidate’s rallies,” Reuters added. “In Albuquerque, New Mexico, last month, anti-Trump protesters threw rocks and bottles at police officers who responded with pepper spray. A month earlier, some 20 demonstrators were arrested outside a Trump rally in Costa Mesa, California.”

But the Trump campaign appeared not to have anticipated that the TWP would respond to their newfound fame with a pledge to provide volunteer security at the Republican nominating convention in Cleveland. 

Spokesman Matt Parrott told McClatchy some 30 members planned to “show up and make sure that the Donald Trump supporters are defended from the leftist thugs.”

“You’re going to have a relatively civil event where you’re going to have the leftists protesting Trump and you’re going to have us arguing up against the leftists. And you’re going to have the police there ensuring that you’re going to have a first world situation and not some sort of ‘Gangs of New York’ knife fight.”

On Tuesday, the 28 Republican members of the lower house selected Assemblyman Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley as their next leader. The caucus did not release the specific tally for the caucus vote nor indicate any other candidates for the leadership post.

“I am fortunate to inherit a Caucus that is united in its commitment to fiscal responsibility and meeting the needs of a 21st Century economy,” Mayes said in a press release following the announcement. “For California to thrive, legislative leaders must provide solutions that offer a pathway to prosperity. Too often politicians take actions that limit opportunity in the very communities they claim to serve.”

He added, “I look forward to working with our Caucus to make California a better place to call home.”

Mayes, who was elected to the state Assembly in 2014, will take over for current GOP leader Kristin Olsen when the Legislature reconvenes on January 4, 2016.

Second consecutive GOP leader to reject anti-tax pledge

Mayes said that he intends to carry on Olsen’s philosophy and approach to the post.

“I am humbled by my colleagues’ confidence in my ability to lead the Caucus,” Mayes said. “I plan to build upon Kristin’s vision of bringing the Caucus and its supporting operations into the 21st Century. She has worked tirelessly to position our Caucus and its members for maximum success.”

Since taking over as minority leader, Olsen has embraced a more moderate approach and rejected the anti-tax rhetoric that is considered orthodoxy to traditional conservative Republicans. In 2012, Olsen publicly criticized the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a promise by elected officials to oppose higher taxes.

“The problem with the no-tax pledge is that entrenched special interests interpret what is or is not a violation of the pledge in order to serve their own agendas – and sometimes their interpretations defy logic,” Olsen wrote in a Sacramento Bee opinion piece before taking over as leader. “To grow the Republican Party, we have to get away from relying solely on ‘No’ messages. We are better than that, and Californians deserve and desire solution-focused leadership that will help bring legislative Democrats over to our side on the need for lower taxes and substantive reforms.”

As a candidate for State Assembly, Mayes similarly rejected the anti-tax pledge. Mayes told the Desert Sun last year that “he’s not the kind of Republican who is out to blow up government … and said he declined to sign the taxpayer protection pledge.”

Mayes brings experience from more than a decade serving at the local government level. He was first elected to the Yucca Valley Town Council in 2002 and was twice re-elected. During his time on the town council, Mayes served as president of the Desert Mountain Division of the League of California Cities.

He also worked as a political staff member at the county-level, serving as chief of staff to San Bernardino County Supervisor Janice Rutherford.

Olsen’s tenure as leader

Olsen earned praise from her colleagues for her tenure as leader.

“Kristin may have been a transitional leader in terms of time, but she has been transformative in her impact on Caucus operations,” said Assembly Republican Caucus Chair Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita. “Her changes set a pathway to Republican relevancy and she worked to lay the foundation for a Republican majority in the near future. Thanks to Kristin, our Caucus is united, focused, and motivated.”

Olsen, who is termed out of the state Assembly next year, welcomed the leadership transition and said she’s proud of her accomplishments, which included a major staff shake-up as part of an effort of “modernizing caucus operations.”

“My goal as Assembly Republican leader has been to unite our caucus and advance core principles that resonate with Californians and will revitalize our state: good jobs, great schools, and a more transparent, effective, and citizen-driven government,” Olsen said. “I am pleased that we have been able to accomplish this while modernizing our Caucus operations, hiring top-notch staff, and becoming pro-active and solution-focused.”

Mayes will have company learning the ropes as a new Republican leader. Last week, the Senate Republican Caucus announced that Sen. Jean Fuller of Bakersfield had unseated Sen. Bob Huff as Republican Senate leader.

Huff is running for an open seat on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to replace longtime Supervisor Mike Antonovich. Other candidates for that seat include gang prosecutor Elan Carr, Glendale City Councilman Ara Najarian, Los Angeles City Councilman Mitchell Englander and Kathryn Barger, Antonovich’s chief of staff.

Now, however, the agency is becoming notorious for another problem: chronic corruption. This is from an Aug. 11 AP report:

As many as 100 commercial truck drivers paid up to $5,000 each to bribe state Department of Motor Vehicles employees for illegal California licenses, federal authorities said Tuesday.

 

Up to 23 traffic accidents could be related to the fraud, officials said, though there were no fatalities.

 

Emma Klem, a 45-year-old Salinas DMV employee, and trucking school owner Kulwinder Dosanjh Singh, 58, of Turlock, both pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy to commit bribery and identity fraud, U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said.

 

Two other DMV employees in Salinas and Sacramento and two other Central Valley trucking school operators have been arrested on similar charges.

 

Court records say the employees changed computer records to falsely show that drivers had passed written and behind-the-wheel tests after they were bribed by the owners of three truck-driving schools between June 2011 and March 2015. …

 

The DMV revoked or cancelled 602 commercial licenses that could be linked to the fraud, including the 100 that were pinpointed by investigators, said Frank Alvarez, the DMV’s chief investigator.

Bribery cases concentrated in San Diego County

This is only one of several recent cases. This is from a June Union-Tribune report:

SAN DIEGO — A California Highway Patrol officer is the second person to be charged in connection with a DMV bribery scandal.

 

Carlos Ravelo is accused of illegally transferring a temporary driver’s license to a driver, once in September 2013 and again in January 2014, according to an indictment unsealed in San Diego federal court last month.

 

Ravelo is a 13-year veteran officer and works at the CHP’s El Cajon station.

In March, a Westminster DMV employee was arrested and charged with two counts related to taking bribes to provide driver’s licenses.

The Los Angeles Times also notes other cases in San Diego County:

In February, a San Diego DMV official pleaded guilty to accepting bribes for setting aside license suspensions and providing unauthorized temporary licenses to drivers who had lost theirs after being arrested on DUI charges.

 

Last year, five employees of the DMV’s El Cajon and Rancho San Diego offices were convicted in connection with a bribery scam in which licenses were improperly provided to clients of a local driving school.

Low starting pay may be driving scandals

These are in addition to 21 FBI arrests related to bribery at the same two offices in May 2012. This is from the FBI’s press release:

United States Attorney Laura E. Duffy announced today that employees at the California Department of Motor Vehicles in San Diego County were charged in a criminal complaint for their involvement in a long-running bribery conspiracy that resulted in the production of hundreds of fraudulent driver licenses for applicants who had failed — or not taken — the required driver license tests.

 

The complaint alleges that DMV officials at the El Cajon DMV office … and the Rancho San Diego DMV office … falsely entered both “passing” written and “passing” driving test scores for applicants in exchange for bribes ranging up to $3,000 per license.

 

In addition to the DMV employees, 16 other defendants were charged in the complaint. … According to court documents, the corruption scheme involved the fraudulent production of both Class C (regular) and Commercial Class A driver licenses. Hundreds of applicants paid recruiters approximately $400- $500 for each fraudulent Class C license … .

Considering that the starting pay of a “business service assistant” at DMV can be as low as $29,940 a year, this may be behind clerks deciding to augment their income illegally.

“Blocking discussion in this manner is unfair, undemocratic and soils the decorum of the Assembly,” said Harper, who is the vice chairman of the committee, in a July 8 press release.  “I was sent here to represent the concerns of the voters of my district and chairman Hernández shut down my ability to speak for who I represent.

“Our state’s underemployment rate is overwhelming and the bill being rammed through our committee would make it harder to hire. We are sent here to debate policy that impacts the lives of Californians, not shut down dissenting points of view. The chair’s actions were offensive and disrespectful today, not just to me, but to Californians who want jobs and deserve to know the impacts policy will have on their chances of employment.”

‘At this time I’m calling the vote’

The incident occurred toward the end of the nearly two-hour discussion on Senate Bill 3 by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. The bill would increase the state’s minimum wage to $11 per hour in January, followed by an increase to $13 per hour in July 2017 and increasing at the rate of inflation thereafter. California’s minimum wage is currently $9 per hour, and is scheduled to increase to $10 per hour in January if SB3 does not become law.

During the committee discussion, when Hernández recognized Assemblyman Evan Low, D-San Jose, to speak, Hernández said that Low would be followed by Harper. But after Low finished questioning Leno, Hernández decided he had heard enough.

“I want to be respectful of all of our colleagues, I want to be respectful of everybody’s time,” said Hernández. “At this time I’m going to call the vote. So we have a motion, we have a second.” Harper began objecting, which Hernández tried to ignore. “At this time I’m going to call the vote. We have a motion, we have a second. Madame Secretary, call the vote.”

Harper said, “Mr. Chairman, I’d like to have comments.”

Hernández did not acknowledge him, instead saying, “At this time I’m calling the vote.”

Harper said, “You’re going to cut off people in the queue?”

Hernández again ignored Harper, and said, “I’m calling the vote. Madame Secretary, call the vote.”

Harper said, “I think this is totally inappropriate.”

At that point Hernández raised his voice and said to Harper, “You’re inappropriate and out of order. Madame Secretary, call the vote.”

“I think it’s totally inappropriate,” repeated Harper.

When the vote was taken Hernandez shouted “aye.” Harper did not respond when his name was called, but later changed his non-vote to “no.” After the committee passed the bill, Harper said, “Mr. Chairman, I think the cutoff on debate is completely embarrassing.”

Hernández spoke over him, “You’re out of order, you’re out of order, you’re out of order. Turn his mic off.”

Harper said, “I think it’s completely inappropriate. It just shows you how this is being rammed through the state of California.”

After Hernández thanked and dismissed Leno, he turned to Harper and said, “Don’t be yelling in this committee like that.”

Harper responded, “No you cut me off.”

Hernández then reached over another assemblyman, turned off Harper’s mic and said, “Sergeants, please remove the mic. Remove the mic. Please remove the mic.” To Harper he said, “You’re yelling, you’re out of order, you have not been recognized.” Then to a security officer, who seemed reluctant to remove the mic, Hernández said, “I’m sorry, remove the mic. I’m running the meeting, not the sergeant.”

The meeting ended with perfunctory business a couple minutes after Harper’s mic was removed.

Harper responds to bullying tactics

Hernández did not respond to a request for comment. The Sacramento Bee reported on July 9 that Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, met with Hernández and Harper, during which Hernández “expressed regret.”

But in a Sacramento Bee op-ed on Sunday, titled “Committee chairman’s behavior is beyond the pale, even for Capitol,” Harper wrote, “It is unfortunate that Hernández has been completely unapologetic about his behavior. Using such tactics to silence an opposing point of view is not only unfair, it is undemocratic. I fear that these actions will set a dangerous precedent that it is OK for committee chairpersons to prevent their colleagues from speaking on behalf of their constituents.

“These outrageous bullying tactics would be roundly condemned if they took place in a school or in the workplace. These actions are a stain on the institution and have no place in the people’s House. They are contrary to the Legislature’s action in recent years to enact strong anti-bullying laws and mandate harassment training.”

Hernández’s bullying style was also evident at a meeting in March during debate on Assembly Bill 67, which mandates double pay for employees working on Thanksgiving and Christmas. The bill’s author, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, criticized and admonished one of the bill’s opponents, the California Chamber of Commerce. She accused it of waging a war on Christmas and “attempting to elicit support based on erroneous readings of the law and misguided arguments about the separation of church and state.”

Chamber representative Jennifer Barrera, who had already testified against the bill, asked Hernández for the opportunity to respond to Gonzalez’s charges. “May I respond to those comments since they were directed right at the Chamber of Commerce?” she asked.

Hernández said, “I’m going to defer to my colleagues on that one since I have not given that opportunity on any other bill.”

But Hernández did not defer to one of his colleagues, Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, who was in the process of questioning Gonzalez and asked that Barrera be allowed to respond. “There is a request by the Chamber to clarify this,” Patterson said. “I think that’s a reasonable request. And I would like the prerogative of asking the Chamber to respond.”

Hernández dismissed him, saying, “I’m not going to give you that opportunity at this time.” He did not allow Barrera to respond to Gonzalez’s charges at any other point in the meeting either.

Bill to increase state minimum wage

Aside from the verbal fireworks at the end of last week’s meeting, much of the debate on the minimum wage increase bill was similar to that at the Senate Industrial and Labor Relations Committee hearing in April.

Leno argued that an increase in the minimum wage is necessary in order to lift California workers above the federal poverty level. “We live with the largest population of people living in poverty of any state,” he said. “The highest percentage of any state with residents in poverty. That has many reasons and causes. But a significant driver of that is that it is currently legal to pay subpoverty wages in California.”

In addition to opposition by business groups, who warn that a 63 percent pay increase over three years for hundreds of thousands of workers will hurt businesses, cost jobs and increase prices, SB3 is also opposed by the California Department of Finance. Increasing the minimum wage will cost state government $394 million in the 2015-16 fiscal year, $959 million in 2016-17 and $3.4 billion in 2017-18, according to a DOF legislative analysis.

“Further, Finance notes the net impact of an increased minimum wage on California’s economy and state budget is likely to be negative,” the DOF said. “For the economy, losses from higher production costs to businesses would be partially offset by the consumption boost from wealthier minimum wage workers, but would overall lead to slower employment growth.

“This would lead to slower personal income growth, and an anticipated negative impact on taxes collected, especially since the tax structure in California is highly progressive and lower income individuals pay little to no income taxes. Sales taxes under the provisions of this bill may increase, but they are not anticipated to increase enough to offset lower personal income taxes. Although the state would save some money on lower provision of benefits under some state funded programs, the increased expenses from paying state workers would more than offset those gains.”

SB3 passed the Senate, 23-15 on June 1. It will next be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was mocked for saying about the Affordable Care Act, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.” But that type of legislating-in-the-dark is too often the norm in California, according to Assembly Republican Leader-Elect Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto.

“You may remember in 2011 when the education bill trailer language was passed. And we actually received the language of the bill 15 minutes after the vote,” Olsen reminded the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Budget Process, Oversight and Program Evaluation. “That’s just unacceptable. How can we possibly be expected to make wise decisions if we don’t have an opportunity to review the language?”

Olsen appeared before the committee on May 7 to introduce Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1, which is designed to increase transparency in the legislative process. The bill, according to the committee’s legislative analysis:

• Prohibits either house from passing a bill unless it has been made available in print and on the internet for 72 hours prior to the vote.
• Provides an exception for urgency bills related to a declared emergency, as specified in the Constitution.
• Allows bills to be heard by committees after the contents of the bill have been available on the internet for 15 days.”

Relegated to suspense file

ACA1 is Olsen’s fourth legislative attempt to increase transparency. But the bill has met the same fate as her three previous efforts, which were relegated to the committee’s suspense file, never to be voted on and dying at the end of the legislative session. Olsen made her best case for the bill in her remarks to the committee:

“This bill will allow legislators to thoroughly analyze measures before voting. It will end the midnight votes on last-minute, backroom deals, and it will bring greater transparency to the lawmaking process. It would also allow stakeholders’ time to voice their concerns or support.

“I would remind all of us that this bill doesn’t require anything that isn’t already required of cities, counties, special districts, school boards, etc. Simply put, Californians should be given the opportunity to review all bills before they are voted on. As legislators we should be given adequate time to analyze a bill in order to make a sound decision.

“In 2011, 48 bills were completely rewritten in the final weeks of the session. Of those bills, 22 made it to the governor’s desk. He signed all but three of them. In 2011, 36 percent of the approved bills passed through the full process. And yet, bills that were gutted and amended and rushed through the process passed at a higher rate of 46 percent.

“In 2011, SB202, a bill that changed the initiative process, was gutted and amended on September 8 and was voted on the very next day after a 13-minute hearing that was scheduled only two hours before the hearing took place. The very next day, SB202 passed the Senate and was sent to the governor. All of this happened in a 48-hour period. People did not have the time to engage, to analyze the bill. We really didn’t know what we were voting on in terms of the details.

“Examples like SB202 send a bad message to the public and contribute to cynical attitudes toward the Legislature. It’s really not a partisan issue. As Republicans and Democrats, we would do a great job working together to increase trust in government by simply allowing bills to be in print for 72 hours.”

Olsen cited a recent poll by the Institute for Advanced Technology and Public Policy at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo that showed 89 percent support for a 72-hour wait period before voting on legislation.

Legislature should play by same rules as local governments

California’s cities agree that state government should play by the same transparency rules that local governments must follow, said Dan Carrigg, legislative director for the League of California Cities. He told the committee:

“It bewilders [city officials] when they observe or hear about proposals in the Legislature that can move very quickly without the transparency that you expect of them through your laws such as the Brown Act and other things that apply to us.

“A couple years ago a number of cities were severely harmed by the passage of SB89. That bill took away vehicle license fees from cities. There had been special allocations that helped cities with annexations as well as new incorporations. The law that established those special allocations went through the Legislature in a very deliberative process. It was crafted, refined, amended.

“The bill that took it away without a public hearing probably went through the building in about six hours. So those that were affected by the law never had a chance to, one, even know about it, and two, be able to even talk to the legislators and make sure the legislators knew what the full impacts were. So that’s why our membership feels that having an in-print rule would improve the process.”

Time needed for in-depth look

Also urging passage of ACA1 was Nicolas Heidorn, representing Common Cause. “As legislators we think you’re asked to do something which is challenging if not impossible,” he said. “Which is when a major policy revision is dropped in your lap at the last minute, to ask you to vote on this without having had the time to really look in depth at the bill.

“We also think that the Legislature does itself a disservice when there isn’t the time for public input to look at the bill and provide you with recommendations and thoughts, which can help act as a safeguard to prevent errors in legislation or unintended consequences. This bill is important to stop special interests from inserting at the last minute provisions that might harm the public interest that the Legislature and public don’t have time to analyze and catch.”

Heidorn pointed out that other states have implemented similar transparency provisions in their legislative process. “Michigan for over a century has had a five-day print rule,” he said. “Hawaii has a two-day print rule. Florida has a 72-hour print rule for appropriation rules. So we think there’s ample evidence in other states that the process can work.”

Thurmond raises concerns

No witnesses spoke in opposition to the bill. But concerns were raised by one committee member, Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, D-Richmond. “I’m torn because I really value the goals of transparency,” he said. “Like many [in the Legislature], I come from local government. The Brown Act was something that was imbedded into my kind of being about how we make the public informed about anything that might be voted on. I support the goals of transparency.

“I’m also a person who loves always having some flexibility for situations that might arise that we cannot anticipate, and would be concerned about government’s ability to have those flexibilities to do business that meets the needs of the people. The drought package was a perfect example of our ability to act, recognizing that so much of what was in that package is going to take start-up time and ramp-up time. And that because there are communities with no water and because there are communities that have even just one year’s supply, we need as much ramp up time to move.”

Olsen responded, “We do have the exception in there if the governor declares a state of emergency we can certainly act within less than three days. The drought would be a great example where he could and has declared a state of emergency.

“But even in the package of bills this year, nothing would have been harmed had we voted on the drought relief package on Thursday instead of Monday. And as evidence of that I would point to the fact that the drought relief package we passed a year ago, most of the funds still have not been allocated and spent. So there’s nothing so urgent that three days couldn’t accommodate the need to be able to still pass that very important and critical piece of legislation.”

Committee Chair Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, began the hearing by announcing that “Budget Sub 6 was created in 2011 to consider changes to the budget process and bills related to the budget that were proposed by members. All non-committee bills referred to Budget Committee are heard in Sub 6 and referred to suspense automatically without a vote similar to the way it’s done in Appropriations.”

Olsen pleads for ‘true representative government’

After Weber sent ACA1 to the suspense file without a vote, Olsen made a plea for its passage this time around. “The public deserves full disclosure and timely and accurate information from their elected officials about how their taxes are spent, just as we require of all municipal governments,” she said. “Only then can we claim to have a true representative government where people have the ability to voice their opinion on all issues. Our constituents deserve better from us.

“And at the very least they deserve a vote on this measure. In 2013 I had ACA4, and that was the third version. This is now the fourth time I’ve introduced this. ACA4 came to this committee, it was placed on suspense, it never got an up-or-down vote. My question is, when does the suspense file get voted on? In Appropriations Committee, in Rev[enue] and Tax Committee there’s always a hearing where the suspense file gets voted on. And I think ACA1 deserves the opportunity to actually receive a vote. I would appreciate being noticed when this budget committee plans to take up that suspense file for votes on each of the bills.”

Weber did not respond to Olsen’s request, saying simply, “Thank you,” then moved onto the next agenda item.

Olsen expressed her frustration in a press release on her website:

“While I appreciate the discussion we had about legislative transparency, today’s hearing was really just talk. I am disappointed that my Democratic colleagues did not allow an up-or-down vote on my bill. Year after year, efforts to shed more light on lawmaking are shelved by the majority party without a vote. This adds to the cynicism of Californians who feel shut out of their government.

“Too much of what goes on in Sacramento happens in the middle of the night, when the public isn’t watching. This is not healthy for our democracy. It’s time to modernize the legislative process and end the back-room thinking that dominates too much of what goes on at the State Capitol. By making legislation available online at least 72 hours before a vote, the public can engage in the process and make their voices heard.”

It was only a year and a half ago that Assembly Bill 10 was signed into law. It raised California’s minimum wage from $8 an hour to $9 in July 2014 with another increase to $10 scheduled to take effect in January 2016.

SB3 would supersede that bill, increasing the minimum wage from the current $9 to $11 in January 2016 with another $2 bump to $13 in July 2017. Thereafter the minimum wage would increase with inflation.

Leno lays out argument for higher minimum wage

The bill’s author, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and its supporters spent more than an hour telling the committee that the wage hike is needed to lift California’s minimum wage workers out of poverty. They assured that doing so would not hurt businesses and would benefit California’s economy and the state budget.

State Sen. Mark Leno

“Wages are growing at the very slowest rate relative to corporate profits in the history of our country,” said Leno. “The median wage has been stagnant over the last 30 years. Sixty-five percent of workers are working paycheck to paycheck. Millions of Californians impacted by our minimum wage are living in poverty, and will continue to live in poverty even when we get to our incremental success under AB10 to $10 an hour next year.

“And they all by definition qualify for public assistance. That means that the taxpayer is subsidizing the private employer’s responsibility for his or her workers’ basic human needs: housing, food and medical care.”

A $13 minimum wage equates to about $26,000 per year, he said, which is above the federal poverty level of $24,250 for a family of four.

Leno argued that businesses will benefit from increased consumer spending. “When workers have more dollars in their pockets to spend on their daily needs, there’s an increase in demand for goods and services,” he said. “That’s when employers have to hire more employees to meet that demand. And that’s what economists call a virtuous upwards cycle.

“Currently, though, we’re in a stagnation, if not a vicious cycle downward, where we’ve put such constraints on the middle class that it’s shrinking and shrinking, putting more people into poverty.”

Higher wages will also benefit businesses by reducing turnover, attracting higher-skilled workers and increasing employee satisfaction, which leads to better customer service, said Leno.

Effect on unemployment rates and income inequality?

California’s experience with raising the minimum wage last July has shown that it doesn’t hurt employment, he said. The state’s unemployment rate, which was 7.4 percent in July 2014 when the minimum wage increased $1, dropped to 6.5 percent in March.

“I’m not stating that there’s causation here,” said Leno. “But there is minimally correlation and proof positive this is not a job killer bill. These numbers become even more impressive when considering them on a national scale. California jobs added in January accounted for 28 percent, almost a third of all jobs created in the United States of America were created here in California – though we represent only 12 percent of the population and we just increased our minimum wage.”

The bill’s coauthor, Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, who said she has spent the last 20 years in the labor movement, said the minimum wage hike is needed to reduce income inequality.

“Right now the income gap is enormous,” she said. “It’s the biggest it’s ever been. CEO pay is at an all-time high while workers are falling further and further behind. And while we certainly respect our CEOs and we love to see companies do well and be successful, sometimes they forget that the people who show up and do the work day in and day out are the ones that are making them successful and are the ones that are making them the profits that they have.”

Teenagers no longer make up most of the minimum wage workforce, she said. Today 88 percent are 20 years or older and 55 percent are women. And most are part-time, averaging 28 hours a week.

“You don’t even have enough money for your rent, let alone eat, pay your utilities and drive your car to work,” said Leyva. “We really can’t have it both ways. We can’t keep people working in poverty and then be unhappy that they are using the social safety net. So either we make sure people can earn a living and support themselves and their families, or we’re going to continue to put more money into the social safety net.”

Effects on CA businesses

UC Berkeley economics professor Michael Reich told the committee that more than a third of all California workers will get a pay raise under SB3, but businesses will be able to absorb the increased labor costs.

“We find that the most affected industries are going to be restaurants, hotel and retail,” he said. “And that businesses will mainly adjust to these increases by reducing turnover costs. Workers won’t quit as often, they’ll stay longer, they’ll be more productive. This will save employees recruitment and retention costs, which would themselves absorb the savings of about 15 percent of the increased payroll.

“The rest of the cost that businesses face will be primarily absorbed, we think, through price increases, small price increases, about half of 1 percent overall, based on our Los Angeles study.”

Although higher prices tend to result in decreased spending, that will be offset by the increased dollars in workers’ wallets. The net effect, based on preliminary calculations, is that California’s gross domestic product would increase by about one-tenth of 1 percent, said Reich.

Similarly, although the state budget will take a $2 billion hit over two years due to paying higher wages for social service workers, that will be more than offset by reduced state Medi-Cal payments, he said. The health care costs for those workers would instead be borne by the federal government’s Medicaid coverage through the Affordable Care Act. And the federal costs will be offset by reduced food stamp payments.

“So when you add up the increased cost of the salaries, the lower expenses for Medi-Cal and increase in income and sales tax revenue … then the state budget would realize net gains of about $2.1 billion in 2016 and 17 under SB3,” said Reich. “When I mentioned this at a private meeting with Gov. Brown he said, yeah, he’d like a free billion dollars too.

“So in summary, the minimum wage will help people whose standard of living has been declining and can’t meet expenses on their own. It will have modest effects on businesses, which I think will be absorbed mainly through turnover reductions and through increased prices. It will have a very small effect on the California economy, certainly not a negative effect. It won’t harm the economy. And it will have very large positive effects on the state’s budget.”

Sen. Stone argues against wage hike

But the lone Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Temecula, does not believe it. He cited the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that raising the federal minimum wage by nearly $3 would cost 500,000 jobs. Despite that, Stone supports raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 because it would be applied equally throughout the country.

State Sen. Jeff Stone

But California’s $13 minimum wage would “further make us more business unfriendly,” he said. “We rank at the bottom of the list. According to Chief Executive’s annual report of CEOs, California is dead last. This certainly is not going to create an asset for business.

“I appreciate the data that you’ve given about the increase in employment numbers. But one thing those numbers don’t reflect is that there have been thousands of people that have already left the state. There are businesses in droves that have already left the state, have gone to Texas, South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona. They’re gone. There are people that are stuck here in the state of California because they may not be able to afford to leave the state and are jumping at any opportunity to have a job.”

Stone said that the best way to lift people out of poverty is to provide them with the education to get better jobs. “I believe that by increasing the minimum wage – and this is where we’ll just agree to disagree – is that we’re going to be hurting those that we most prolifically want to help,” he said.

“Straw that breaks the back of CA businesses”

He warned that raising the minimum wage could be the straw that breaks the back of California businesses on top of expenses such as sick leave, taxes, worker’s compensation, Obamacare and unemployment insurance.

“If you combine all of this and now you have this higher minimum wage, I personally believe that we are pushing the state to a threshold of a catastrophe,” Stone said. “We have governors from other states now that have already grabbed the low-hanging fruit. Those are the large businesses that are leaving; businesses like Toyota, businesses like Sherwin Williams Paints. They are taking thousands of jobs with them. And now they are coming in and going after the small business man and taking the small businesses out of state.

“And with FedEx and UPS, people can ship with Amazon.com, you don’t have to have a brick-and-mortar facility to have these jobs in the state any more. And we cannot rely on the beautiful climate and the beautiful mountains and our beautiful oceans to keep people here. People have to eat, people want to have opportunities.

“And there is going to come a time – and I don’t want to see it happen – that we are just going to basically price ourselves out of business in the state of California and become nothing more than a welfare state. I believe we can do better.”

A daunting challenge

Stone was backed by several business representatives, including Jon Ross, representing the California Restaurant Association. He said that no study has analyzed the business impact of a nearly 63 percent minimum wage hike over three years.

“There is no model out there of actual experience that will tell you what the impacts will be,” said Ross. “And to us, that’s a heck of an experiment. Trying to impose that kind of a cost impact on a restaurant model where two-thirds of your costs are labor costs, to see those go up by 63 percent over that short period of time is daunting.

“The assumption is that this will be borne by price increases. But our operators, especially the small ones who are local, know that they can’t raise prices at that rate that fast. Small increases over time is the way prior minimum wage increases have been dealt with. But those have been increases in the 25, 50 cent range, and the biggest one ever in 2010 going up $2 over an 18-month period.

“So what is being suggested here is fundamentally different than anything that has been tried in this state before or tried anywhere else. And our guys are very, very daunted by the challenge that this would pose.”

Ross said that the reason teenagers are no longer predominant in minimum wage jobs is that they have been priced out of entry level employment. Six of the top 10 areas in the country with the highest rates of teen underemployment are in California, he said.

The concern about minimum wage workers living in poverty may be overstated, he said, when considering those who are receiving tips, which can raise their pay on average to $20-$25 an hour.

“One of the things that’s sort of crude about the minimum wage as applied in the typical restaurant environment is that it doesn’t take account of those disparities in the house [between tipped and non-tipped employees],” he said.

SB3 is scheduled to be considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 20.

One would think with such importance that reporters and news organizations would have in place an incredibly large presence to cover the comings and goings of lawmakers and agencies in Sacramento. Yet, disconcertingly, the opposite is true.

In fact, the number of reporters covering state government is at a startling low. And a recent Pew study shows that number will likely continue to decline.

According to the study, national numbers of reporters covering state legislatures has dropped more than 35 percent since 2003, outpacing the overall drop in journalists from all fields. The Sacramento Bee, the newspaper of the capitol, has cut its state government reporting staff by almost half.  The same thing happened at the L.A. Times. Last December, Southern California Public Radio announced it would close its Sacramento news bureau and similarly, last August, ABC News announced the closing of its broadcast presence in the capitol.

The Pew study also exposed huge gaps in newspapers covering state capitols — only 30 percent of newspapers polled cover their state government at all.  Which means entire cities or regions read the news every day and see no significant legislative coverage. News stations are reducing the time the assigned reporters even spend on covering government. Only half of reporters assigned to cover state government do so full-time, and 15 percent of those assigned are student interns. If news organizations are not adequately reporting on how our state leaders are spending tax dollars and making decisions on our behalf, who will? 

What makes our situation in California worse is how we compare based on the length of our legislative sessions.  California is one of just five states with a 12-month legislative session.  Texas, the state with the most reporters, and full-time reporters, assigned to the state government, has an average legislative session length of under 5 months.  Among states with a year-long legislative calendar, California has a significantly higher percentage of part-time reporters.

It’s not as if the Legislature isn’t giving reporters plenty to keep an eye on.  In 2013, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to opening government, gave our state Legislature a “D” grade.  Important details about legislation, committee assignments and votes weren’t available anywhere on the state’s website.  The report showed it was nearly impossible to tell what was going on in our own government based on what they report themselves.

Despite ongoing scandals and ethics violations, a significant number of legislators in Sacramento have backed away from passing comprehensive ethics reform.  And the Legislature adjourned for recess earlier this year without touching the most pressing issue on its agenda: A reformed water bond agreement that has been awaiting approval since former Governor Schwarzenegger helped draft the legislation five years ago.  If there were more coverage of Sacramento, would legislators move faster on legislation like this? I’d like to think so.

Heading into the November election, we’re about to send a lot of new leaders to make decisions for us. And there are decisions of great consequence, from education funding, to insurance premiums, to drought preparedness, to business and regulatory policies, at stake. Citizens need to know what politicians and influencers are doing and saying in Sacramento to make informed decisions.  And a vibrant press corps is essential to providing such information.