The “Me Too” anti-sexual harassment campaign that quickly yielded several resignations by state lawmakers last fall appears to have hit a lull in Sacramento with Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, now seemingly on track for re-election this November despite scandalous allegations. But new twists may loom.

Garcia, 40, appeared doomed to a primary defeat two months ago. She took a voluntary leave of absence after she was accused of groping a then-legislative staffer four years ago; making inappropriate comments to a lobbyist; playing “spin the bottle” with staffers; and of using racist and homophobic language. The perception that she was a weakened candidate led the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California – which supported her in 2014 and 2016 – to oppose her primary bid.

But between a preliminary probe finding no evidence for the most serious allegation against Garcia – that she groped a staffer – and the strong support of Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, Garcia finished first in her June 5 primary. She got 29 percent of the votes to 27 percent for Republican activist Mike Simpfenderfer, a mortgage banker. The other five candidates in the race, all Democrats, split the remaining 44 percent of the vote.

Last week, however, saw two developments that suggested Garcia wasn’t out of the woods yet. The first came when the Assembly agreed to consider an appeal of its finding clearing Garcia of groping former legislative aide Daniel Fierro, who now works as a Los Angeles County political consultant. Fierro sought the appeal last month amid grumbling that the initial investigation of Garcia was released even though it was incomplete.

This concern may have been a factor in the second development: the call from two Democratic lawmakers for a much more transparent and responsive approach to allegations of misconduct involving state lawmakers and staffers.

Anti-gay, anti-Asian remarks could haunt Garcia

State Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, said existing efforts to respond to sexual harassment don’t go nearly far enough to take on a “toxic” culture in the Capitol. They propose establishing a new investigative unit that would focus only on discrimination and harassment complaints; would handle probes for both the Assembly and the Senate; and would rely on an independent committee of experts to recommend punishment for those found guilty of wrongdoing. Legislators, however, still would have the final say on what if any penalties were assessed.

But the Mitchell-Friedman proposal targets not just the behavior that Garcia has so far been cleared of but behavior of the sort the Assembly probe found she had engaged in: using homophobic slurs to describe fellow Los Angeles County Democrat John Perez, the Assembly’s first openly gay speaker, and of threatening violence against Asian-Americans after some Asian-American lawmakers balked at affirmative-action proposals that they thought would help some minority groups but not their own.

“The proposed policy … aims to spur a shift in how people in the Capitol community speak and act toward each other,” the Associated Press reported. “It encourages people to report minor incidents such as insensitive comments all the way through more aggressive acts of misconduct.”

Rendon’s decision to defend Garcia while still appearing strongly sympathetic to the Me Too movement has been complicated by comments that suggest he thinks Garcia’s larger record of legislative priorities and accomplishments should matter in judging her behavior. Similar suggestions made in defense of former President Bill Clinton and now-former Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, triggered a furious backlash.

Rendon entered this territory in April when he denounced the building trades unions for seeking to replace Garcia with other Democrats whom Rendon said would be more willing to challenge aggressive environmental policies touted by Gov. Jerry Brown and all the party’s legislative leaders. A spokesperson for the unions said their opposition to Garcia was prompted not by her strong environmentalism but by sympathy for her alleged victim and a belief another candidate would better reflect the values of the 58th Assembly District.

But Rendon rejected the claims in a blistering statement posted by the Sacramento Bee in which he called the unions’ maneuvering “a thinly veiled attempt by Big Oil and polluters to intimidate me and my members,” “ an affront to my speakership” and an “ill-advised political attack.”

The stakes are particularly high for Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, who has already gotten on the bad side of the “Bernie-crats” who may soon dominate the Capitol. Last year, he shelved Senate Bill 562 – a Senate-backed measure that would commit California to single-payer health care without a blueprint on how to overcome cost and legal obstacles – saying it was much too incomplete to approve.

Now, however, Rendon has decided to assert his bona fides on another foundational issue for progressives – fighting global warming – in a way that eventually could put him at odds with another progressive cause: the #MeToo anti-sexual harassment campaign.

Rendon’s maneuvering relates to Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (pictured), D-Bell Gardens, who was an outspoken leader of the Capitol’s #MeToo movement after allegations emerged against several lawmakers last fall. In early February – after the Legislature passed an unprecedented whistleblower-protection measure to help root out lawmakers responsible for sexual harassment – Garcia was celebrated as a hero in the Associated Press story about the law’s enactment.

But within days, Garcia – a single, 40-year-old former high school teacher – found herself accused of groping a former aide, Daniel Fierro, who is now a Los Angeles County political consultant. Garcia denied the allegations and is now taking unpaid leave while she is the subject of a formal investigation by the Assembly Rules Committee.

Lawmaker allegedly used gay slurs, ripped Asians

Yet her headaches have only intensified in recent weeks due to two new allegations. The first asserted that in 2014 she used homophobic insults to describe then-Assembly Speaker John Perez. The second, made by Perez, was that he had formally admonished her for saying in a closed Assembly Democratic Caucus meeting that she wanted to “punch the next Asian person” she encountered over Asian-American lawmakers’ opposition to efforts to overturn the 1996 state law banning affirmative action in college admissions.

Now, however, Rendon is coming to Garcia’s defense against efforts by other Democrats and Democratic allies to unseat Garcia in her bid for a fourth term in the June primary – with the speaker citing her history as a defender of the state’s cap-and-trade program against more business-friendly lawmakers.

On April 20, the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California opened an independent expenditure committee targeting Garcia after twice having previously endorsed her. The labor group’s beef with Garcia stemmed from her support last year of cap-and-trade and other pollution control programs; construction unions are much closer to oil-and-gas interests than other factions in the California Democratic coalition. Two credible challengers to Garcia have emerged – Commerce Councilman Ivan Altamirano and Bell Gardens Councilman Pedro Aceituno.

Rendon responded as if setting up the committee was an attack on him. According to a Sacramento Bee report, he called the targeting of Garcia “a thinly veiled attempt by Big Oil and polluters to intimidate me and my members” and “an affront to my speakership.” The Assembly speaker also vowed to “vigorously defend the members of our caucus from any ill-advised political attack.”

But a spokeswoman for the independent expenditure committee backing Garcia’s defeat told the Bee that no one should buy any characterization of Garcia as a victim.
“It wasn’t politics that forced her to do the things of which she’s been accused,” said Erin Lehane.

Rendon’s decision to defend Garcia could grow even more problematic if the Rules Committee returns with a report corroborating the harassment allegations against her. At that point, even Garcia’s close allies in the Sacramento #MeToo movement may be inclined to cut her loose. There is no firm timetable for when that report will be released.

By Joseph Perkins

The California Supreme Court ruled this week that the state’s prevailing wage law does not apply to public works projects financed entirely by taxpayers residing in one of the state’s 121 chartered cities.

The decision is a huge win for chartered cities. It enables them to save millions of dollars in construction-related labor costs.

The case in question involved the city of Vista, where voters in 2006 approved a half-cent sales tax to fund several municipal projects. That included a seismic retrofit of an existing fire station, as well as construction of a new civic center, a new sports park and a new stage house for the city’s amphitheater.

In 2007, Vista’s city attorney submitted a report to its city council recommending that Vista, then a general law city, take steps to become a charter city.

That would give the San Diego County municipality the latitude, the report determined, not to pay state-mandated prevailing wages on its planned public works projects, which would result “in millions of dollars in savings over the next few years and beyond.”

Indeed, in a study of low-income housing construction in California, UC Berkeley researchers found that the state’s prevailing wage mandate drove up costs of such projects by an average 21 percent.

That’s because the state formula for calculating the prevailing wage for a given locality is based not on the average wage rate at actual construction sites, but on higher, union wage rates. 

That’s why Vista’s city council heeded the recommendation of its city attorney and placed a measure on the city ballot to convert to a charter city. And that’s why an overwhelming two-thirds of the city’s electorate approved the conversion.

Not long after officially becoming a charter city, Vista’s city council promptly amended an existing city ordinance to prohibit city contracts requiring payment of prevailing wages unless mandated under terms of a state or federal grant, specifically authorized by the city council or unrelated to a municipal affair.

Legal battle

Vista’s moves did not set well with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, an umbrella group for construction unions, which in 2007 filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court to compel the new charter city to compel with the state’s prevailing wage law.

The legal battle took five years to wend its way through the courts.

The union maintained that the matter of prevailing wages was a “statewide concern,” and, therefore, the state had authority over the city of Vista. Vista countered that the matter of wages paid to workers on construction projects financed by local revenues was a municipal affair and, therefore, governed by city ordinance.

“We agree with the city,” the state Supreme Court declared this week, in its 5-2 decision.

Vista Mayor Judy Ritter said the city’s legal victory was critical not only for her charter city, but for every other such city throughout the state that aims to control the cost of local public works projects.

Had the court sided with the union, she said, “it would have required the taxpayers of even the poorest charter city in the state to pay the highest possible wages to build their municipal facilities.”

That may not matter to the State Building and Construction Trades Council, which believes that unionized workers have an entitlement to artificially inflated wages on public works projects.

But it matters a great deal to cities like Vista that endeavor to be fiscally responsible; that do not want to find themselves in a similar position to the woebegone city of Stockton.