State Controller Betty T. Yee disclosed the 2014 payroll data from 54 counties and 468 cities, which included information on more than 600,000 employees. The disclosure is part of the controller’s latest update to the “Government Compensation in California” website.

The open government online portal allows users to map compensation levels throughout the state, assemble charts, evaluate payroll trends and export data for in-depth statistical analysis.

Vernon: Smallest City, Biggest Pay

The state controller’s public employee payroll website has become a powerful tool for journalists and citizen watchdogs to identify wasteful spending and corruption in local government.

Among the municipalities with questionable payroll data from 2014: the city of Vernon. Although it is the least populous city in California, with just 123 residents, Vernon has double number of employees. And those employees earn $103,601 per year in salary — the highest average salary in the state. Vernon employees also take home, on average, another $32,462 per year in health and retirement benefits.

Vernon’s top salary is followed by the city of Hayward with $94,041 average salary, and Palm Desert at $89,582 in average salary. The state controller’s office notes that the average wages for city governments overall fell by 3 percent to $59,614.

In 2014, the average salary for county employees increased by approximately 3 percent to $60,993. At the county level, the nearly 19,000 employees at Santa Clara County received the highest average wage, earning $78,486 per year in wages and $27,655 in retirement and health benefits.

9 Local Governments Fail to Disclose Data

The controller’s office classified six cities as non-compliant entities for having “filed a compensation report that was incomplete, was in a format different than the one requested by the Controller’s Office, or was submitted after the reporting deadline.” San Francisco, the largest non-compliant entity joined the cities of Bell, Compton, Covina, Dana Point and Santa Ana on the list of non-compliant entities.

The counties of Modoc, Monterey and Riverside were the three counties, or 5.3 percent, that failed to file.

The city and county of Los Angeles remain the largest local government agencies. Los Angeles County employs 103,338 people with a cumulative wage of $7.2 billion in annual salary and $2.76 billion in health and retirement benefits. The city of Los Angeles paid out $4.5 billion in wages and $703 million in health and retirement benefits.

Yee’s latest disclosure builds on the work of her predecessor. In 2010, following the high-profile corruption case at the city of Bell, then-Controller John Chiang didn’t wait around for local governments to clean up their act. He ordered cities, counties and special districts, under Government Code sections 12463 and 53892, to share salary and other wage information with his office. Initially, some local governments balked, then dragged their feet in disclosing the payroll data.

To access State Controller Betty Yee’s payroll database, go to publicpay.ca.gov.

Top 10 Highest County Employees in California

1. Faculty Physician-Contract: $1,360,744
Kern County

2.Faculty Physician-Contract: $1,295,929
Kern County

3.Orthopedic Surgeon-Contract: $1,092,651
Kern County

4. Chairman, Department of Surgery: $851,665
Kern County

5. Medical Director II: $775,999
Los Angeles County

6.Physician – VMC: $760,461
Santa Clara County

7. Chief Physician III Surgery-Neurological: $728,489
Los Angeles County

8. Physician: $727,864
San Joaquin County

9. Physician – VMC: $684,365
Santa Clara County

10. Physician – VMC: $658,745
Santa Clara County

Top 10 Highest City Employees in California

1. Police Sergeant: $592,652
City of Burbank

2. Fire Chief: $487,871
City of Richmond

3. Chief Of Police: $487,644
City of El Monte

4. City Manager: $470,249
City of Lincoln

5. City Manager: $419,840
City of West Covina

6. City Attorney: $412,211
City of Escondido

7. Power Engineering Manager: $403,271
City of Los Angeles

8. Assistant City Manager:
$396,548
City of Oxnard

9.City Manager: $395,501
City of Escondido

10. Police Officer (PERS): $393,573
City of Oakland

The problems with West Covina’s public contracts were so bad, the controller’s office says, that they constitute criminal behavior in violation of the state’s public contracting laws.

However, the statute of limitations for public contracting violations is limited to one year — making it nearly impossible to prosecute violations.

“It makes no sense that the statute of limitations for violating state and local contracting laws is one year from when the money is spent,” Controller Yee said in a statement to CalWatchdog.com. “I urge the legislature to consider a statutory change if we expect to ferret out fraud and prevent willful abuses of state law and taxpayer dollars.”

West Covina: 72 of 79 control components inadequate

The audit of West Covina covered just two fiscal years, from 2011-13, during which time the city routinely misstated its revenues and expenditures. The controller’s audit division reviewed the internal accounting components based on the guidelines established by the General Accounting Office’s Internal Control Management and Evaluation tool. Ninety-two percent, or 72 of 79 components were deemed inadequate.

The City of West Covina struggled with basic accounting procedures. In fiscal year 2011-12, the city understated its property tax revenue by $14 million, sales tax revenue by $4 million and expenditures by $16 million. The following year, expenditures were off by $9.78 million and property tax revenue understated by $4.2 million.

In addition to misstating the city’s financials, the council and top management charged the city for lavish meals, hotel bills and other expenses with no government purpose. From July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2013, city officials charged more than $32,000 in “questionable” expenses to city credit cards. According to the state controller’s audit, former city councilmembers and city managers charged thousands of dollars for hotel stays in Santa Barbara and weekend getaways in Indian Wells.

Problems occurred under former City Manager Andrew Pasmant

Among the State Controller’s other findings:

• West Covina settled a breach of contract lawsuit for $900,000 after a real estate deal fell through due to the city’s failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations. The city also paid $145,000 in legal fees to the West Covina Improvement Association, which challenged the deal’s legality.
• After winning a discrimination and hostile work environment lawsuit, West Covina waived its right to recover more than a million dollars in costs and legal fees. The State Controller’s review concluded the city failed in its responsibility to protect taxpayer dollars.
• Invoices for $457,015 in legal fees did not detail the work performed or show payment authorization.

In another instance of questionable city spending, the state controller’s audit revealed, “On November 17, 2011, the former City Manager charged to the City issued card $5,300 for a business-magazine advertisement for a private company for which the contact person was the former Community Development Director.” Andrew Pasmant, according to city records, was the city manager at the date in question.

The West Covina city council should have anticipated Pasmant’s penchant for problems. When the city hired him in 2001, it knew about Pasmant’s past problems in the City of South Gate, which needed “a court order to get him out of his office,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Sweetheart Contract for Athens Services

The former city manager can share the blame with the former members of the city council.

In 2012, the council approved a sweetheart deal for Athens Services to collect the city’s trash and recycling. Athens Services received a contract extension until November 2037 in exchange for a one-time payment of $2 million and annual contributions of $50,000 to the City’s SWAT program, $20,000 to the Summer Concert series, and $30,000 to the Fourth of July celebration.
That agreement with Athens Service  was approved by then-Mayor Mike Touhey and then-Councilmen Steve Herfert and Rob Sotelo. Councilman Fredrick Sykes, who cast the lone dissenting vote, criticized the contract.

“The evergreen clause has been in the driver’s seat in this city forever,” Sykes said of the Athens contract, according to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. “The City Council doesn’t control the how and the when and the cost. We have no say.”

To its credit, the City of West Covina has embraced much of the audit’s findings and cooperated with the state controller’s office. The current city council was largely elected on a reform slate and took over control after the problems found in the audit.

“The City of West Covina acknowledges that the open bidding requirements established by the municipal code were not always complied with,” the city stated in response to the audit. The city also says that it has adopted “a new and more comprehensive purchasing policy since the time periods evaluated.”

A complete copy of the audit is available at the State Controller’s website.

That’s the conclusion of a new report by Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor. He reviewed the state program for returning unclaimed property to its rightful owners. At the end of 2014, the state held more than 28.4 million unclaimed properties worth an estimated $7.2 billion. Ninety-five percent of unclaimed property held by the state is cash assets.

Taylor said the state could do a better job of finding owners, instead of passively waiting for the cash to be claimed. His report also raised the question of whether the state has a conflict of interest in managing the program.

“In particular, because property not reunited with owners becomes state General Fund revenue, the unclaimed property law creates an incentive for the state to reunite less property with owners,” according to the report. “Now generating over $400 million in annual revenue, unclaimed property is the state General Fund’s fifth-largest revenue source. This has created tension between two opposing program identities — unclaimed property as a consumer protection program and as a source of General Fund revenue.”

Public unaware

Under state law, when there’s been no activity on an account for three years, financial institutions are obliged to report this unclaimed property to the California Controller’s Office. In turn, the controller holds the funds, commonly money from a forgotten bank account or insurance settlement, until it is claimed by the owner.

Controller Betty Yee has a special web page to help find lost property. It urges, “You may be one of millions of Californians owed money by the State!” The search engine is here.

Among the biggest problems facing the state’s unclaimed property program is a lack of public awareness about where people can find their old property.

“To begin with, the name itself — unclaimed property — is not very user-friendly,” the report said. “It likely prevents potential claimants from quickly understanding the program. The poor branding is likely made worse by limited state efforts to increase public awareness of the program.”

Even state leaders aware of the program’s existence, such as former controller candidate and Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, don’t bother to routinely check and then collect small sums held by the state.

A search by CalWatchdog.com of the unclaimed property database showed prominent state political leaders with unclaimed property.

Gov. Jerry Brown has $61.26 in cash from the sale of shares formerly held by US Bancorp. The address for Brown in the database matches an Oakland address for his “We The People” organization.

There are also unclaimed cashier’s checks for “Kamala Harris” and “Gavin Newsom.” But, without any addresses listed, it’s unclear whether the $200 and $40, respectively, are owed to the attorney general and lieutenant governor by the same names.

Database problems

Missing addresses are only the beginning of the problems with the state’s unclaimed property database. Inaccurate information, such as misspelled city names, can prevent owners from finding their properties in the database. For example, the city of “San Bernardino” has at least 18 different spelling variations.

In addition to allowing the controller’s office the authority to clean the database, the Legislative Analyst’s office recommends the Legislature approve an upgrade to enhance search capabilities. Other states’ databases, such as Virginia’s unclaimed property database, include an address suggestion feature.

“Virginia’s database seems more effective than California’s, particularly for users living in large cities, who have common names, or who have lived at many addresses,” the report noted.

Other website upgrades could include an automated email, similar to a Google Alert, to notify Californians when new property is reported to the state.

Other recommendations for improving the program include:

• Maintaining communication with users by performing database searches on behalf of users;
• Publicizing a list of top unclaimed properties by region;
• Increasing the incentives for third-party investigators beyond the current maximum fee of 10 percent of the claim.

Praise for Chiang’s eClaim feature

Although the report dished out plenty of criticism, it also praised the controller’s office for its new eClaim feature. The new streamlined process for accounts valued at less than $500 was the product of John Chiang when he was controller from 2007 to 2015. He now is the state treasurer.

Roughly 90 percent of the 28.4 million properties held by the state are valued at less than $500.

In a statement, Chiang welcomed the report’s recommendations:

“The LAO has detailed many of the innovations and reforms which fueled an 8-year revival that wrestled away from past lawmakers a program that was hijacked to pay for their own spending priorities and, importantly, restored its original purpose of reuniting property with their rightful owners,” Chiang said. “I strongly support the LAO’s overarching message urging lawmakers to fight the instinct to oppose changes and investments which benefit consumers, even if those changes reduce money from California’s 5th largest revenue source.”

Yee, who has only been on the job a few weeks, hasn’t neglected the unclaimed property program. Earlier this month, she announced a new agreement with Charles Schwab & Company Inc. to return accounts to Californians via the unclaimed property program.

Entering the California Democratic Party’s spring convention, Board of Equalization member Yee’s campaign faced a juggernaut.

With more money, power and influence over convention delegates, Perez, then the Speaker of the Assembly, seemed the inevitable Democratic nominee for state controller.

“With an army of paid interns, volunteers and campaign aides — and endorsements by most of his Democratic colleagues in the Assembly — John Perez made a major push for the party’s endorsement this year,” wrote Damien Luzzo, a convention delegate and member of the Yolo County Democratic Central Committee.

Perez had a substantial advantage in delegate appointments, in part because members of the Assembly are entitled to make five appointments to the state party convention. All but six of his Democratic colleagues in the Assembly backed Perez’s campaign. Under party rules, all endorsement votes are public in order to make delegates more accountable to their appointing official or committee. That meant that, for Yee to block an endorsement, she needed state convention delegates to risk their own appointments.

Shrewdly, Yee’s campaign turned it into an advantage. While not specifically naming Perez, Yee told delegates that hardball tactics, political intimidation and a 3-to-1 financial advantage for one candidate were how Republicans won.

It also helped that Yee, who has earned a reputation as a mild-mannered numbers-cruncher on the state’s tax board, gave the best speech of her career.

“Democrats, we are just as guilty of getting sucked into the influence of money and power about which we criticize Republicans,” Yee said shortly after successfully blocking the party from endorsing in the race. “It is time we have politics shaped by our values, rather than our values shaped by politics. If not, I believe Democrats will continue to lose ground with respect to the electorate.”

The thinly-veiled criticism of Perez exposed the fault lines within the state’s supermajority party and made Perez vs. Yee about more than two candidates.

Recount?

With all the provisional and late absentee votes tabulated, Yee has taken second place in the race for state controller, besting her fellow Democrat by just 484 votes. Ashley Swearengin, the Republican mayor of Fresno, already easily secured the other spot in the run-off with more than a million votes in the June 3 primary.

The difference between second and third place, just one hundredth of one percent, is so close that a recount still remains a possibility. But now the tables have turned: Perez must face the Democratic Party’s power brokers, who no doubt would prefer to avoid a costly and divisive recount.

The controller’s race, the closest candidate race and second closest statewide election in California’s history, has remained too close to call in the month since Election Day. The day after the election, Yee lingered in fourth place behind Perez and unknown Republican David Evans.

Evans, who was largely ignored by the mainstream media and did not spend enough money to file a campaign finance report, was just 2,436 votes behind Perez, the top fundraiser in the race. As county registrars of voters worked their way through more than a million late absentee and provisional ballots, Evans temporarily claimed second place, even as Yee narrowed her gap with Perez.

In the ensuing weeks, Yee and Perez swapped insignificant leads in a race that would come down to the last votes in the last county. Yee held an 861-vote lead — before Lake County’s final 6,000 ballots were counted on Monday.

“I want to thank the voters of California for their trust and support,” Yee said in a written statement declaring victory with no votes left to count. “I look forward to bringing my extensive finance experience into the office of controller.”

Yee claims victory, but Perez hasn’t conceded

While Yee has declared victory, Perez’s campaign, as of Tuesday morning, was unwilling to concede defeat.

“There are still votes to be counted,” Pérez’s political consultant, Doug Herman, told KQED’s John Myers by email. “We look forward to the final vote count.”

Officially, Lake County held the only outstanding ballots in the race. However, Perez’s campaign may have been alluding to a possible recount that could target disqualified ballots.

“One of the goals of any recount would be to get more of your supporter ballots counted,” said Paul Mitchell, vice-president of Political Data, Inc., a company that specializes in election data. “So, this could mean going into counties where there is a large potential for ballots that were disqualified because of signature problems, and digging through those to find any that can be challenged.”

He added, “This can be particularly fruitful among older voters and foreign language voters who have specific issues with signature verification.”

Expensive recount “crap shoot”

CalWatchdog.com, the first outlet to raise the possiblity of a recount in the race, has spoken to election experts who say that a recount is essentially a “crap shoot.” Within five days of the Secretary of State’s official results, any voter can request a full or partial recount. California’s recount rules, which require the requester to pay, grant tremendous leeway for a recount to be started and then immediately stopped.

“It’s completely unfair unless they do a re-canvass of the whole state,” Jimmy Camp, a Republican political consultant and expert on ballot counting, told CalWatchdog.com last week.

Consequently, if Perez requests a recount in one of his counties, it could trigger Yee to request a recount in one of her strongholds, as a defensive maneuver.

Financial and political cost of a recount

A bitter recount would further exacerbate the divide between the two Democratic camps and allow Swearengin to gain ground. The direct financial cost could also prove to be a major hurdle. Last month, in the 31st Congressional District, third place GOP candidate Lesli Gooch, who was just 209 votes behind Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar, requested a recount. Gooch picked up a single vote in a recount that cost her campaign $6,330. If applied to the state controller’s race, it would cost Perez $3.06 million potentially to gain the 484 votes that he is currently down.

As of the last campaign finance report, Perez had $1.8 million in cash on hand.

“Relying on grassroots and personal integrity, Yee, once again, showed that grassroots activism and her genuine personality can easily trump the onslaught of big money,” Democratic convention delegate Luzzo wrote back in March.

But if Perez mounts a serious recount effort, Yee will need to overcome “the onslaught of big money” one more time.

California State Controller: Election Results as of July 1, 2014

Evans was a novice, unknown, unimpressive, unfunded candidate. Check out his primitive website. In statewide races Tuesday, GOP candidates usually got about 42-48 percent of the vote. If Swearengin gets 24.4 percent of the vote and Evans gets 21.6 percent — which is where things stood overnight Wednesday — that’s an amazingly negative comment on her. She only gets a little more of the GOP-inclined vote than a total naif.

Hey, California media, when will you notice that state GOPers are treating Swearengin like another Central CA Republican named Abel Maldonado?

This is no surprise. I offer the details here. The key fact driving this GOP distaste is that when it was politically convenient for her, she tried to subvert direct democracy so as to ram through unpopular fee increases. (They were for water utility rates, which are in an arguably different category than most fees, but still …)

This drove many people in Fresno insane. (And even annoyed the liberal Fresno Bee editorial page.)

As one of the many libertarians and conservatives who see direct democracy as our only hope in California, it appalls me — even if I get that water rates are different.

So when John Perez thumps Swearengin 56%-44% in November, I won’t shed a tear.

Two Democrats, Board of Equalization member Betty Yee and Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, and one Republican, Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, are the leading contenders to succeed John Chiang, who is termed out as State Controller. The candidates face a tall order in replacing Chiang. After eight years in the position, he has earned praise for his work to bring more transparency to California’s finances.

This is the first year the controller’s race will operate under the new Top Two Primaries system. Candidates can run from any party, or no party; and parties are reduced only to endorsements. The top two vote-getters on June 3 then will face off in the November general election.

Yee: 30 years’ experience

With 30 years of public-service experience, specializing in finance and tax policy, Yee is the natural successor to Chiang. Yee represents the Bay Area on the state Board of Equalization. That also is one of several boards that the controller serves as an ex-officio member. She says she’ll continue her work to be a responsible steward of the state’s finances, especially as the state faces a growing retirement bill.

“Retirement security is becoming a major worry for Americans and Californians as the national and state economies slowly climb from the stock market meltdown and housing collapse defining the Great Recession that began in the latter half of 2007,” Yee says of her priorities.

Her experience, going back to her days at the Department of Finance, has won her support from prominent state officials and political activists.

“Betty consistently has been on the front line as a civil rights and human rights leader,” said Dolores Huerta, the co-founder of the United Farm Workers. “The voice that she has carried for those unheard will be the voice of fairness she will bring to the office of Controller, where she will be a caring leader watching for the interests of Californians.”

Perez with fundraising lead

Southern California’s Perez cites his work in the state Legislature as evidence that he can help lead California’s economic “turnaround.”

“I want to run for controller so I can be involved in enforcing the level of fiscal discipline and stability that I’ve worked so hard to create with my colleagues and the governor,” he told the Los Angeles Times.

With $1.8 million in the bank as of the mid-May filing deadline, Perez has plenty of money to share his message with voters. He’s already spent $838,000, dwarfing the campaign spending of all his competitors. His remaining funds will be spent on a recently launched television ad, “Turnaround.”

“Gridlock, teacher layoffs and a $60 billion dollar budget deficit — that’s what John Perez faced when he became speaker of the California Assembly,” a female narrator says in the ad. “So he partnered with Gov. Brown to pass three balanced budgets on time for the first time in 30 years.”

Swearengin: Selling her mixed record in Fresno

In addition to Perez, Swearengin is selling herself as a turnaround artist based on her record in the Central Valley.

“Mayor Swearengin guided the City through the economic crisis, overcoming a cumulative $120 million operating shortfall and avoiding bankruptcy,” the GOP candidate says of “The Fresno Story” on her campaign website. “As Mayor, Ashley Swearengin aligned City Hall behind a vision and strategy for growing private sector jobs.”

But her record in Fresno also includes a record of secrecy and contentious fights with taxpayers. As previously reported here at CalWatchdog.com, Fresno is in the middle of a bitter dispute over the city’s water rates. Last year, the city refused to issue a title and summary for a referendum to overturn the mayor’s water rate hikes. Then, the city sued the taxpayers to prevent the initiative from entering circulation. The city says that the ongoing lawsuit is necessary to fulfill its responsibility to provide water to residents.

To date, the city has spent $232,000 in legal bills to stop the petition. Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, described the city’s lawsuit as “a foolish and wholly unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds.”

Minor candidates factor in June race

Though not expected to make the run-off, three minor party candidates could be a factor in what’s expected to be a close race. Laura Wells, a Green Party activist and Bay Area financial analyst, wants to “implement a State Bank and tax the super-rich the way we did decades ago.” A perennial candidate, Wells earned 400,000 votes when she ran for the post in 2002. That was the highest vote count of any Green Party candidate in a partisan statewide race in California’s history.

Two lesser-known major party candidates could affect the race. Running “to assure accountability,” Tammy Blair, a Los Angeles Democrat who has 25 years of general business administration and financial management experience, could pull some Los Angeles-area votes from Perez, or female voters inclined to support Swearengin or Yee.

Likewise, David Evans, a Republican chief financial officer, campaigning to “rigorously pursue governmental abuse and waste of sacred taxpayer dollar,” could siphon off some GOP votes.

But for some on the right — and for lots of people who believe in direct democracy — that probably would be fine by them. Regular CWD contributor John Hrabe explains what drives the phenomenon in which Swearengin’s biggest detractors come from what should be her base:

“The battle over Fresno’s water rates began last August, when the city approved a plan supported by Mayor Ashley Swearengin to increase the average water bill to $48 per month. The city says that the additional revenue is needed for a $410 million upgrade to the city’s aging water system. But, some residents of the city and unincorporated parts of Fresno County balked at the prospect of higher water bills, which are expected to double by 2016.

“When taxpayers attempted to circulate a petition to overturn the plan, the City of Fresno denied the taxpayers a title and summary for their referendum. Then, the city sued the taxpayers to prevent their initiative from entering circulation. The move appeared to be a direct violation of the California Constitution. Section 3 of Article 13C states that ‘the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge.’

“The city says that the lawsuits were necessary in order to fulfill its obligation to deliver an essential public service to residents. … Yet, 11 judges have disagreed with the city’s arguments in the case. Most recently, the California Supreme Court denied the city’s petition for review of a 5th District Court of Appeals ruling, which held that the city has a legal obligationto issue a petition title and summary.”

Not up to task of persuading Fresno residents?

On this issue, I started out thinking Swearengin was dead wrong. But the more I think about it, the more I understand the peril of having a state in which citizens can vote on their utility rates. Of course that’s likely to lead to chaos.

But, I’m sorry, Swearengin is still dead wrong. Whatever the circumstances, an elected leader shouldn’t defy clearly written state laws, as she did. Instead, you make your case to voters.

Swearengin chose dirty pool over taking the high road. She either …

A) … didn’t think the voters she would have to convince were bright enough to understand that utilities which have fixed bills and obligations aren’t the same as local governments which often tolerate bad status quos because of political influence or an acceptance of incompetence; or …

B) …. didn’t think she was enough of a leader to win over voters to the logic of her argument.

I am slightly more understanding of why Swearingen did what she did than I used to be. I also think her critics on the right need to cogitate more on the difference between utilities and local governments.

But ultimately I think the liberal Fresno Bee editorial page pretty much nailed the right way to characterize the Fresno mayor’s actions back in November:

“We support the water-rate increases; they are vital to the city’s future. But with these stalling and blocking tactics, Swearengin sends a message that she doesn’t trust Fresno voters to do what’s best for the city.”

She also doesn’t seem to trust her own competence at a politician’s most basic skill: the ability to win over people who disagree with you.

By KATY GRIMES

Democratic Assemblyman Anthony Portantino isn’t making many friends these days in the Legislature. After a well-publicized battle with Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, over the Assembly’s secretive accounting practices, Portantino has introduced a measure to freeze the pay of California’s highest paid state employees — for the eighth time. But that’s not all. He is also calling for a state audit of the Legislature, and proposing that legislators pay for their own vanity license plates.

Portantino, notorious for forcing Perez to open up the Assembly books and comply with the state-required performance audit of Assembly administrative offices, found himself in a battle last year with his own party’s leadership. But that doesn’t seem to have tempered his agenda.

Freeze! Step Away From The Paycheck

Portantino’s AB 1787 calls for a two-year freeze on state employees who earn more than $100,000. Portantino said  thousands of state employees could and should be subject to the salary and bonus freeze. “It is unacceptable to be giving raises and bonuses when we are still struggling with a budget deficit in the billions and one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation,” Portantino said this week. “We should be making better choices.”

Portantino said that his previous salary freeze bills have been repeatedly killed in the Assembly Appropriations committee. “Over the past four years, my bills on this issue have been held on ‘suspense’ in the Assembly, even though it saves the state money,” Portantino said. “I have reduced the salary amount so the state can save even more money. If President Obama can freeze the salaries of White House employees making $100,000 or more, why can’t we do the same here in California?”

Portantino said that the State Controller reported that more than 3,300 state employees could be affected by the bill, and even more if University of California and California State University employees are included. “The potential savings would be in the tens of millions,” Portantino said. Critical that many university employees, as well as CalPERS money managers, routinely get raises and bonuses, Portantino said that this is an issue the Legislature should be dealing with, but has largely ignored.

Audit The Lawmakers

Portantino also wants the State Conroller to perform an audit of the Legislature.

AB 1887 would require the State Controller to conduct a thorough audit of the state Legislature’s finances for two budget years, fiscal 2012-13 and 2013-14.

In following years, the Joint Rules Committee would hire an independent contractor to perform the audits but under guidelines set by the controller. Under current law, the Joint Rules Committee chooses the auditor, but sets the parameters for the audit.  As Portantino has repeatedly said, the Assembly does not even follow its own rules by not doing annual performance audits.

“This practice has led to large surpluses at a time when the state is facing huge budget shortfalls resulting in cuts to school funding, increased tuition at colleges and universities and decreases in support for aged, blind and disabled Californians,” Portantino pointed out.

What’s really interesting about AB 1887 is that it would require that the Assembly and Senate return any unused funds to the general fund at the end of the legislative year. Then, the money would be earmarked for the Student Aid Commission to use in the Cal Grant program.

“If the Legislature appropriates more money than it needs, let’s help solve this problem by setting a specific agenda for using that surplus and putting in place strict accountability and transparency,” Portantino said.

During the 2011-12 fiscal year, Portantino’s office said that the Assembly and Senate were allocated more than a quarter-billion-dollars to run the state Legislature — $109,350,000 for the Senate and $146,716,000 for the Assembly.  Existing state law allows these funds to carry over from one year to the next, where they remain in the Senate and Assembly Operating Fund.  According to Portantino, the Assembly has been transferring 15 percent of its total appropriation to various state agencies — $52 million over the past three years.

AB 1887 provides that line item monies allocated to the Senate and Assembly cannot be diverted to other agencies or programs, unless such diversion is approved by a vote of the legislature and the signature of the governor.

Pay For Your Own Vanity

Portantino has called for an end of the vanity license plates that current and retired legislators receive — and barely pay for. “I was shocked, but not surprised to see that legislators would carve out a special situation for themselves and I’m determined to put an end to the practice,” Portantino said this week.

AB 2068 would require legislators that have personalized vanity legislative license plates on their personal cars,to pay the same fees that almost everyone else does for them.

Under existing law, current and retired legislators can ask the DMV for a license plate that designates them as a state legislator or retired state legislator.  The cost of these plates is $12 on issuance, and no additional or annual fees are paid with subsequent yearly registration. “Why should current and former legislators get special treatment for the issuance of license plates?  It makes no sense for former and sitting legislators to be treated any differently than everyone else,” Portantino said.

The cost of personalized license plates for the general public is $98. Other-themed license plates cost $50. Annual renewals costs run between $15 and $78.

Portantino said that the DMV reported there are 750 of these legislative license plates issued in California.  “In contrast, average Californians, retired police and fire included, pay $50 upon issuance and $35 per year thereafter.”

Portantino said that he does not drive a state-purchased district car, does not use an Assembly plate and has no plans to receive one upon retirement. AB 2068 will be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee in about six weeks. While not an earth-shattering amount of money, the outcome of this bill will be significant as well as symbolic. Will legislators vote to pay for their own personalized license plates, or will vanity and entitlement win out?