Richard Stefanik also died while in police custody in September, and it could be said the cause was a broken heart. In November 2014, Stefanik was arrested for the murder of his wife of 58 years. She was suffering from cancer, and by most accounts it was a failed murder-suicide.

The death of Stefanik, in county jail, was also ruled natural.

Ornelas, 47, and Stefanik, 81, were among the 744 individuals who died last year in the custody of law enforcement or a state agency, an increase of 8 percent over the average in the last decade. The deceased included 47 women. One in five were either convicted of homicide or were awaiting trial on homicide-related charges.

Half the deaths were determined to be due to natural causes, according to data from the California Department of Justice. Thirty-four of the deaths were classified as accidental, including two by hanging or strangulation and a drug overdose.

There were also 62 deaths ruled suicides, and 96 deaths, or 13 percent, were determined to have resulted from justifiable shootings by law enforcement. One-hundred fifty-eight cases are pending investigation, 41 of them connected to an arrest in progress and 51 of them at state facilities.

In-Custody Deaths

In 2005, 62 percent of custodial deaths were determined to be natural, and 8 percent justifiable, according to a report from the state’s Attorney General.

In-custody deaths have drawn national attention following last year’s high-profile cases of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and Sandra Bland outside Houston.

Gray died while being transported to jail by police officers. Six officers are charged with murder in his death. The first case ended in a mistrial in December.

Bland’s death was ruled a jail cell suicide by hanging after she was stopped for a traffic violation and was taken in for allegedly assaulting a police officer.

Dubious classifications of death

The classifications for the recently released data in California, though, are often dubious and open to interpretation.

Among the deaths ruled suicides were those of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who in December killed 14 people in a terrorist attack on a social services office in San Bernardino County. News accounts have said the couple was killed in a shootout with police.

Also included in the death total are homicides committed by inmates, mostly referred to as accidental. And the jurisdiction is sometimes hazy in the reporting.

For example, Choi Saeteurn, 68, was allegedly beaten to death by a 35-year-old inmate in January 2015 in Sacramento County’s main jail.  In records, the death is attributed to the Azusa Police Department, located 400 miles south of Sacramento.

Also, of the 47 women’s deaths, four were attributed to suicide, including Malik’s. Six were determined to be justifiable homicide, including that of Angela Slack, who was arrested on misdemeanor prostitution charges and whose relatives posted a graphic YouTube video of her in her last days alleging that Slack was abused by police. Slack’s cause of death is listed as hanging/strangulation.  

One female death was deemed accidental, that of Sara Corliss, who died Jan. 2, 2015, and whose death in a Los Angeles County Jail is still being investigated.

In an email, the state Attorney General’s office said that each department is responsible for investigating their own custodial deaths, including the detail of those deaths.  

The California State Auditor in January released a list of agencies that have failed to address perceived problems in their operations. The state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has failed for six years to implement changes that would give inmates more supervision and to protect the safety of both inmates and corrections officers.

More than half of custodial deaths since the early 2000s have occurred in facilities run by the state.

Meantime, though, the county’s payroll increased from $7 million in 2013 to $8 million in 2014, while the county’s top wage earner, former Sheriff John Evans, saw his overall pay package increase 13 percent.

Inyo County’s population dropped a modest seven-tenths of a percent, and managed to keep its payroll package total to a minor jump, from $35.3 million in 2013 to $36.6 million in 2014.

But the price of mental health apparently increased in Inyo; Jeanette Schneider, a county psychiatrist, received an 18 percent hike in her employment package in a year, from $164,000 to $195,000.

In isolated pockets around the state, government salaries, with their accompanying benefits, continue to go up.

Even in areas in which there seems little need due to declining population, politicians like Sierra County’s Evans, who worked first as a reserve officer and moved up the ranks, are rewarded with pay increases that rival those in the private sector.

The state still stings from the public salary debacle in Bell, where in 2010 it was revealed that city officials were taking outsized salaries. The discovery led to a 12-year prison sentence for former City Manager Robert Rizzo.

At publicpay.ca.gov, the public can see who is getting paid what at all levels of government

Today, anyone can check salaries in a number of cities, counties and schools via State Controller Betty Yee’s payroll database. Go to publicpay.ca.gov or transparentcalifornia.com, an endeavor hatched by the Nevada Policy Research Institute. The latter is used for this report.

Numerous smaller counties have refused to produce the requested information. Most of the refusals have come from smaller counties losing population, including Trinity, Alpine and Modoc counties.

The state’s population increased 4.2 percent between 2010 and 2014, according to Census Bureau data. Few municipalities lost people, making Sierra County an outlier.

In cities with modest growth, though, double-digit raises have been handed out freely.

San Benito County experienced growth of 4.5 percent between 2010 and 2014. Between 2011 and 2014, the county’s payroll increased 10 percent. The county’s highest paid employee is District Attorney Candice Hooper, whose compensation went from $190,870 in 2011 to $233,061 in 2014, a 22 percent raise.

Then there’s Kern County, which grew 5 percent while County Administrative Officer John Nilon received an $83,210 raise between 2011 and 2014.

The county pay increases have wide variances, and in some cases, both population and overall payroll has remained the same.

The population of Nevada County, for example, has remained the same for five years at around 98,000. Its payroll, at $68 million, has also stayed the same.

“We have wide differences in the state’s 58 counties, and the number of people and the pay scale will vary just as widely,” said Greg Fishman, a spokesman for the California State Association of Counties. He ventured that some of the larger increases in pay are being made up after some years of zero raises, or “catching up.”

RELATED – Public-as-watchdog: Public salaries at your fingertips

The pay of county administrators like Nilon has always been high, and some might say outsized when considering the number of people in a county.

In a number of counties, the boards of supervisors have set higher pay rates for both administrators and elected positions such as sheriff or tax assessor.

Sometimes, pay cuts don’t take.

In El Dorado County, the Board of Supervisors in 2013 vowed to cut the pay of some top positions in the government, including the auditor-controller and the treasurer-tax collector.

The culprit was pay package add-ons, the board said.

“They just started getting more and more and more,” Board of Supervisors Chairman Ron Briggs told a reporter. The changes were to go into effect last year. Current total payroll is not yet available, but the episode typifies how compensation can get out of control, especially when collective bargaining contracts are in play.

Epitomizing the “more and more” concept are three physicians in Kern County, all of whom earn over $1 million in total compensation.  

But despite calls for reform of the financially-troubled Kern Medical Center, where the three are employed, there has been little reform of the generous publicly-funded pay practices.

In December 2013, county leaders said the salaries at the medical center needed attention.

“We need to have a payroll review over there,” Kern County Supervisor Mick Gleason told a local newspaper. “Cost control has to be paramount in everything we do over there.”

His colleague, Supervisor Leticia Perez, added that “we are making dramatic and significant changes at KMC — to better the organization. It’s good to revisit these contracts.”

In 2014, one of the three physicians, Andrea Snow, saw no boost to her regular salary of $498,429 or the cost of her benefits. Instead, her “other pay,” which can include allowances and bonuses, was boosted by $300,000, a 29 percent compensation increase.

In Los Angeles Superior Court, $2.8 million in fines had been collected and more than 28,000 driver’s licenses restored by the middle of December, according to a new KPCC report. The law passed in September after advocates for the downtrodden urged the Legislature to lessen the effect of some of the nation’s heaviest traffic violation fines.

Three measures, passed last session, provide relief to motorists in trouble:

• Senate Bill 85 requires counties to implement an amnesty program. Amnesty runs through March 31, 2017.
• Assembly Bill 1151 provides a way for drivers facing parking ticket fines to pay by installments.
• Senate Bill 405 allows drivers to contest fines before paying the fine by a set deadline and gives those in arrears more time to make good. The previous law made it difficult for drivers to contest tickets and added penalties for prolonged pay periods. Traffic tickets for $35 violations were turning into $200-plus fines once a state fee, a court cost fee and a county assessment were tacked on.

Now, though, the state and municipalities will have to deal with a loss of revenue.

Following the Money

The money ends up funding any number of government projects and enterprises, depending on the location, the issuing agency and the type of violation.

Source: Los Angeles Superior Court

The state attaches 20 percent onto any traffic ticket, of which 70 percent is distributed to a number of operations. Leading that is a restitution fund (32 percent) followed by driver training assessment (25 percent) — which pays for driver training in schools — and police training (24 percent). Eight percent also goes to the corrections training fund, which exists “for the development of appropriate standards, training and program evaluation.”

“California is unique in that traffic fees go to so many different funds as a revenue source,” said John Bowman, vice president of the National Motorists Association. “You just don’t see it to that degree in other states.”

Diverting portions of the revenue to things like officer training, he said, makes no sense.

“It seems logical that the proceeds of the fine should be tied to the nature of that fine.”

In some cases, cities and counties battle for the revenue. The city of San Jose in 2011 complained in a report that the $4 million it had been receiving for 50,000 violations has been tapped by outside government sources.

“Most revenue from traffic citations benefits the state of California and the county, not the city,” the report stated.

Legislative analysts found that amnesty would have no effect on local or state coffers.

But that seems unlikely, unless SB405 was simply a feel-good measure to make motorists feel like their representatives were offering them some relief.

“This sounds like a gesture,” said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “If a person feels they have a good chance to win in court, why wouldn’t they in the first place?”

But language in SB85 does give more money to state funds supported by traffic fines and fees:

The bill would, following the transfer to the Judicial Council of the first $250,000 received, increase the percentage of specified penalties to be deposited in the Peace Officers’ Training Fund and the Corrections Training Fund, which are continuously appropriated funds.

Source: National Motorists Association

California, with 13 million registered vehicles on the road, ranks second to Texas in the number of speed traps over the last five years, according to a recent study by the National Motorists Association.

The state also ranks in the top 10 based on speed traps per 1,000 of lane miles.

The crowd-sourced speedtrap.org website has tracked trouble areas and warned drivers since 1999.  Los Angeles tops the list of speed traps in the state with 57, with San Diego second with 48.  San Jose, Riverside and Fresno round out the top five.

For more information about how to qualify for the program, organized by county, see http://www.courts.ca.gov/trafficamnesty.htm

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com

Schools and universities from the smallest unified school district to the top-tier university systems in the state issued more bonds in 2015 than they had i

A CalWatchdog analysis of data for the year shows 465 securities issuances from education entities. Some were refunding issuances — refinancing existing bonds — but the majority were general obligation bonds, which rely on taxation for repayment.

Most of the issuances came from school districts, charter schools and education districts, while 64 were directly tied to a single community college district or public university system.

A driving factor in the boost in issuances is the increase in real estate values in much of the state, said Kevin Carlin, a San Diego-based public interest attorney with a public works construction background.

“There is a limit in bond measure (regulations) that says you can’t issue more than a certain percentage of assessed value in a district. So once you get maxed out on the value limit, you have to wait for those limits to go up.”

The voter-approved bonds are part of a continued spending surge on education in the state.

In November, voters will decide on $9 billion in school construction bonds. It’s the first statewide education bond measure since 2006. The issue is propped up by big money from the construction and engineering industries and so far has drawn little opposition. The measure was qualified for the ballot via a push from the California Building Industry Association.

Bond measures are easier to pass now than they were before 2000, when Proposition 39 allowed for passage with 55 percent of the vote rather than two-thirds, as before, said Mike Turnipseed, a watchdog in Kern County.

“The threshold was changed, and today, over 80 percent of bond proposals are approved,” he said. “If cities want to issue bonds, it takes the two-thirds approval, but not schools.”

With the bond issuances come big projects. Add to that numerous funding mechanisms. The state’s School Facility Program earlier this year signed off on $113.6 million for 22 districts to use for various voter-approved projects. The program helps school districts with matching funds or to reimburse districts for finished endeavors.

Higher education spending grows faster than enrollment

At California State University in Sacramento, where enrollment grew 2 percent between 2003 and 2014, a $91 million science building has been approved.

The University of California Board of Regents approved spending $7 million for what will eventually be a $150 million research building for the Riverside campus. It will house 40 to 50 new faculty members. Enrollment at UC Riverside has increased 2 percent since 2012. Full-time employee ranks, meanwhile, have grown 20 percent.

“The only way to best serve our students and California is to grow our faculty,” UCR Chancellor Kim A. Wilcox told a subcommittee of the Regents at a September meeting.

The Milpitas School Board in San Jose agreed to pay architectural firm Gould Evans $2.2 million for the design of an elementary school. The school board is set to purchase 6.7 acres from the city for $21 million.

The school district in Oakland this month issued a request for proposals to upgrade kitchens in 16 schools with a budget of $15 million.

Meantime, schools and colleges continue to hire.

The City College of San Francisco will bring on 55 new full-time faculty and 46 administration workers.

University of California regents in July approved salary increases to executives. One executive, UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, received a 3 percent increase to $516,446 annually.

RELATED:  Developer lobby promoting $9 billion education bond

Between 2001 and 2014, California voters approved $146.1 billion in bond debt for school and college districts, according to a study published in July by the California Policy Center.

“The idea that people are forming is this assumption that property values will skyrocket forever,” said Kevin Dayton, the author of the study. “That way it won’t be so painful for the kids to pay it off as adults. But this is all built on predictions and we have no idea if this will come true.”

The bond debt comes in addition to the billions of dollars handed over to school districts from the passage of Proposition 30 in 2012 which included an additional levy on income over $250,000 as well as a ¼ cent increase in the state sales and use tax.

The revenue is earmarked for education. To date, $13.1 billion has been raised through the taxes.

Many of the schools are spending the money on salaries and benefits, according to the state’s Proposition 30 tracking site. For example, at Harnett Community College District, $5.3 million went to salaries and benefits while $103,000 went to athletics, art, diesel mechanics and a theater group, Western Stage.  

The figures cover the 2012-2013 school year; the usage report for the 2013-2014 year is not completed yet.

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com

U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer made the day of conservative media outlets when, in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre, she said, “In California, since the ‘90s, we have passed a number of important gun safety laws. And over that period of time, we’ve had a reduction in gun violence of 56 percent. Sensible gun laws work, we’ve proven it in California, and we’re not gonna give up.”

How accurate was the 56 percent figure? And does it mean California is really getting safer because of gun restrictions?

Boxer’s data point comes from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which found gun violence dropped between 1993 and 2010 in a study released in 2013:

Over the last 20 years, the number of people injured or killed by guns in California has decreased dramatically. In 1993, 5,500 Californians were killed by gunfire; by 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, that number had dropped to 2,935. In just two decades, the state’s gun death rate has been cut by 56 percent, a reduction that translates to thousands of lives saved every single year.

Boxer and the Law Center are correct that gun-related deaths are down.

The rate has wavered since the late 1990s, peaking at almost 9.6 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2002 before dropping to 7.7 in 2013, according to stats kept by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were about the same number of people killed in incidents involving guns in 1999 and 2013 — just under 3,000 — even as the population grew by 5 million.

Those deaths — the “gun violence” Boxer is referring to — are not limited to street gang shootings, domestic disputes that ended in death, or the murderous rampage of the couple in San Bernardino.

The figures also include suicides involving guns and accidental shootings, said Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney with the Law Center.

Is an accidental shooting really “gun violence”?

“Yes, I would say when someone gets shot, it is pretty violent,” Nichols said.

Other stats call into question the assertion that the state’s “sensible gun laws work.”

Four California cities – Compton, Oakland, San Bernardino and East Palo Alto – remain among the top 30 “murder capitals” in the U.S., according to an analysis of murder rates by the site NeighborhoodScout.

The state’s overall murder rate of 4.4 per 100,000 people is the same as Texas’, a state with no assault weapons ban that has recently adopted “open carry” for licensed gun owners.

California has seen other violent crimes rise recently.

Between 2013 and 2014, the state’s rate of aggravated assaults increased by two per 100,000 residents, to 236. Rapes increased by almost 11 per 100,000 to 30.

Gun sales up

While California continues its widespread reputation as a haven for gun control, weapons purchases are up.

Since the terrorist shootings, Californians have been buying more weapons, according to a story this week in the Los Angeles Times:

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Adam Cervantes said 75 applications for concealed-weapons permits were submitted last weekend, about seven times the department’s normal application volume.

 

Orange County Sheriff’s Department Lt. Jeff Hallock said his office saw 130 applications for concealed-weapons permits last weekend, up from the roughly 30 applications that typically come in. Sheriff’s officials in Riverside and San Diego counties said they had likewise seen new interest from people asking about concealed-carry permits.

Gun sales in California were increasing even before the shooting. Sales more than doubled between 2008 and 2014, from 425,244 in 2008 to 931,037 last year. Handgun sales went from 208,312 in 2008 to 512,174 in 2014.

A comparison of maps showing the number of gun stores per 100,000 residents in California with the number of firearm homicides shows that more murders happen in areas with fewer gun stores. (See graphic)

Nichols, of the Law Center, said people buying guns to protect themselves is the way the law is supposed to work.

“It’s not my business to agree or disagree that guns make people safer,” she said. “Data shows that it doesn’t work that way, but I’m not going to argue with people who are law-abiding citizens who want to own guns. The problem is the people who shouldn’t own guns having them.”

At 20.1 percent of the adult population, California has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the U.S., and aside from Nebraska, the lowest this side of the Mississippi.

The move to get a new accreditation plan in place could take a decade, while the state’s 2.1 million community college students look for guidance in a complex system.

The fatal action for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges was its challenge to City College of San Francisco. The commission in 2012 began raising concerns about financial and governance practices at the college and at one point threatened to revoke the college’s accreditation, landing the two parties in court.

City College has acknowledged its precarious financial position and its revolving door of administrators. The school has pruned expenses and tightened its finances, according to a bond filing issued earlier this year.

Which leaves the state with a black eye in terms of accreditation of community colleges. Is the accreditation commission being punished for doing its job? Or was it unfairly severe in its application of standards?

Need for Accreditation

Accreditation is crucial for most institutions as it is required to access federal student loan money.

The state’s community colleges have seen a decline in enrollment over the past five years and faced an $18 million revenue decline in 2014, although state legislation propped up the San Francisco Community College District — of which the City College is part of — through additional funding last year.

The commission has been on the radar of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors for over a year.

In a report issued by a review committee from the community colleges board, the fate of the accreditation board was sealed.

From the report:

“Between 2009 and 2013 the ACCJC issued 143 sanctions out of the 269 accreditation actions it took. This sanction rate is approximately 53 percent, compared to approximately 12 percent sanction rates within the other six regional accreditors. The quantity and frequency of sanctions issued by the ACCJC, in conjunction with other controversial actions and practices of this accreditor, have led to frequent calls for reform of the accrediting process from member institutions of the ACCJC.”

The accreditation commission responded with a four–page announcement of new practices and noted that as of 2014, there were 30 percent fewer benchmarks required for approval.

“The new standards will be the basis for comprehensive institutional evaluations for reaffirmation of accreditation beginning spring, 2016,” a spokesman for the commission said.

The commission also announced it would host annual conferences for schools to receive input and answer questions about the accreditation process. The first conference is to be held in October 2016.

RELATED – State agency struggling to police for-profit colleges

The commission is part of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of six regional groups in the U.S. that are charged with ensuring higher education institutions adhere to standards that begin at the federal level. The accreditors are overseen by administrators at the U.S. Department of Education and a board called the National Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility.

In addition to angering the state community college board of governors, the accreditation commission in California has drawn the ire of teachers unions and their powerful allies. The California Federation of Teachers filed a lawsuit against the commission to keep the San Francisco City College open and registered a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education against the commission.

The American Federation of Teachers said the commission has “failed to focus on improving learning and academic achievement.”

Democratic U.S. Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Jackie Speier and Anna Eshoo called the ACCJC’s actions “outrageous.”

The commission is accused in one complaint of “extensive financial and political relationships with advocacy organizations and private foundations representing for‐profit colleges and powerful student lender interests.”

The commission accepted a $450,000 grant from the Lumina Foundation for Education, a group that has endeavored to change community college education and create a more universal accreditation system. Some onlookers have noted what they call the libertarian roots of Lumina.

But the practice of accreditation stems from federal regulation, which has increased in recent years. Community colleges in the U.S. collectively spend up to $6 billion to keep in compliance, according to a Vanderbilt University study. The study also listed 29 categories that colleges and universities are subject to monitoring and reporting.

Community colleges are subject to review every six years.

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com.

The audit released in January strongly suggested the council move its headquarters from pricey San Francisco, where the median price of a two-bedroom apartment is now $5,000 a month, to Sacramento and save $5 million annually. The auditors also noted that the move would save in both travel and salary costs. One administrator spent $22,000 over three years in travel between the offices, the audit noted.

But the council has refused to make the move, instead opting to close its small Burbank operation, which it claims will save between $10 million and $12 million.

The council, which operates California’s state and local courts, is given fiscal autonomy to a degree, but has forever lamented that it lacks the proper funding from the state to handle its caseloads.

Records show that while the council has pruned its employee ranks since 2009, its pension costs have increased 15 percent and its wages have jumped 7 percent. Thirty percent of the agency’s 786 employees in 2014 received six-figure salaries.

The legacy costs have been among the forces driving increased fines and fees in the courts for taxpayers, as well as the closing of over a dozen courthouses in the state since 2012.

Earlier this year, Martin Hoshino, administrative director of the Judicial Council, told San Francisco NPR affiliate KQED that closing the courts causes “great concern among a lot of the judicial officials or court administrators that I speak to in terms of what are the real impacts of saying that a courtroom or courthouse is closed and really unavailable.”

But when it comes to moving his own headquarters out of one of the most expensive cities in the world, Hoshino cites the need for further analysis.

He’s known of the money sap the San Francisco office has been since at least 2012, according to an evaluation done by the judicial State Evaluation Committee.

“From a strictly economic standpoint, lease costs are generally lower in Sacramento than San Francisco,” reads the report, which, like this year’s audit, was critical of the cost of the court system. “Labor costs generally are lower as well. The [Judicial Council] partly recognizes this through its geographic pay differential system, whereby some Sacramento region employees are paid 7 percent less than San Francisco-based employees performing the same type of work.”

Reacting to Audit

Hoshino in March appeared before an Assembly budget subcommittee and explained that the office had taken some steps on the heels of the audit.

“The office directors, which are eight in total, will no longer receive the option of receiving reimbursement for parking at their office headquarters,” he said. “That also would be effective July 1, 2015.”

But changing the location of the headquarters was never broached. Union representatives spoke of the effect of cutbacks on their ranks. Marsha Slough, presiding judge in San Bernardino County, noted that her staff had been cut 27 percent.

The Alliance of California Judges, which backs the move of the headquarters, said in a statement last week, “… San Francisco is now the world’s most expensive place for visitors to spend the night. Parking, gasoline, groceries — everything costs more in the city. So why does the [Judicial Council] insist on staying there? Why won’t it move to Sacramento, thereby freeing up millions of taxpayer dollars that could go to our cash-strapped trial courts?”

In an interview with CalWatchdog, Alliance member Judge Maryanne Gilliard noted that many judges refer to the Judicial Council’s San Francisco headquarters as the “crystal palace.”

“They do not desire to give up those plush digs for a more modest utilitarian building in Sacramento, where there would also be a greater ability for the Legislature to have fiscal oversight of what they are doing,” Gilliard said.

The council, which has been criticized for poor handling of public money, will also be forced to use funds on deposit as payment on a $231 million courthouse in Santa Clara County that was supposed to open this summer but is now running at least six months behind.

The Judicial Council, like other state agencies, often rents buildings from the State Public Works Board, which issues bonds to pay for construction.

The State Public Works Board will have to pay for debt service on the Santa Clara courthouse from another fund as a result of the delayed opening, according to a financial disclosure filing last month.

Thereafter, the Board “intends to take steps as necessary to apply lawfully available funds from March 1, 2016 until rent on the facility commences to accrue,” the state reported on the disclosure.

In an email, Judicial Council spokesman Peter Allen said:  “The first rental payment is due in August 2016 … and is for rent during the 6 month period from 3/1/2016 to 8/30/2016.  We are currently projecting that we will be in the building by 4/14/2016… .”

Plaintiffs claim the companies — which are not necessarily based in the state but are subject to its laws — have misled consumers about the origin of their products.

“Defendant does not advise U.S. consumers, in its packaging or otherwise, that the supply line for farmed prawns has been tainted by the use of slave labor in Thailand,” reads a complaint against Costco, which contends the shrimp were harvested in waters of Thailand using slave labor.

“This lawsuit seeks to give Californians confidence that they are not serving slavery for dinner,” plaintiff’s attorney Derek Howard, of the Howard Law Firm in Mill Valley, said in a press release.

After the lawsuit was filed, Costco released a statement reiterating the company’s goal “to promote better labor practices through accountability, verification and transparency.” The company’s 2011 supplier code of conduct bars certain practices including use of slave labor, and Costco last year formed a shrimp “task force” to look into the operations of Thai suppliers.

California Transparency in Supply Chains Act

The Costco complaint is one of six separate actions filed in California federal courts in August and September against entities doing business here, including Nestle, Proctor & Gamble and Costco. The plaintiffs are using, in part, disclosures on company websites pursuant to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act.

The potential legal bonanza comes as state lawyers have become more hands-on in policing the 2010 law, which backers said would stem human trafficking and slavery by requiring public disclosures about how companies are ensuring workers are not being exploited to produce their goods.

The Attorney General’s office recently distributed to large manufacturers and retailers a 50-page “resource guide” on complying with the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act.

Companies this year also received a letter from the AG’s office, informing them that “your company must post on its Internet website the required disclosures if it meets the eligibility criteria – namely, if your company is a retail seller or manufacturer doing business in California and has annual worldwide gross receipts that exceed $100,000,000.”

California Targeted

California is home to courts that tend to be sympathetic to pro-consumer, anti-big business claims. There is also an army of law firms eager to take on the full coffers of large corporations.

To call it venue shopping for these lawsuits “would not be inaccurate,” said John Kloosterman, a lawyer who has advised companies on how to comply with the mandates of the supply chain act.

While other states have decried human trafficking and its connection to goods peddled in the U.S., “California is the only state that has enacted legislation” that requires an online assurance of vigilance, Kloosterman said.

“These lawsuits are about the promise that these companies advertise about the products,” he said. “They allege that they advertise these products are properly made or cultivated and then say, ‘I was led to believe by your website disclosures to believe that they wouldn’t be made by slave labor.’”

He said some companies that had previously established outposts in California have scaled back.

Unlikely Alliances

The notion of tracking a supply chain is being embraced by attorney generals of both political stripes and creating some unlikely alliances. California AG Kamala Harris is in league with Tea Party favorite Florida AG Pam Bondi, for example. But Florida is not requiring the disclosure that California is. Instead, it is releasing “recommended” policies including employee training and policies.

Californians interested in researching products can go to Knowthechain.org and look up a corporation to see if it is complying with the state requirement. The website is supported by Humanity United, a progressive foundation set up by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pam.

It provides grants to a number of other non-profits, including the Center for American Progress, the Art of Revolution and the Clinton Foundation.

Last year, the group released a presser outing the 85 firms that it believed were silent on the requirements of the transparency act with regard to the state law.

Calls to the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Grocers Association, both of which opposed the supply chain act and represent members subject to the act, went unreturned.

The union seeks a 5 percent raise across the board for its members, which include teachers, librarians and counselors.

The university system is offering a 2 percent increase and says it has already boosted faculty pay by $65.5 million over the past two years.

The system’s senior faculty members were paid an average of $96,000 per academic year as of April, according to the last figures available from Cal State.

Divided on Contracting

While the issue is money, lobbying records show a divide on several other issues, most recently the use of contract employees.

Senate Bill 669 introduced earlier this year by Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, aimed at refining the parameters of contract hiring. The university opposed the measure while the union backed it and spent money lobbying for it, records show.

The legislation would have placed stricter oversight on the use of contracted employees, which is already part of the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the university.

The agreement allows contracting as long as it does not displace union members or require them to move to another campus that would require relocation, among other conditions.

The agreement also requires the university system to consider union employees for any contracting chores, provided the employees have the required skills.  

The bill was scrapped, but a similar measure restricting the University of California system, Senate Bill 376, was supported in testimony by Pat Gantt, president of California State University Employees Union.

That bill passed but was vetoed by Gov. Brown.

Both bills are similar to a measure introduced last session seeking to do the same thing. That bill failed in committee.

RELATED – How California State University beats the tuition hike freeze

Additional Legislation Causes Clashes

Last year, the two parties clashed on several other measures. Among them was Assembly Bill 2721, which would have required the university system to add another member to the board of trustees.

The measure was crafted by the union and carried by Sen. Pan in hopes of putting someone on the board to exclusively represent union interests.

The measure sailed through both chambers, 78-0 in the House and 33-1 in the Senate.

Brown vetoed the legislation, though, writing, “Since the Board of Trustees was established in 1960, there have only been four additions to the Board. The last of these was the addition of the non-voting student member in 1999.  I am not persuaded that increasing the membership of the Board beyond 25 is necessary.”

The union accused the university of “fear-mongering” regarding a measure that would have better defined extended education classes and how they applied to undergraduates.

It claimed the system was telling union members that the bill would result in layoffs. The union, which along with several other organized labor groups who backed the measure, advised its membership to ignore the threats.

The bill, carried by Assemblyman Adam C. Gray, D-Merced, died in committee.

Lobbying for Favor

Cal State’s administration and the union have both spent generously on lobbying over the past several years, often at odds.

California State this year has spent $92,000 on lobbying through June while the union has spent $83,760, records show.

Last year, the university spent $396,545 on lobby-related activities while the union spent $248,446.

The union’s political action committee spends heavily on the annual lobby days in April, bringing in members and running up bills for hotels and airfare. This year, the union spent $15,000 on promotional materials with a Massachusetts-based company. 

The California State University system has increased student activity fees to offset a tuition freeze, making parking and health services more expensive.

The union insists that the average CSU salary for union members has increased 8 percent since 2004, rising from $46,362 to $50,179 in 2014, while the average pay for a campus president has risen 44 percent, from $218,871 in 2004 to $314,357 in 2014.

CSU contends the proposed 2 percent raise is fair. In a statement from earlier this month, it says “the 2 percent compensation increase costs $32.8 million. The 6.2 percent total salary increase the CFA is proposing costs $101.7 million. The CSU will continue to work to improve compensation for all employees but must balance all critical priorities that support student success.”

A proposed $9 billion state bond for school construction projects includes multimillion-dollar project requests from districts where student enrollment has declined, a CalWatchdog investigation has found.

The measure, on the 2016 ballot, is supported in large part by a cadre of interests led by developers, architects, contractors and educators. Among the talking points from proponents is a professed $2 billion in projects that await funding, in all nearly 400 requests from districts that have been either approved or requested by districts. 

Most of the money is aimed at improving schools or building more, and in some cases for districts that are struggling to attract students.

Declining Enrollment

West Contra Costa Unified has seen enrollment dip by 2,000 students to 30,596. Voters in the Northern California district approved a $360 million bond measure in 2012. The district is asking for $47 million more in state funding.

At Los Angeles Unified, the second largest school district in the U.S. in terms of students, enrollment has dropped 12 percent since 2005 to 646,683 in 2014-15.  It has $43 million worth of requests for state funding. The number of certified staff, which includes teachers along with upper-level administrators, has also dropped at L.A. Unified, by 8 percent in the last decade.

Then there’s the case of Centinela Valley Union High School District, where voters approved bond measures in 2008 and 2010 totaling $196 million. Over that same period, district Superintendent Jose Fernandez was handed a perk-laden contract that added up to $663,000 in compensation in 2013.  Fernandez was fired last year after the package was revealed.

Enrollment in the district dropped from 8,000 to 7,878 between 2005-06 and 2014-15 as the two bond measures were passed.

Statewide, public enrollment has remained static for the last five years.

Here’s a look at the districts with recently voter-approved bonds and projects on the waiting list for state bond funds. The listing includes the margin of approval and the ballot language, as well as the dollar amount of the district’s request with the state.

RELATED – Developers Lobby Pushes Statewide Education Bond

For an interactive map of the info listed below, CLICK HERE

Oakland Unified

• 2012: $473 million approved by 84 percent of voters “to improve the quality of Oakland schools and school facilities to better prepare students for college and jobs, to upgrade science labs, classrooms, computers and technology, improve student safety and security, repair bathrooms, electrical systems, plumbing and sewer lines, improve energy efficiency and earthquake safety.”
• On the list: $3.1 million

West Contra Costa Unified

• 2012: $360 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to make schools safe, complete essential health/safety repairs, qualify for State matching grants, shall West Contra Costa Unified School District upgrade schools for earthquake safety and handicap accessibility, remove asbestos, upgrade science labs, restrooms, vocational classrooms, technology and energy systems to reduce costs, install lighting and security systems, and acquire, repair, construct, equipment, sites and facilities.”
• On the list: $47 million

San Ramon Unified

• 2012: $260 million approved by 57 percent of voters “to improve local elementary, middle and high school classrooms, labs and learning facilities by adding classrooms to prevent school overcrowding; upgrading fire, security and earthquake safety; updating science labs, and instructional technology infrastructure for 21st-century learning; improving energy efficiency; and renovating, constructing and equipping schools, facilities and classrooms.”
• On the list: $2.7 million

Chico Unified

• 2012: $78 million approved by 65 percent of voters. “The bond funds could be expended only for the purposes specified in the ballot measure, including: improving student access to computers and modern technology, repairing or replacing leaky roofs and plumbing systems, upgrading heating, ventilation and cooling systems.”
• On the list: $3.4 million

Clovis Unified

• 2012: $298 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to maintain excellent neighborhood schools, offset state budget cuts, and retain/attract quality teachers by: Upgrading classrooms/science labs/fire safety systems/libraries; Improving energy efficiency systems; Enhancing vocational education facilities; Fixing deteriorating roofs/plumbing/bathrooms; Ensuring handicapped accessibility; and Acquiring sites, constructing/equipping school facilities.”
• On the list: $37.7 million

Fresno Unified

• 2010: $280 million approved by 75 percent of voters “to offset state budget cuts, attract quality teachers, and repair classrooms by: Upgrading vocational education classrooms/science labs/technology/libraries; Improving security/fire safety/restrooms/plumbing/ventilation systems; Increasing handicapped access; Securing state matching funds; Replacing deteriorating portables; Preventing dropouts by improving alternative schools; Acquiring, constructing, repairing campuses/facilities/equipment.”
• On the list: $43.7 million

Washington Unified

• 2012: $22 million approved by 73 percent of voters “to better prepare Washington Union High School students for college and quality jobs, shall Washington Unified School District upgrade technology in classrooms, job-training labs, and student- support facilities; modernize science labs; rehabilitate deteriorated roofs, plumbing, electrical, lighting, ventilation; improve safety; and acquire/construct/repair instructional and athletic sites, facilities and equipment.”
• On the list: $7.4 million

Orland Unified

• 2008: $21.9 million approved by 56 percent of voters for new construction and modernization.
• On the list: $1.8 million

Eureka City Unified

• 2014: $49.75 million approved by 57 percent of voters “to upgrade every school site and help improve education by: upgrading career technical/job training classrooms; investing in technology/science labs; repairing aging classrooms; qualifying local schools for matching state funds; and constructing/acquiring facilities, classrooms, sites and equipment.”
• On the list: $364,590

Los Angeles Unified

• 2008: $7 billion approved by 69 percent of voters “to improve student health, safety and educational quality, shall the Los Angeles Unified School District: continue repair/upgrade of aging/deteriorating classrooms, restrooms; upgrade fire/earthquake safety; reduce asbestos, lead paint, air pollution, water quality hazards; build/upgrade specialized classrooms students need to meet job/college requirements; improve classroom Internet access.”
• On the list: $43.6 million

Centinela Valley Union High School District

• 2010: $98 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to protect students from earthquakes; remove asbestos, lead paint, and other safety hazards from schools; and improve learning and academic achievement, shall the Centinela Valley Union High School District issue $98,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, to repair, acquire, and construct local schools, sites, and facilities, including libraries, classrooms, science labs, and academic academies; and replace aging plumbing, heating, electrical, and school security systems.”
• 2008: $98 million approved by 71 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education/student safety/reduce overcrowding, shall Centinela Valley Union High School District issue $98,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, to repair/acquire/construct local schools, sites, facilities, libraries, classrooms, science/computer labs, ensure earthquake safety, remove mold/asbestos, upgrade fire safety/security systems, leaky roofs, restrooms, plumbing/electrical/heating/cooling systems.”
• On the list: $28.3 million

Redondo Beach Unified

• 2012: $63 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to prepare students for success in high school, college, and the workforce; acquire, construct, upgrade, furnish, and equip school facilities, including career and technical facilities, improve classroom technology, and make energy efficiency improvements to reduce operating costs and put more money in classrooms.”
• 2008: $145 million approved by 66 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education, complete the renovation of local schools, make health and safety improvements, upgrade and modernize existing classrooms and school buildings, including multipurpose rooms, and improve student support facilities at the High School, including the library, computer and science labs and athletic facilities.”
• On the list: $2.4 million

Anderson Valley Unified

• 2010: $15.2 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to acquire, construct, and improve classrooms and facilities, including repairing, upgrading, and modernizing Anderson Valley Elementary, improving student access to modern technology at Anderson Valley Junior Senior High, improving energy efficiency, installing solar panels to reduce energy costs.”
• On the list: $754,796

Calistoga Joint Unified

• 2010: $42 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to renovate and improve Calistoga schools, improve school libraries, upgrade classrooms, modernize computer networks, build a new gym and a cafeteria, install solar energy systems, replace aging roofs, old heating, electrical, plumbing, cooling and ventilation systems with energy efficient systems.”
• On the list: $442, 693

Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified

• 2008: $200 million approved by 57 percent of voters to “authorize the School District to issue and sell bonds of up to $200,000,000 to finance school facilities projects.”
• On the list: $5.7 million

Anaheim City School District

• 2010: $169 million approved by 64 percent of voters “for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities.”
• On the list: $5.4 million

Savanna Elementary School District

• 2012: $28.75 million approved by 59 percent of voters “in order to protect the quality of education at our schools, provide safe and modern school facilities, and complete priority school renovation that would otherwise not occur due to State budget cuts, and in so doing increase health, safety, welfare and educational effectiveness of classrooms for students.”
• 2008: $24.9 million approved by 72 percent of voters “to improve student learning and safety in neighborhood schools, shall Savanna Elementary School District rehabilitate 46-50-year old classrooms and school facilities, upgrade fire/safety/security systems, repair or replace deteriorated roofs, electrical, plumbing, restrooms, heating, and ventilation, and improve classroom technology and school libraries.”
• On the list: $6.4 million

Tustin Unified

• 2012: $135 million approved by 60 percent of voters “to better prepare students for college and high-demand jobs, improve students’ technology skills for today’s higher standards, retain qualified teachers, improve instruction and career training in science, math and skilled trades, and maintain high-quality education; shall Tustin Unified School District upgrade classrooms, science labs, equipment, instructional technology and infrastructure.”
• On the list: $12.7 million

Desert Sands Unified

• 2014: $225 million approved by 69 percent of voters “to upgrade classrooms, labs for career/technical education classes to prepare students for college/good-paying jobs in math, science, engineering, technology/ skilled trades, repair deteriorating roofs, plumbing/electrical systems, acquire, renovate, construct/equip classrooms, sites/facilities to keep pace with technology.”
• On the list: $15.5 million

Val Verde Unified

• 2012: $178 million approved by 62 percent of voters “to protect the quality of education in our local schools, relieve overcrowding and provide safe/modern schools, shall the Val Verde Unified School District update computers/technology in classrooms/science labs/libraries; provide facilities/equipment for career training/education; make funds available to attract/retain qualified teachers and protect academic instruction; construct new high school facilities to relieve overcrowding.”
• On the list: $43.9 million

Temecula Valley Unified

• 2012: $165 million approved by 64 percent of voters “in order to acquire, construct and reconstruct school facilities, and provide for supporting infrastructure at the existing school site of the Temecula Valley Unified School District, and in so doing increase health, safety, welfare and educational effectiveness of classrooms for students.”
• On the list: $3.1 million

Corona-Norco Unified

• 2014: $396 million approved by 57 percent of voters to “upgrade classrooms, science lands, computers, career-training technology to support high-quality instruction in math, science, engineering, technology/skilled trades, repair/replace leaky roofs, floors, plumbing/hazardous materials where needed, address overcrowding, improve student safety/security, repair, construct, acquire, equip classrooms, facilities/sites.”
• On the list: $2.8 million

San Juan Unified

• 2012 $350 million approved by 60 percent of voters To improve the quality of education at every school, modernize aging classrooms, upgrade technology, provide 21st century learning opportunities, improve student safety and become eligible for millions in additional State dollars
• On the list: $454,883

Cajon Valley Union

• 2008: $156.5 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education, upgrade and construct classrooms and joint-use gymnasiums, increase access to computers and technology, replace 50-year old schools, make safety and security improvements, improve energy efficiency, and make the District eligible for State-matching grants.”
• On the list: $2.9 million

San Diego Unified

• 2012: $2.8 billion approved by 62 percent of voters “to repair neighborhood schools and charter schools with funding the state cannot take away by: Repairing deteriorating 60-year-old classrooms, libraries, wiring, plumbing, bathrooms and leaky roofs; Removing hazardous mold, asbestos, and lead; Upgrading fire safety systems/doors; Upgrading classroom instructional technology, labs and vocational education classrooms.”
• On the list: $2.2 million

San Marcos Unified

• 2010: $287 million approved by 63 percent of voters “to maintain excellent local schools, repair aging, deteriorating classrooms/schools, attract quality teachers and offset State cuts by: removing asbestos, lead paint, repairing roofs, plumbing, wiring; preventing overcrowding; upgrading instructional technology, libraries, science labs; improving seismic, fire and student safety; and improving disabled access.”
• On the list: $36.9 million

Stockton Unified

• 2014: $114 million approved by 67 percent of voters “to increase student access to computers; maintain and upgrade educational technology; upgrade classroom security systems for increased student safety; upgrade technology servers, routers, switches and storage area networks; and significantly reduce borrowing costs.”
• 2012: $156 million approved by 74 percent of voters “in order to repair, equip, acquire and construct classrooms, school facilities, playgrounds and athletic fields; replace portables with permanent classrooms; and reduce overall borrowing costs.”
• 2008: $464.5 million approved by 69 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education and student access to computers and technology, renovate science labs, repair restrooms, modernize and upgrade schools and classrooms throughout the District, construct additional classrooms and facilities, replace outdated temporary portable classrooms with permanent classrooms, and qualify the District for millions in State matching funds.”
• On the list: $9.3 million

Belmont-Redwood Shores School District

• 2014: $48 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to add elementary and middle school classrooms and science labs for math, science, reading and writing programs, relieve school overcrowding, provide updated classroom computers and instructional technology for quality 21st Century education, repair, construct, acquire classrooms, facilities and equipment, add restrooms to accommodate growing student enrollment.”
• 2010: $25 million approved by 66 percent of voters “to continue quality education/prevent classroom overcrowding, shall Belmont-Redwood Shores School District repair/replace leaking roofs, provide additional classrooms for science, math, general instruction, construct, acquire, repair classrooms/ facilities/sites/equipment, meet current fire/safety codes, improve disabled access, upgrade technology, replace outdated electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, safety/security systems.”
• 2010: $35 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to continue quality education, shall Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary School District (SFID) repair/replace leaking roofs, construct, acquire, repair classrooms/facilities/sites/equipment, meet current fire/ safety codes, improve disabled access, provide science classrooms/additional classrooms to prevent overcrowding, upgrade technology, replace outdated electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and security systems.”
• On the list: $6.2 million

Burlingame Elementary School District

• 2012: $56 approved by 67 percent of voters “to maintain excellent local schools by modernizing science labs, upgrading instructional technology/computers, adding classrooms/reopening an existing school to reduce current overcrowding, upgrading classrooms to meet current safety codes, renovating heating and electrical systems to save money.”
• On the list: $1.5 million

Sequoia Union High School District

• 2014: $265 million in bonds approved by 65 percent of voters “to support high quality education and upgrade local high schools with funding that cannot be taken by the state by adding classrooms, science labs, and schools to avoid overcrowding, provide updated classrooms technology, labs, and career technical facilities; renovate aging classrooms and repair, construct, or acquire equipment, classrooms, and facilities”
• 2008: $165 million approved by 66 percent of voters “to create a 10 year technology fund for upgrading classroom computers; to improve energy efficiency; to build classrooms for career, technical, and vocational education courses; and to improve, expand, modernize and construct classrooms and facilities at Carlmont, Menlo-Atherton, Sequoia, and Woodside High Schools and other district sites.”
• On the list: $11.2 million

East Side Union High School District

• 2014: $113.2 million approved by 68 percent of voters “to increase student computer access; upgrade educational software; keep pace with 21st century technological innovations; and implement statewide testing requirements at Andrew Hill, Calero, Evergreen Valley, Foothill, Independence, James Lick, Mt. Pleasant, Oak Grove, Piedmont Hills, Santa Teresa, Silver Creek, Yerba Buena, W.C. Overfelt, Adult-Ed, alternative and District charter schools.”
• 2012: $120 million approved by 71 percent of voters “to upgrade computer/science labs; improve security/safety; repair, equip, and construct classrooms/facilities at Andrew Hill, Calero, Evergreen Valley, Foothill, Independence, James Lick, Mt. Pleasant, Oak Grove, Piedmont Hills, Santa Teresa, Silver Creek, Yerba Buena, W.C. Overfelt, and District adult, alternative, and charter schools; and acquire property for new schools.”
• On the list: $5 million

Franklin-McKinley School District

• 2010: $50 million approved by 70 percent of voters “to provide safe, modern neighborhood schools with updated computer technology, maximize energy efficiency to save money, improve student learning for local elementary school students by acquiring, upgrading, constructing, equipping classrooms, sites/facilities, science/computer labs, replacing aging roofs, plumbing, heating, ventilation/electrical systems, improving fire alarms, school security/earthquake safety.”
• On the list: $511,489

Rincon Valley Union School District

• 2014: $35 million approved by 67 percent of voters “to continue critical renovation, modernization and safety upgrades to District schools, add classrooms to avoid overcrowding, make needed upgrades to libraries, science and computer labs, improve access to classroom technology, improve energy efficiency to save money, and renovate, construct, acquire classrooms, sites, facilities and equipment.”
• On the list: $1.47 million

Windsor Unified School District

• 2008: $50 million approved by 63 percent of voters “to build new classrooms to relieve severe overcrowding, replace aging portables with permanent classrooms, build science labs, upgrade classroom computers and technology and to secure state matching funds.”
• On the list: $2.8 million