“The law expands the state’s definition of invasion of privacy to include sending a drone over private property to make a recording or take photos,” as BBC News reported. It was passed as Assembly Bill 856 and introduced by Assemblyman Ian Calderon, D-Whittier.

Wielding the veto

Just weeks ago, Brown had refused to sign yet another bill that would have extended trespassing law to include similar activity. The bill, Brown warned, “could expose the occasional hobbyist and the FAA-approved commercial user alike to burdensome litigation and new causes of action,” the Los Angeles Times noted.

Three other drone-curbing bills vetoed by Brown “would have prohibited civilians from flying aerial drones over wildfires, schools, prisons and jails,” the Times reported separately. “The governor rejected those and six other bills that would have created new crimes or penalties for misconduct including using bullhooks to handle elephants, allowing explosions in drug labs and removing GPS tracking devices from paroled sex offenders. Brown said in a veto message that there are already laws available to deal with any problems addressed by the bills.”

In his veto statement, Brown complained that the drone bills fell into the pattern of “finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct that is already proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit.”

Legislative frustration

The author of the three bills, state Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado, made his dissatisfaction plain in recent remarks to the press. “I think it’s dumb,” Gaines said, according to Southern California Public Radio. “Aren’t we supposed to be protecting the public? If I’m an elected official — he’s the governor, I’m a senator — isn’t one of our key roles that we play in public service to protect the public, and certainly Cal Fire employees?”

The discovery that hobbyists’ drones had interfered with firefighting this summer had fueled the push for criminalizing that activity. “The U.S. Forest Service has repeatedly posted reminders warning people that a collision between a hobbyist drone and the low-flying aircraft and helicopters used to fight wildfire could cause damage to the aircraft and injuries to the pilots and people below,” Ars Technica reported. “Despite the warnings, drone sightings keep happening over wildfires, causing the U.S. Forest Service thousands of dollars in aborted flyovers.”

But the private use of drones raised broader concerns including the safety of commercial aircraft. “A couple years ago, it was 200,000, so it is increasing geometrically, and I think it was a mistake for the governor not to see ahead into the future in terms of the chronic aspect of drone use, in the wrong way, in the state of California,” added Gaines. Along with Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Glendale, Gaines had hoped to increase the penalty for interfering with firefighting to $5,000 and up to six months in jail “if the drone interference was ruled reckless and intentional,” Ars noted.

Analysts sympathetic to the legislation suggested that lawmakers were justified in their impatience with the federal government’s pace in crafting drone regulations of its own. “In the state of California, it is already a misdemeanor to ‘engage in disorderly conduct that delays or prevents a fire from being timely extinguished’ or to prevent emergency responders from discharging their duties,” noted Justin Peters in Slate. “Legislators’ attempts to get specific are a function of frustration, both with drone operators whose actions too often defy common sense and with a federal government that is taking its sweet time to come up with comprehensive regulations for an industry that desperately needs them.”

In an all-too-real conflict between man and machine, a string of high-profile clashes between drones and public servants has helped spur an effort to crack down on the airborne bots in California.

But at the same time, civil libertarian concerns have prompted a parallel controversy over law enforcement’s desire to use more drones to fight crime.

Crossing the line

Along with Golden State legislators, members of California’s Congressional delegation have grown concerned that so-called recreational drones, flown by private citizens, have become a serious threat to the state’s ability to safely operate in its own airspace. “Without common sense rules, I believe it’s only a matter of time before there’s a tragic accident,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in an emailed statement reported by Emergency Management:

“Feinstein and other lawmakers are demanding that regulators revise existing law to plug a loophole sparing recreational drones from the regulations. They are also are seeking the use of software that would prevent drones from flying in prohibited areas.”

In Sacramento, meanwhile, lawmakers faced a battery of drone bills. One group focused on invasions of privacy; as the Orange County Register reported, state Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Rocklin, offered bills aimed at clearing the skies over public schools, prisons and jails — measures that have already passed the state Senate and await a vote in the Assembly appropriations committee. Other bills would extend trespassing and other privacy laws to cover the use of drones over private property and in otherwise private areas. 

Gaines has also partnered up with Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Glendale, to target drones flown over wildfires. As CalWatchdog reported previously, drones disrupted aerial firefighting in California four times over the course of the month of July alone. The Gaines-Gatto bills would make that kind of interference a misdemeanor and exempt firefighters from liability for neutralizing offending drones.

A spreading problem

In addition to complicating California’s efforts to fight fires, dismaying drone-related incidents have begun to spread across the country. As the Washington Post noted, “drones have smuggled drugs into an Ohio prison, smashed against a Cincinnati skyscraper […] and nearly collided with three airliners over New York City.”

“Earlier this summer, a runaway two-pound drone struck a woman at a gay pride parade in Seattle, knocking her unconscious. In Albuquerque, a drone buzzed into a crowd at an outdoor festival, injuring a bystander. In Tampa, a drone reportedly stalked a woman outside a downtown bar before crashing into her car.”

But California has remained a drone hotspot a cut above the rest. Drug runners have begun testing out the use of drones to ferry payloads across the border. “Drones as a drug-smuggling tool made news in January when one hauling meth crashed in the parking lot of a Tijuana shopping center, two miles from the U.S. border,” according to U-T San Diego. “It was loaded with about seven pounds of drugs and was likely being ferried from neighborhood to neighborhood, Mexican law enforcement said.”

Just this month, U-T added, two men pleaded guilty to picking up 28 pounds of heroin delivered by drone near Calexico, “a pickup that was captured on Border Patrol cameras on April 28, according to court records.”

Also this month, a helicopter air ambulance taking a patient to the hospital “had to take evasive action to avoid a mid-air collision with a drone aircraft Wednesday afternoon north of Fresno Yosemite International Airport,” according to the Fresno Bee. 

Police interest

The sense of uncertainty pervading the airspace has been compounded by Sacramento’s inability to deal with the prospect of expanded law enforcement drone usage. One bill underscoring the problem, AB56, set out to strike a balance by requiring warrants for drone surveillance over private property and new police standards for privacy, including the storage and deletion of video footage recorded by drone, as the Associated Press noted. 

But the bill hit against opposition from both sides, with the ACLU and law enforcement organizations both expressing displeasure over the attempted compromise. The bill’s author, Assemblyman Bill Quirk, D-Hayward, expressed his frustration to the AP. “There’s a middle ground that nobody likes,” he sighed. 

According to Pan’s website, the bill “will repeal the personal belief exemption that currently allows parents to effectively opt their child out of vaccines in our schools.” Under the exemption, “a parent may choose to opt their child out of school vaccine requirements that bi-partisan legislative majorities passed to protect students.”

As the Sacramento Bee reported, the vaccination issue has roiled California in unexpected ways, with “anti-vaxxers” cutting across familiar ideological and political categories. “I’m a registered Democrat, but that could possibly change,” one parent told the paper. “I could never be with a party that mandates, and takes away freedom from people.”

But Republicans have been wary of championing residents seen as directly responsible for the outbreak of major diseases. Some GOP officeholders in Sacramento have begun to reverse their earlier support of California’s relatively broad personal belief exemption, which extends beyond a carveout for religious beliefs. Others have reaffirmed a measured commitment to both vaccination and parental choice.

According to the Los Angeles Times, however, the bill would nevertheless extend some political cover to conservatives whose constituents favor close parental control of medical choices:

“The legislation does not address children who are completely home-schooled. It would still allow children to avoid vaccination for medical reasons including allergic responses and weak immune systems. The mandate only applies to children attending public or private schools.”

Democratic divisions

Perhaps surprisingly, Republicans may have already felt the worst of the political awkwardness — while Democrats face more internal disagreement. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Dr. Pan wrote a 2012 law that went into effect last year that required a consultation with a health care practitioner to obtain the personal belief exemption. Gov. Jerry Brown added an exemption based on religious beliefs upon signing that law.”

Now, Brown’s office has indicated the governor is open to erasing the personal belief exemption.

Both California’s U.S. Senators, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, also have urged their fellow party members to consider eliminating the religious-belief exemption. In a letter to California Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley and other officials, the senators set out an uncompromising position:

“California’s current law allows two options for parents to opt out of vaccine requirements for school and daycare: they must either make this decision with the aid of a health professional, or they can simply check a box claiming that they have religious objections to medical care. We think both options are flawed, and oppose even the notion of a medical professional assisting to waive a vaccine requirement unless there is a medical reason, such as an immune deficiency.”

What’s more, Boxer and Feinstein went after parents who sought modified or delayed vaccination schedules even for preschool children — a move that could unsettle the swift but fragile bipartisan consensus forming around the Pan-Allen bill.

As BuzzFeed reported, the response among Democrats has not been as crisp and confident as Boxer and Feinstein might have hoped:

“Several liberal lawmakers unequivocally said parents should vaccinate their kids. But when pressed further on the state laws that allow parents to skip vaccinating their children if they have a medical, religious, or ‘personal belief’ reason not to do so, their answers became less clear.”

Nationally prominent California Democrats, from Rep. Maxine Waters to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, couched their language in a way that steered clear of Boxer and Feinstein’s vaccination absolutism.

The office of California Attorney General Kamala Harris — who hopes to replace Boxer in the Senate — declined to answer any questions about Harris’s own stance.

Responding to a state senator’s call for an investigation into the marketing budget of California’s Obamacare exchange, the agency says it is in great financial shape and even received high marks for an audit conducted last year.

“By 2015/16, we project a reserve of over $184 million,” Covered California spokesperson Anne Gonzales told CalWatchdog.com. “We are putting aside a healthy amount of federal grant money and plan to draw on our reserves until our enrollment starts generating income.”

But GOP state Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado Hills, who is vice chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Insurance, said the agency will be $78 million in the red during the next fiscal year. He was incensed to learn that Covered California spent $1.37 million on an advertising campaign featuring a lurid Richard Simmons web stream that is now on YouTube.

Gaines learned about how much the “Tell a Friend, Get Covered” campaign cost from a Jan. 30 CalWatchdog.com article and then demanded an audit of Covered California on same day. He had initially asked for the financial information in a letter to Covered California Director Peter Lee, but it had gone unanswered when the article appeared.

Democratic bill

Covered California’s detractors aren’t limited to the Republicans. Late Monday, state Sen. Norma J. Torres, D-Chino, introduced Senate Bill 972, aimed at fixing “problems experienced by consumers” – lackluster customer service, a low Latino sign-up rate and inaccuracies in the provider directory, a press release stated.

“Accountability starts at the top,” Torres tweeted Tuesday. “Covered CA customers deserve better.”

To remedy the situation, Torres’ bill increases the number of Covered California directors from five to seven and broadens the types of expertise for board eligibility to include marketing and information technology. It has bi-partisan support.

Torres’ spokesperson, Alex Barrios, said in an interview that Covered California’s poor performance “is the responsibility of the board.”

However, on paper, Covered California is doing a stellar job.

To date, it has had three audits:

• The state of California, which labeled it a high risk entity, yet praised its transparency and marketing plans as “more than adequate” and “logical and deliberate.”
• A self-review that was submitted to the state Department of Finance on Dec. 30 that says it has “adopted and operates with an adequate system of internal control and … monitoring processes” with on-going reviews and personnel tasked with ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse.
• A federal compliance audit that is scheduled to be completed in a few months.

Budget

Covered California’s current budget is $399.7 million. Since 2010, the federal government has awarded $910 million in grants and no further funding will be received after Jan. 2015. The agency has been saving money for reserves, which will fund its budget after the grants end. Unlike other state agencies, it is prohibited from drawing on the state’s general fund.

In the 2015/16 fiscal year, the deficit will be $78.4 million, decreasing to $34.5 million in 2016/17. The deficit should shrink in succeeding years as more insureds are signed up in the system, Covered California says.

“We are a startup enterprise, and it would not be fiscally conservative to imagine we will make money as soon as we open our doors,” said spokesperson Anne Gonzales. “We are being frugal, setting aside reserves until our revenues ramp up. In addition, Covered California is currently helping the state’s fiscal situation. We are operating exclusively with federal funds, and many of those dollars go to create jobs for people who buy goods and pay taxes. We are an economic engine in that respect.”

This doesn’t mollify Gaines, who wants to know more.

He received a response to his letter to Director Peter Lee a day after CalWatchdog.com’s story appeared.

“From our early data, Tell a Friend – Get Covered has been a success and has surpassed expectations,” Lee wrote. “[W]e have measured a reach of over 202 million impressions throughout the campaign; a significant milestone amplified by over 60 media personalities who … have encouraged their own followers to learn more.”

The 8-hour web stream that featured Simmons also included spots by actress Olivia Wilde and comic Billy Eichner. Other celebrities blogged or tweeted for the campaign: President Obama, Adam Levine, Fran Drescher, George Lopez, Lisa Leslie and Kerry Washington.

Gaines said in an interview that Lee’s letter didn’t give specific details about how many people signed up during the campaign and a breakdown of dollars spent.

“They have these high-priced consultants for all this so-called great marketing advice,” Gaines said. “The millennials are not signing up at the rate that they should be and there are problems with the Latino outreach. I’m not convinced that the financial structure is going to bring us to the point of break even or profitability.

“I would like to ask these probing questions and have someone provide an account of how dollars are being spent,” Gaines said.

Marketing plan

However, the state audit said Covered California’s “outreach plans appear more than adequate” and it “appears to have engaged in a logical and deliberate process when developing its marketing plan.”

Torres also asked Covered California for an accountability on how dollars were being spent and details about its Latino enrollment.

“We didn’t get specific answers,” said Barrios, Torres’ spokesperson. “We believe in accountability. We asked in mid-December for this.”

Director Lee was invited to speak before the Latino Legislative Caucus and he provided some answers to questions, but not all of them, Barrios said.

“As a Democrat, Norma Torres wants to see Covered California do better,” Barrios said.

The Jan. 16 event — now immortalized on YouTube — showed celebrity fitness trainer Simmons writhing on the ground to an MC’s chant of “Get Covered, hashtag, uh-huh,” a reference to Covered California, the state exchange. At one point, he snuggles up to a contortionist following a dance-off. The full YouTube is at the end of this article.

Covered California faces a $78 million deficit during the next fiscal year due to cutbacks in federal funding. State Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado Hills, learned of the $1.37 million campaign cost from the CalWatchdog.com article. He had previously sought to obtain the information from Covered California Director Peter Lee, but received no response.

“What a waste of money — oh, my gosh,” Gaines said in an interview. “I looked at the video and was blown away that they would spend money on that. And for them to think that people would want to sign up for health insurance from seeing it? Give me a break.”

Gaines formally requested the audit Jan. 30 in a letter addressed to the chairman of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. It was the same committee that recently discovered the exchange’s budget shortfall. The exchange was audited about a year ago. But the audit didn’t reveal the deficit or analyze funds spent on public outreach, so another audit should be conducted, said Gaines’ spokeswoman, Betsey Hodges.

“Covered California recently spent $1.3 million on a widely mocked infomercial featuring Richard Simmons,” Gaines wrote. “I fear that this is evidence that the Exchange shows little regard for the precarious fiscal condition it faces.”

Rate increase

Gaines, who is vice chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Insurance, said Covered California didn’t appear to have a plan to fill in the deficit, and he fears that policy holders will be stuck with a massive rate increase.

“It is stunning to me that a Department this new and this small could be facing a deficit this big without a plan to cover it,” Gaines wrote. “In light of this deficit [and] the seemingly ill-advised informercial … an examination of the Exchange’s finances is in order.”

Covered California responded by saying it received a good rating from its last audit.

“We live up to any federal and state audit requirements,” said Covered California spokeswoman Anne Gonzales. “We are committed to being transparent, and we welcome any opportunity to explain our financial picture to the public, including lawmakers.”

Several steps have to occur before an audit. The Bureau of State Audits will determine a cost based on the scope of the work. Covered California Director Peter Lee and the general public will have a chance to respond to the proposal. And the committee will decide whether to move forward, table the request, or transfer it to another agency.

A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 11.

Covered California’s budget is $399.7 million, of which $102.6 million is spent on outreach, a legislative report showed. So far, about half a million people have enrolled.

Contact Tori Richards at tori@watchdog.org and on twitter @newswriter2. This was cross-posted from Watchdog.org

The full, six-hour video is below:

The “Tell a Friend — Get Covered” campaign by California’s Obamacare exchange features such other celebrities as Olivia Wilde, comic Billy Eichner, Fran Drescher and Tatyana Ali. The centerpiece of the effort was a six-hour live web stream that ran on Jan. 16. (See full YouTube below.)

The celebrities were not paid for their work, Covered California said.

In response, on Jan. 18, State Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado Hills, fired off a terse letter to Covered California director Peter Lee demanding to know why such a campaign was launched at taxpayer expense. The exchange likely will face a $78 million shortfall during the next fiscal year, said Gaines, who is vice chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Insurance. Gaines’ letter singled out the web stream:

“On first review, this long advertisement seems a wasteful, unserious and insulting effort, especially when viewed against the backdrop of at least a million Californians having their health coverage … canceled as a result of Covered California’s actions. I question whether this is the time to pour tax dollars into what appears to be an ineffective and embarrassing quarter-day long marketing effort.” 

Public relations

Through the end of 2013, Covered California had enrolled 500,108 people. Its 2012-13 budget was $366.3 million, with $74.2 million going toward public relations, according to a Nov. 2013 legislative report.

Covered California’s 2013-14 budget increased by nearly $33 million with public relations funding going up by $28 million, the report said.

Gaines said in an interview that he doesn’t know where the money will come from to fund the $78 million deficit.

“About 900,000 people in California had [previous insurance] coverage canceled and were forced to go into the Affordable Care Act,” he said. “They are paying an extra 200, 300, 400 bucks a month. More people are canceled than actually have insurance through Covered California. Then we see these stupid commercials using taxpayer money and not even focused on the right demographic.”

Instead, he urged, Covered California should be focusing on the state’s large Latino population, which traditionally has been underinsured.

Lee defended the campaign. He said he’s using free social media to get the word out – a preferred method among younger consumers, the so-called millennials who are the target audience.

“Covered California’s programs such as Tell A Friend-Get Covered feature content that resonates among millennials and that can be spread by millennials to their friends and loved ones,” Lee said in a statement. “Millennials are not only our key audience, they also are our ambassadors in spreading the word about Covered California.”

The web stream was filmed at a Los Angeles studio and included skits, tips and interviews. During the segment, Simmons, wearing red tights and a black sequined tank top, was joined by a contortionist for a dance competition. Part of Simmons’ routine involved writhing on the ground and peeking through his split legs.

All the while, a DJ played dance music and the program’s hostess sang, “Get covered, Hashtag, Uh huh.” And, “This is beautiful…. I feel inspired to tell my friends to sign up online. That was beautiful, Richard!”

Up next was Simmons’ challenger, a contortionist with hip-hop moves prompting Simmons to quip, “I’m going to get sick. Is there a vomit bag like on an airplane?” The pair finished on the floor with the contortionist on his stomach and Simmons nestled near the man’s buttocks.

‘Embarrassment’

Gaines called the video “an embarrassment.” He told Lee that he wanted to know the cost breakdown between state and federal dollars to pay for it and whether there was a plan to gauge its value by monitoring the enrollment rate.

He also asked to see the exchange’s entire marketing plan, including cost and performance as a “benefit to taxpayers.”

So far, he hasn’t received a response. If Lee ignores his request, Gaines said he would consider issuing a formal demand through his Senate committee or holding a hearing.

Lee considers the event a success.

“The campaign has generated and continues to generate substantial social media distribution and wide press coverage,” Lee said.

It’s now threatening the validation of 35,000 ballot initiative petition signatures that would halt the proposed subsidy of a new arena for Sacramento’s Kings basketball team.

The ADS gripping Sacramento has infiltrated most of city government, and made it all the way to the city’s top ranking officials. ADS started in the office of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, himself a former NBA star, then spread like a communicable disease through the Sacramento City Council, senior city management and city hospitality and convention agents. ADS thrives in a host of labor unions and crony capitalist business owners that would benefit from constructing the arena — and, of course, in the super fans.

ADS has divided friends and neighbors, even caused riffs in families.

In December, after the Sacramento City Clerk’s Office is done counting the petition signatures, Sacramento county elections officials said a validation process would take weeks.

The anti-public subsidy group Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork only needed 22,000 valid signatures from registered city voters to qualify the anti-subsidy measure for the June ballot.

Shortly after STOP turned in the signatures, Johnson decided to turn up the heat on those who oppose the public subsidy, launching a new group called “The4000” (no space between the letters).

“We are going to do everything that we can, and everything in our power to protect the 4,000 jobs we are going to create in this community,” Johnson said at the Dec. 12 launch.

The4000 what?

The4000, co-chaired by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, now is claiming that several of the petitions the anti-subsidy group used are invalid.

The Sacramento City Clerk’s Office and the Sacramento County Registrar said different versions of the petition were submitted, and could be invalid.

The4000 filed a complaint with County Registrar of Voters over the petitions, demonstrating they will do absolutely anything to see that this issue doesn’t get on the ballot.

Fox guarding henhouse

In what could be the fox guarding the hen house, Sacramento County Registrar of Voters Jill LaVine said she is giving the issue to the city and its attorney for their determinations. “I’m tossing it back to the city and their attorney for their determinations,” she said. “Whatever the city and their attorney decide it is up to them,” she said in a recent Sacramento Bee story.

And just in case the County Registrar, the city of Sacramento, and city attorney aren’t effective, Johnson has one more ace-in-the-hole.

Why no vote on “economic game-changer?

The entire planned Downtown Plaza arena project, which Johnson says is “a once-in-a-lifetime economic game-changer that has an opportunity to transform downtown forever,” will be punted to the Sacramento Planning Commission.

The owners of the Sacramento Kings also want to build a 250-room hotel, 550 apartments, new offices, and more retail shops on the blighted K Street Downtown Plaza — property now mostly owned by the city of Sacramento, obtained through eminent domain from previous redevelopment efforts that failed.

The Planning Commission is expected to make its recommendations on the arena project in February.

And … drumroll please … the Planning Commission Chairwoman is none other than Kiyomi Burchill, a former legislative staff member to Steinberg. Kiyomi was appointed to the planning commission by Mayor Johnson.

Burchill, now 29, was appointed assistant secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2011. Prior to that, Burchill was a policy consultant, legislative aide, and California Senate Fellow for Steinberg, going all the way back to 2006.

This is a cartel

It appears Mayor Johnson has this cartel locked up. A cartel is an explicit agreement among often competing business interests, and formal organization of stakeholders who agree to fix prices, marketing, and production, among other business processes. Every which way STOP turns, city officials and local politicians are standing in the way of the taxpayer having a vote in how they want their tax money used.

With Steinberg and Gaines in Mayor Johnson’s cartel, along with the city and county officials, the taxpayers and voters don’t appear to have a chance to avoid being part of Arena Derangement Syndrome.

Other highlights from the new audit of Cal Fire by the Office of State Audits and Evaluations of the Department of Finance:

* Cal Fire “did not have specific statutory authority to establish the Fund and did not request or obtain Finance authorization to establish this account outside” the Centralized Treasury system.

* Of the $3.66 million collected in the slush fund, “$2.4 million was expended.”

* Cal Fire’s “decentralized process for the Civil Cost Recovery Program increases the risk of lost or stolen goods.”

* Established state procurement and inventory processes were not followed”; and neither the California District Attorneys Association nor Cal Fire claims “ownership of $1.7 million of equipment and software items purchased with the fund.”

Slush funds are becoming a trend in state government. The Cal Fire audit was published a little more than a year after the discovery of the $54 million State Parks hidden fund last year. In that scandal, the State Parks Department claimed budget cutbacks justified increases in park entrance fees and monetary help from volunteer groups.

Uncovering the dirt

Cal Fire has the authority under the California Health and Safety Code to recover costs for fighting fires and providing rescue or emergency medical services — despite the fees and taxes, and the new fire tax California residents already pay. This money was supposed to be deposited in the state’s general fund.

“Cal Fire Director Ken Pimlott told The Bee he never knew the $3.66 million fund was cloaked from state leaders and the Department of Finance,” the Sacramento Bee reported in January. “Cal Fire froze the account last year and scheduled it for dissolution in February at the request of the prosecutors’ group.”

When news of fund first were reported, Pimlott claimed media coverage was “incomplete and sensational, and over time, truth would prevail,” the Los Angeles Times reported in January. He even went out on a limb and said those who attacked the fund would have their motives exposed.

The new state audit contradicts his earlier statements.

Pimlott now claims that Cal Fire officials believed they had the authority to set up the fund account. But according to the Times story, documents from 2008 show Cal Fire officials were aware of problems with the fund and were concerned that, if the fund were discovered, the Department of Finance would demand that Cal Fire place the money with the state treasury.

When the Department of Finance auditor asked for the legal reasoning for establishing the off-the-books fund, Cal Fire officials referred the question to the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris. However, the Attorney General’s office legally represents Cal Fire.

The Audit

The Department of Finance audit also condemned Cal Fire’s failure to even track the settlement monies. According to the audit, managers of the Cal Fire program did not even know how many settlement cases were involved, nor did they know how much money the agency received from the settlements. Auditors concluded that there was a heightened “risk of money being either lost, stolen or both.”

“A California fire account hidden from state lawmakers paid for $22,000 in metal detectors, $30,000 in GPS units — and $33,000 for a conference at a Pismo Beach resort, according to a spreadsheet released Tuesday showing expenses dating back to 2011,” the Bee reported.

The $3.6 million dollars in the Cal Fire fund was spent as follows:

* $766,000 for training;

* Nearly $374,000 to the District Attorneys Association in management fees;

* $1.7 million on equipment for which, as noted above, no inventory was kept.

Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Rocklin, called for an investigation last January into the state officials behind the slush fund account, but his request fell on deaf ears.

By Dave Roberts

The $89 million annual fire prevention fee imposed on rural Californians for the first time last year could, ironically, increase the chance that their houses will burn down in the event of a fire. The $135-$150 per home annual assessment, which critics believe is a tax, is having the perverse effect of making it more difficult for local fire districts to increase revenue in order to provide adequate fire protection.

That’s what has happened in the Placer Hills Fire Protection District, which covers 35 square miles in rural Placer County in the Auburn area. Ten years ago, the district placed a tax hike on the ballot, which passed easily with 73 percent of the vote. But when the district went back to the voters last November seeking an additional $83 per home annually to keep both of its fire stations open, it garnered only 53 percent of the vote, well short of the two-thirds needed to pass.

The voters who rejected it gave two reasons: 1) They had already paid $135 to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, not realizing that Cal Fire is a separate entity from the Placer Hills fire department and that it’s possible that none of that money would directly result in increased safety for their home. 2) They felt they couldn’t afford to pay the total of $218 for two fire tax hikes in the same year.

That was the bad news from Placer Hills Fire Chief Ian Gow, speaking to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on Tuesday in support of SB 17 by Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Rocklin, which seeks to repeal the fire fee.

Fire fee ‘decimates’ local protection

“All of us [California fire districts] are struggling financially,” said Gow. “That’s not a secret. My department has lost 12 to 15 percent of its budget over the last five years. That equates to two full-time fire positions. I only staff two fire stations. The likelihood of closing a station is very high. The problem there is that it could double our response times. As you may imagine, for fire departments the quicker we can get there is everything. If I have to close a station due to budget losses, I’m in deep trouble and my constituents are. So the inadvertent effect of this fire fee is to decimate local government’s ability to protect itself.

“The other two problems with the fee is that it doesn’t improve fire protection at all in my fire district. It does nothing to help us. Our citizens see it as double taxation. And, frankly, maybe a smaller effect, but I think it damages all of our reputations. It looks like we don’t know what we are doing from my level, with respect, up to yours. So we have real problems with this fee and we’d love to see it go away.”

Despite Gow’s testimony, SB 17 failed, gaining only three aye votes from the nine-member committee.

“I am extremely disappointed that the committee failed to pass this bill,” said Gaines in a press release. “It was an opportunity to make things right with the 825,000 Californians stuck paying the illegal tax. I would like to thank all of the constituents who came from across the state to testify in support of the bill. Their messages and testimony were impactful and made a difference. I vow to continue fighting this in every way possible and encourage those who have gotten stuck paying this phony fee to get in the arena and fight it too.”

The California Fire Chiefs Association has endorsed SB 17. Also on hand to support SB 17 were a half-dozen fire chiefs and officials from Camp Pendleton, Laytonville, Vacaville, and San Diego and Sacramento counties, along with scores of taxpayers wearing t-shirts with the slogan “Burned by the Fire Tax!”

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the fire assessment. HJTA representative David Wolfe told the committee that the fee is actually a tax because it does not provide a direct benefit to those paying it. If the court decides it is in fact a tax, then it would have required two-thirds to pass in the Legislature, which the enabling legislation, AB X1 29, did not receive due to strong Republican opposition.

Desert, condo examples show unfairness of tax

“We believe it can’t possibly be a legitimate fee because there is no direct benefit,” said Wolfe. “Just a couple of examples of plaintiffs in our lawsuit. There’s one individual who lives in a mobile home park in the middle of the desert with no landscaping around the mobile home park. And yet he has to pay the tax. There’s another individual, a property owner who lives next door to a casino. The homeowner has to pay the tax, but the casino does not. How is that fair?”

Also decrying the unfairness of the fee was Skip Daum, representing the Community Associations Institute, which represents homeowners associations throughout the state. He said that condominium owners are being hit with the $150 fee (the $135 fee is for those who are also paying a local fire tax), but that fee is only supposed to be assessed against the owner of a habitable structure.

“Condominium owners only own the air space inside the wallpaper, they don’t own the structure,” said Daum. “The homeowners association owns that structure.”

Condo owners are among the 87,000 property owners who have filed appeals of the fire assessment since it went into effect last August. Most of the appeals are based on the contention that it is an illegal tax. Those appeals are being automatically rejected, according to a Cal Fire spokesman.

The illegality of the tax is also Gaines’ main justification for repealing the assessment.

“If it’s illegal, we shouldn’t be collecting it,” he told the committee. “That will be sorted out in the courts. All of us as taxpayers pay state taxes for Cal Fire. It has always been their responsibility in these state responsibility areas to pick up that obligation. Now if you have got communities that are stepping forward and wanting to pay for their own fire departments, we have put a huge damper on that opportunity now because people are paying a [Cal Fire] tax.”

Where are the benefits?

Gaines’ other justification for SB 17 is that rural residents are not seeing the benefits for their money.

“We’ve had no evidence that there’s been any increase in manpower or fire engines from Cal Fire,” he said. “The discussion and debate we are having would be very different if this was a fee and we knew exactly what we would be getting for the fee. It might be defensible. Clearly we need more manpower and equipment around Lake Tahoe. I’m very concerned about that. We are having another dry year. If we were clear on what we are getting for that fee, we might not be here. We would be having a different discussion on whether it was worthy or not. I have supported fees historically in this body.”

According to AB X1 29 and regulations adopted by the Cal Fire board, the fee will fund a variety of fire prevention services, including defensible space inspections around structures, fuel breaks for staging firefighting equipment, brush clearance around communities and improving forest health to improve resiliency to wildfires.

But, as previously reported by CalWatchdog.com, the funds can pretty much be used for any projects or activities that the board labels “fire prevention.” That leaves open the possibility of the money being abused, as occurred with a $3.66 million slush fund that the Los Angeles Times revealed earlier this year to Cal Fire’s embarrassment.

Cal Fire did not send a representative to the committee meeting to defend the fee or explain how it is spending the $73 million that has come in so far.

That concerned Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, who told Gaines, “You have raised some concerns, and I do think they need to be addressed. [There] are very legitimate questions and concerns that people have about how they are conducting and using these funds.”

But Jackson voted against SB 17, arguing that it’s premature to legislate the issue before the court has ruled on the legitimacy of the fire assessment. She’s also concerned about leaving Cal Fire short of funds to provide adequate fire suppression.

“I come from a district that tends to burn down pretty regularly, Santa Barbara, Ventura counties,” she said. “I’ve been evacuated [from my home] twice in the last six to eight years. Obviously this [fee] has some serious problems. People are paying all this money and not understanding what the tax is. I’m not sure I do either. But … how are we going to keep funding the services we so desperately need, clearing defensible space and making sure we are doing everything in advance of a fire to make sure we don’t have fires, or at least their impact is minimized?”

Her concerns were shared by several other senators, leading to the bill’s defeat.

Other legislation targets fire assessment

But two other bills seeking to kill the fire prevention assessment are due to be heard in committees this legislative session: AB 23 and AB 124. In addition, Gaines has two other bills limiting the assessment. SB 147 would exempt certain low-income residents from having to pay the assessment. SB 125 would exempt property owners who are also paying for local fire services, which includes more than 95 percent of the fee payers.

And AB 468 by Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-North Coast, would replace the fire fee with a 4.8 percent surcharge on all property insurance in California that would be used by Cal Fire, the California Emergency Management Agency and the California Military Department.