I’m now sitting in a rather large ballroom type venue in the LA Convention Center.  All around me is an amazing collection of LGBT (and allies) leaders.  In some respects, no matter the forum, it has to be a positive thing just to get these people all in one room. I’m ready to play the name game or something with all these cool people.

After an inspiring invocation, the meeting actually began with a panel discussing what happened.  The panel sounded great, like it was the Obama team calling down from on high about their great victories.  The only problem, of course, is that we didn’t win.  The field team discussed their goals and what actually happened.  And as somebody who did some volunteering on the campaign, I can affirmatively say there were some big ol’ rose colored glasses going on here.

There was glorification of the Let California Ring program.  Don’t get me wrong, it was an enormously successful education campaign, but that’s where the successes ended.  When the transition to the campaign occurred, it seemed like we lost our way.  But yet, we learned of the goals  of the campaign, and their numbers.  They reached 180K voters, but volunteerism could have been so much stronger.  Their best laid plans either never came to fruition or suffered from poor execution.

I appreciated the information, but the problem is still the same.  This is a top-down lecture, with little interaction.  That is, until Mollie McKay and the Marriage Equality USA Team came on to point out what went wrong with the campaign.  Mollie went on to provide a real-world look at what happened.  What we heard for the next 15 minutes was the best summary of the failures of the campaign.  They had a great powerpoint presentation, that I hope to get a digital copy to post online soon. I don’t know that I’ve seen an applause like that on a speech regarding Prop 8 since, well, the election.  Their main points:

* Clergy leaders were underutilized by the campaign

* Leaders of color were underutilitzed by the campaign

* No on 8 ads lacked heart and LGBT people

* Prop 8 creates dangerous situations for children and families

* No on 8 field plan lacked visibility and missed potential volunteers

* The No on 8 Campaign abandoned the Central Valley

You can also find their reports at http://marriageequality.org  

More to come.

(A tangled web being woven in CA-32, with discrete sets of competing interests. – promoted by David Dayen)

A little bird told me that Labor Secretary-designee U.S. Representative Hilda Solis would love to endorse Judy Chu to replace her in Congress representing the 32nd District but the Obama Administration has told her that Cabinet secretaries can not get involved in the political fight to replace them. State Senator Gil Cedillo is the only other declared candidate in the potential special election, after Gloria Romero dropped out of the race, endorsing Cedillo, and announced her intention to run for State Superintendent of Education in 2010. Romero also later endorsed Los Angeles Unified School District Board President Monica Garcia for her 24th District State Senate seat.

Capitol Weekly has an article in the Thursday January 22 edition on Solis’ confirmation process that also mentions some intriguing details on the intricate positioning that other politicians are doing to fill in the holes in the Southern California political power structure as one of their own is elevated in Washington.

More beneath the fold…

On Thursday morning, both the Service Employees International Union and and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor endorsed Chu.

There have been tensions between Romero and Maria-Elena Durazo, head of the powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. But Capitol sources say Romero decided to focus on the superintendent’s race after consulting with former Sen. Richard Polanco, among others.

The potential Congressional showdown has also divided the Capitol’s Latino Caucus, of which Cedillo is chair. Cedillo has tangled with Assemblyman John Perez, D-Los Angeles, and has even threatened to challenge Perez for his Assembly seat in 2010.

Perez is the cousin of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and Villaraigosa is said to be leaning toward endorsing Chu, though his office did not return calls seeking comment.

Cedillo and Villlaraigosa were once close political allies, with Villariagosa using his clout to help Cedillo’s election to the Assembly in a 1997 pecial election. But tensions between the two childhood friends quickly grew, and eventually boiled over after Villaraigosa’s failed race for Los Angeles mayor in 2001. Villaraigosa threatened to run against Cedillo for Senate after his 2001 defeat, and the rift has never healed between the two. Cedillo stuck with Hahn when Villarigosa eventually defeated Hahn in 2005.

[…]

If Chu is to win the seat, she will have to earn some Latino support. The 32nd Congressional District is about 62 percent Latino. Asians make up about 20 percent of the district population. Latinos make up about half of the district’s voter registration. Asians comprise about 13 percent of registered voters.

[…]

Chu has already secured the endorsement of Assemblyman Ed Hernandez, D-El Monte, who has his eyes on Romero’s senate seat in 2010. Chu and her husband, Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Los Angeles, — two of Hernandez’s top potential rivals — are said to be backing Hernandez for the Senate seat.

[…]

Romero’s exit from the congressional race sets up a 2010 showdown between Romero and Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, for state superintendent. The current superintendent, Jack O’Connell is being pushed out by term limits, and has announced his intention to run for governor in 2010.

Got all that? On one side you have John Perez, Antonio Villaraigosa, Ed Hernandez and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor with Chu versus Romero and Polanco with Cedillo in a 62% Latino district. I presume L.A. County Supervisor Gloria Molina (who previously rejected a run for the seat herself) will be on the side of Romero/Polanco/Cedillo, but only time will tell.

Here’s a little something so you can head into the weekend informed.

• The SEIU put together a rally of over 1,000 members in Sacramento today, demanding a budget solution.  More are expected in Sacramento, San Francisco and Fresno tomorrow.  Given the desperation, I see nothing wrong with taking it to the streets.  You can also contribute to their letter-writing campaign to the Governor here.

• Here are a couple of real victories for organized labor and working people.  First, UNITE-Here’s workers won a court decision that will expand the Living Wage ordinance in Southern California and gives 550 laundry workers a better chance to sue Cintas for back wages.  Speaking of back pay, TV networks settled two class-action lawsuits with reality-show workers for $4 million dollars.  These workers were made to falsify time cards and work up to 20-hour days without overtime or meal breaks.  I have some friends in the industry who were parties to these lawsuits and I’m very happy they reached a good conclusion.  The fight continues.

• The Senate GOP is slow-walking the confirmation of Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary, which is annoying.  She is more than qualified and her views on the Employee Free Choice Act, which is a legislative fight, are hardly germane as well as well-known.  She deserves a vote and not this nonsense.  America needs a friend to labor at the Labor Department again.

• I have no idea why Rocky Delgadillo is running for Attorney General again.  Rocky has been a real hero in fighting insurance industry malfeasance like rescission, but his recent troubles over his wife running his city-owned SUV into a pole (and she didn’t have a license) and paying for it with city money is a 30-second ad waiting to happen.  Maybe he should wait out a cycle?

• The FDA has approved a Menlo Park-based company for a human trial for a stem cell treatment, the first ever in the US.  This is not just a victory for science but could prove to make California a real leader in medical therapeutics.  We need some expansion in industry here, anyway.

• Good article from Open Left about how cleaner ports can add lots of middle-class green job, as it has with the Clean Trucks program at the port of Los Angeles.

• Shorter Phil Bronstein: Leave Bush ALOOOOOONE!

(Just one voice shouting into the abyss… – promoted by David Dayen)

Last year I was on a BART train headed to San Francisco and spoke to a council member of an East Bay city.  We were discussing the state budget crisis.  I detailed how the Governor’s proposed cuts would harm our schools.  The council member quipped, “The Governor can’t manufacture money.”  I replied, “Yes, but he can manufacture leadership.”  

Leadership from Sacramento has been glaringly absent under the administration of Arnold Schwarzenegger.  He came into office on a promise that he would “protect California’s commitment to education funding.” His January 2009 budget proposals would devastate public education in California.  A friend of mine who served as a school board member for many years in the East Bay sees his budget as setting our schools back two decades.    

I am greatly concerned that the Democratic leadership in Sacramento may be on the verge of reaching a compromise that, despite their best intentions, balances the budget on the backs of our children.  

Nor do I foresee any concession from the Republicans to place an initiative on the ballot for the voters to decide whether to alter in the California Constitution to eliminate the effective veto power the Republican legislative minority has over the state budget.  

Here is an Op Ed I have submitted to my local papers on the California budget crisis:  

——————————

A Category 5 fiscal hurricane about to hit California’s public schools.  The state deficit is close to $42 billion over the next 18 months. That exceeds what the state annually allocates from its general fund for K-12 public education.  Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting over $6 billion from education, constituting a more than 15% reduction in state aid to public schools.  

The deficit did not arise recently. Since the Fall of 2007, when the housing market began to rapidly meltdown, state revenues have dropped precipitously. At the time the Governor claimed excessive spending was the cause of the budget crisis.

If you can not identify the cause of a problem, you can not fix it.  In his January 2008 budget, the Governor’s proposals to raise revenue were, in the words of the Legislative Analyst, “minimal.”  

The state budget eventually adopted was full of accounting gimmicks.  Soon after the November elections, the Governor announced that the budget was grossly out of balance and called the Legislature back for a special session.

The Republicans refused to consider any tax increases.  The Democrats responded by forwarding to the Governor a budget that would have cut the deficit in half and allowed the state to pay its bills for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Governor vetoed the bill.  He did so for ideological reasons.  The Democrats declined to support non-budget items which the Governor sought, including a loosening of environmental review standards on major construction projects.

With the state on the verge of not being able to pay its bills, it is possible a budget deal will be adopted sooner than later. The Democrats are apparently offering a package of 50% cuts and 50% tax increases to solve the budget crisis.  If the Republican legislators agree, and that is a big “if,” there will be $21 billion in cuts to state spending.

Even at this amount, the impact on our public schools will devastating.  Increased class sizes, elimination of sports and music programs, laying off librarians, nurses, counselors and speech therapists, cleaning classrooms every other day to reduce custodial positions, and deferring needed maintenance are all measures school districts are seriously considering to balance their budgets.  

Education is not a luxury to be funded solely in flush financial times.  Each year of a child’s education is precious.  Moreover, as is, California woefully under invests in public education.  According to Education Week, our state ranks 47th in the nation in K-12 grade spending per student when accounting for regional cost differences. The last action any Legislator should agree to is further significant cuts to education.  

When he ran for office, the Governor promised he would “protect California’s commitment to education funding.”  Let’s hold him to his word, and insist that our local Legislators do the same.

They can start by restoring the car tax. When the Governor took office he cut the vehicle license fee by two-thirds. That is now costing us $6 billion a year, the same amount the Governor wants to take away from our public schools.

All children deserve a quality education.  Those who hold political office must ensure that our public schools receive the resources necessary to succeed.

Stephen Cassidy

Attorney and Former School Board Trustee, San Leandro