The CSU Board has just responded to the budget cuts of about $650 million by increasing tuition again:

Today trustees approved a 12 percent increase that comes on top of a 10 percent increase approved last year. Combined, the two increases bring undergraduate tuition at CSU’s 23 campuses to $5,472 a year. That’s an increase of about 23 percent compared with last year, and does not include campus-based fees that average $950 a year. (SacBee)

So, yay for low taxes, right? Oh, hope you didn’t have any kids at your local CSU, because that is a big-time bummer, huh?

At the same time, Gov. Brown is also asking San Diego State to reconsider the additional $100K they want to pay their new president:

Gov. Jerry Brown has sent a letter to California State University trustees asking them to reconsider plans to give the new president of San Diego State a salary that would be $100,000 higher than his predecessor’s.

The board is gathered in Long Beach today to take up a number of issues, including setting compensation for Elliot Hirshman, the new president of San Diego State, and raising student tuition by 12 percent.

At the very least this is some very bad optics.  The $300,000 salary that the outgoing president probably could have gotten a qualified candidate without taking the PR hit of a huge increase to $400,000 per year.  

The Board apparently came up with their figures through studying other institutions and their salary patterns, but to be honest, now is somoe really bad timing to even bring pay up to market.  Brown pretty much had to say something about this new arrangement.

The Administrators and Trustees of the UC/CSUs could probably make better money in other jobs, I don’t really debate that.  But it is hard to argue to janitors who are taking pay cuts and students facing 24% increases that administrators need that additional salary.

Before I get to the election, first our condolences out to the Hahn family as Ramona Hahn, mother of Janice and former Mayor Jim Hahn, passed away.

During the primary for CA-36, Janice Hahn did pretty much everything possible to ensure a top-2 match against Craig Huey rather than Debra Bowen.  She did all she could to lure Marcy Winograd into the race, and then ran an aggressive campaign focused primarily on Bowen.  Now that day is here, and she got a whole lot more fight than she wanted.

From sexist pole-dancer videos to plain ol’ right-wing nonsense, Huey has used his money to make a legitimate race.  And now today is the day.  Recent polls show Hahn leading by somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 points.  However, news that Huey’s ex-wife is seeking back child support that he failed to pay.

In all likelihood, Hahn will win today.  Her future in the Congress depends on both the redistricting commission and whether she decides to govern as Janice 1.0, the progressive from the primary, or Janice 2.0, the “maverick” from the general.

On several occasions I’ve bemoaned cuts to the state court system.  But the recent cuts will devastate the justice system in California.  Take what is about to happen in San Francisco as an example:

Forty-one percent of San Francisco Superior Court staff will be laid off, and 40 percent of courtrooms will be closed in September due to California’s latest $150 million in cuts to the statewide judiciary. Those cuts are in addition to the $200 million already slashed earlier this year.(SF Examiner:)

Under Constitutional requirements, criminal cases must be held in a “speedy” manner.  That’s important for a number of reasons, and I don’t think the priority for criminal cases would change even if not Constitutionally required.  However, that also means that civil cases are going to be almost at a standstill.

At first blush, no big deal, right? Well, perhaps it isn’t that big of a deal if that crazy neighbor down the street can’t get a remedy for his tree related dispute, or if some corporation is left holding the bag for a million bucks or two.  But in many cases, these are real people’s lives.  

It’s already taking some civil cases nearly two years to move through the system. Divorces, child-custody and other family-law matters will take between eight and 18 months longer to settle after 200 court clerks, court reporters, research attorneys and management employees are no longer on the job and 25 courtrooms have been closed, according to Michael Yuen, the Superior Court’s chief executive officer.

In addition to the family cases, these cuts will make big winners out of big corporations that have nearly unlimited legal budgets don’t mind delaying litigation, and big losers out of plaintiffs who are trying to be compensated for injuries.  Don’t plan on getting that big insurance company to speed up the process any time soon. Why should they? They can just hold onto the money and earn the interest while the courts can’t do a damn thing about it.

To be sure, the court system could implement a number of cost-saving workforce reductions and technology improvements that would save millions of dollars.  For example, unlike the federal court system, the state courts require filings to be submitted in hard copy rather than electronic filing.  This means hundreds of employees in the system are at windows stamping papers that could be processed much more smoothly by computers.

California should be a leader in using technology to reduce court costs and the delays of litigation, and cuts to the system aren’t necessarily antithetical to that goal.  However, these cuts go too far, too fast.  Some right-wingers may agree with me on vastly different grounds, look no further than that SF Examiner:  article quoted above, where they call for voters to do something at the ballot box.

Of course, what would they have voters do? They essentially have two choices, vote for the incumbent Democrats or for the obstinate Republicans and their repeated requests for further cuts.  What options are they given.

“Courts are not a luxury,” Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye said. “They are at the heart of our democracy. These cuts threaten access to justice for all.”

Democrats attempted to get revenue that would have prevented the last round of cuts, but unfortunately, trying just isn’t good enough in this case.  We need revenue now, but until we get it, we have to come up with some way to finance the court system at reasonable levels.

First real hearing of the gut-and-amend bill

by Brian Leubitz

UPDATE: The bill was approved by the committee on a 5-2 vote, so it will move on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee before moving to the full Assembly.

Bills are supposed to have passed one house or another at this point, but being that this is Sacramento, there are always to get around such rules.  For this one, SB 490, it was amended into a bill about reforming the inspector general of the prisons system or something like that.  So, as for this actual bill, today’s Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing will be the first legislative discussion.

Of course, it shouldn’t really be so.  New Mexico, abolished the death penalty in 2009, so talking about the subject shouldn’t really be considered some sort of third rail.  Yet, here in California, it still has some popularity.  Just how popular it is, when people know all the facts, is up for quite a bit of debate.

The witness list is quite interesting for today’s hearing:

·         Judy Kerr, sister of a murder victim and Spokesperson for California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

From her bio:

“My brother, Robert James Kerr, was found lifeless, shirtless, barefoot and without identification on July 12, 2003 in Everett, Washington. He had been brutally beaten and strangled. ..My grief is raw and unremitting. But I am absolute in my conviction that another death will not serve me. Justice through execution is not the justice I need and it is not the justice I want in my country or my world. I have never and will never support the death penalty. I know now, more than ever, that killing is wrong. Revenge will not bring my brother back and it will not bring me peace. I honor my brother’s life and my memory of him by standing against the death penalty.”

·        Jeanne Woodford,  Former Warden of San Quentin State Prison, where she oversaw four executions, and former Undersecretary and Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).  Currently Executive Director, Death Penalty Focus; a national non-profit organization.

·         Don Heller, the author of California’s death-penalty law, Proposition 7 (1978), who now believes the law should be eliminated. He has been an active member of the New York Bar since 1969 and the California Bar since 1973.

·       Senator Loni Hancock (D-Oakland), Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, and Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections (which oversees the state prison system budget).

As you can see from that list, the death penalty in this state has a very sordid history.  It just hasn’t ever really worked here (or anywhere really), and doesn’t accomplish any of its stated goals.  Violence is not deterred by violence, it’s just a fact of nature.  ANd spending billions of dollars on a procedure that is rarely, if ever, used seems like a poor use of resources in these scant times.

Given these witnesses, there is sure to be some interesting conversation at the hearing.  You can watch the hearing live online at CalChannel.com.

UPDATE: One correction from the comments.  Both Dana Rohrabacher and John Campbell are from Irvine and may well be in the race for this seat.  If that’s the case, the June primary may be far more interesting than what I’ve indicated in the post.  Dems would likely stick to Kang, but DTS are a big wildcard.  Who knows who emerges from that 3-way tussle to fight in November.

We still aren’t sure exactly what the district lines will be, but we do know that a perhaps newly competitive Orange County district based in Irvine will have a real race.  The popular Mayor of Irvine, Sukhee Kang, has announced that he is running for the seat.

“I look forward to running in California’s new open primary system in which all candidates are on the same ballot, and every voter regardless of party registration can vote for any candidate.” Kang said.

“As someone who has served in local government for close to a decade, I will bring a direct, hands-on approach and vast regional experience to Congress. Our district deserves a representative who will protect and fight for the interests of the people of Orange County,” said Kang.

Kang was the first Korean-American Mayor of a major US City (Irvine is the 96th largest US City) and is a well-known figure throughout the Korean-American Community.  The top-2 race seems unlikely to have a major impact in this race, as you wouldn’t expect to have any high-profile challengers to either Campbell or Kang within their own parties.  We’ll likely see a Kang/Campbell showdown in November in the same way we did last year.  You would think Campbell would win the lower-turnout June primary, but who knows what our election schedule next year will really look like.

Kang is a serious candidate for this race, and fits the district.  He certainly won’t contend with Rep. Barbara Lee on the progressive spectrum, but he would represent that district in a far more pragmatic and less dogmatic way than John Campbell.

IRVINE MAYOR SUKHEE KANG EMBARKS ON HISTORIC CAMPAIGN FOR UNITED STATES CONGRESS

Vows to Bring the Same Forward-Thinking Leadership to Washington that has Helped Irvine become one of the Safest, Smartest and Greenest Large Cities in the Country

Irvine, CA – Irvine Mayor Sukhee Kang today announced his candidacy for the newly reconfigured Orange County Coastal seat with the support of local constituents and leaders from throughout the Orange Country region.  The new seat has not yet been assigned a number, but the current proposed outlines correspond generally to Congressional District 48.

“I look forward to running in California’s new open primary system in which all candidates are on the same ballot, and every voter regardless of party registration can vote for any candidate.” Kang said.

“As someone who has served in local government for close to a decade, I will bring a direct, hands-on approach and vast regional experience to Congress. Our district deserves a representative who will protect and fight for the interests of the people of Orange County,” said Kang.  

After two successful terms on the City Council, Mayor Kang was elected by the citizens of Irvine in 2008, becoming the first Korean American to serve as mayor of a major U.S. city. In November 2010, Kang was overwhelmingly reelected with more than 64 percent of the vote.  During his term in the Irvine City Council, Mayor Kang has been recognized as an effective leader who finds solutions to public safety, education, quality of life and economic vitality.  Under his leadership, Irvine has continued to be recognized as one of the safest, smartest, greenest and best-managed cities in America.  Some major accomplishments include:    

FBI’s Safest Large City in America (seven years in a row)

Money Magazine’s Best Places to Live in California 2008

Business Week’s Best City to Ride out the Recession (2008)

2008 National Resources Defense Council’s 2009 Smartest Cities (2nd in California)

One of the 100 Best communities for Young People.

“Mayor Kang is known as Irvine’s ‘education mayor’ for his leadership efforts fighting against state budget cuts,” said former Irvine Unified School District Superintendent Dr. Gwen Gross.  “I am supporting his candidacy because I know he will continue fighting for the right issues as a member of Congress.”

Mayor Kang’s own American success story has helped guide his inclusive and engaging leadership style.  Active throughout the Irvine community, he has forged strong and supportive relationships with the business community, education community, and many cultural, service and non-profit organizations that serve the citizens of Irvine.  Prior to his service on the Irvine City Council, Mayor Kang served as a Governor’s appointee on the California Workforce Investment Board and was the Mayor’s appointee to the Irvine Finance Commission.  

In addition to his official City responsibilities, Mayor Kang serves on the Orange County Great Park Board, Orange County Fire Authority, Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council, Orange County Council of Governments, League of California Cities Orange County Division, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities.

Mayor Kang and his wife Joanne have lived in Orange County for 34 years.  Their son Alan, a graduate of UC San Diego and earned his MBA from USC Marshall School of Business, is a Senior Scientist at Johnson & Johnson ; their daughter Angie, a graduate from UC Berkeley’s School of Law (Boalt Hall,) is currently an attorney with Latham and Watkins.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, John Steele Gordon decides that California has gone down the tubes.  The article title, probably by the WSJ editors, is really the most provocative part:

The Rise and Needless Decline of the Golden State

John Steele Gordon writes in The Wall Street Journal that more Americans left California than arrived in the last decade. What caused this great migration? Politics

The bulk of the story goes through the history of California and how/why people came here.  No real arguments there, but the last 20% goes on to attack, based primarily on anecdote and strained conclusions, that California has gone off the rails because the environmental movement is strangling the economy.

Let’s start with that subtitle, it is pretty misleading, even from the title.  California hasn’t lost population, people are streaming here.  It is just that we are diversifying through immigration.  As noted in the story, our population has actually gone up by 10% over the past decade.

And as for the thrust of the story, that business just hate the climate that they are streaming out of the state.  As we’ve said here many, many times, that just isn’t happening.  Anecdotes are cute, but they aren’t data.  And anecdotes don’t tell you anything resembling the whole story.

And neither does this story tell you anything resembling the whole story.  He finds somebody, somewhere who told him it was hard to get permission to do something once.  It’s oh-so-helpful and informative.

But he has a small tell at what he really wants to see here: gut environmental protection and drill, baby, drill:

The environmental movement was largely born in California, with John Muir and the Sierra Club, but it now threatens to strangle the state’s economy in a laocoön of regulations. The state’s vast oil and natural gas potential on the continental shelf has been off limits for years. Environmental groups and others have become masters at tying up economic development in court.

Let’s be honest, California still leads the nation in innovation.  California made the 90s go boom in technology, and made the last decade go boom with real estate.  Neither booms were substantially slowed by over-regulation.  And while both booms saw their inevitable crashes, neither of these busts had anything to do with regulation.  Well, except maybe under regulation.

The Wall Street Journal likes to pretend at a fact-based reportage and hard hitting editorials.  This one eschews facts entirely in a quest to make a political point in an anti-environmentalist extravaganza.  Par for the course these days.