Court rules that Assembly Must Turn Over Records

by Brian Leubitz

Asm. Anthony Portantino has had his run-ins with Assembly leadership. Many of them, some of which resulted in getting tossed in one of the so-called “doghouses” and getting his office budget cut.  The spat got really nasty when the Rules Committee demanded a rather large cut from his office and accused him of overspending.  Portantino then took it upon himself to release his budget records and demanded that the rest of the Assembly do the same.

That was a few months back, and since then the Senate has released most of their records but the Assembly is holding back. Perhaps it is part of the Portantino feud, or perhaps it is just to be consistent with years past.  Nonetheless, a Sacramento judge issued a tentative ruling yesterday ordering the Assembly to release the records.

Earlier this year, Assembly administrators had claimed that the records were confidential under provisions in the Legislature Open Records Act that exempt “preliminary drafts, notes or legislative memoranda” and “correspondence of and to individual members of the Legislature and their staff.”

On Thursday, Frawley said the Assembly “improperly withheld” the records and chided the lower-house for its “somewhat ironic” view of the open-records law, with legislative lawyers arguing for “a narrow interpretation that significantly restricts the public’s right to inspect legislative records.”

“The records requested by the news organizations indisputably contain information relating to the conduct of the public’s business,” Frawley wrote. “The records all reflect how Assembly money is budgeted and spent, which is critical to an understanding of the Legislature’s operations.”

The judge strongly rejected the Assembly’s argument that the records qualified as confidential “correspondence” under the open-records law.(LA Times)

Tentative rulings are rarely changed, and the Assembly has apparently seen that it really isn’t worth the PR hit to continue this fight, at least for now.  Yesterday they announced that they won’t be protesting the ruling at the hearing with the Judge.  However, they can still appeal, but again that is hardly without risks.  The longer this goes on, the more (negative) attention it gets.  And with an approval rating hovering around 10%, that’s really the last thing the Legislature needs.

While we might not get the records right away, expect to see them fairly soon. Heck, who knows, maybe some interesting information is hiding out in those budgets.

The clock ticking down on the last night in the California statehouse is always a lot like waiting for last call at a rowdy bar around 2 AM — you wonder how much damage will done before the last shot.

The clock ticking down on the last night in the California statehouse is always a lot like waiting for last call at a rowdy bar around 2 AM — you wonder how much damage will done before the last shot.

For years my colleagues and I have stood watch on the California legislature,into the wee hours of the morning, to make sure that politicians and companies didn’t a pull a fast one at the last moment. There have been a lot of close calls over the years, and some lost ones too.

Here’s the roundup from Friday night’s/Saturday morning’s last call in the statehouse before 2012:

•     Last day legislation to move all ballot initiative measures to the November 2012 ballot, and stop ballot measures on the June primaries, cleared both houses of the legislature. Senate Bill 202 passed every committee and both houses in a single day. It’s not clear whether Governor Brown will sign SB 202,  but if he did, the public would win big.  Special interest groups often target the low turn-out June primary to pass measures the majority of Californians would never approve of.  It’s better to have the real sentiment of the most Californians voting on ballot measures, rather than allowing corporations, for example, to target a much more friendly electorate in June, when Republicans will turn out big for their presidential primary.  Mercury Insurance CEO George Joseph is trying to qualify his insurance surcharge initiative in June, a repeat of the failed Prop 17 from June 2010, for this very reason.  He would stand even less a chance of pulling the wool over the eyes of the majority of real California voters in November.  Turns out SB 202 stands on strong principle.   For decades, prior to 1978, initiatives only went on the November general election ballot, which is what the California constitution requires.  Then the legislature officially changed the protocol.  If the legislature can change the definition of “general election” to include primary election, it can change the definition back.

•    Legislation requiring health insurance companies to cover behavioral therapy for autistic children went to the Governor’s desk, SB 694.  Consumer Watchog sued Governor Schwarzenegger’s Department Of Managed Health Care to force such continued coverage for autistic children in 2009, when the state started allowing insurance companies to deny the treatment as “educational.”  A 9th Circuit decision recently strengthened our legal case, which is still pending, that the Mental Health Parity Law requires behavioral therapy to be covered.   The insurance companies no doubt hope the new legislation will undermine our lawsuit and other pending cases against them, because they don’t want to have to pay for the therapy they have denied since 2009.  Senator Steinberg, however, testified that he believed such therapy was always required and the legislation was clarifying existing law.  We expect to prevail.

*  The bill to force health insurance companies to get prior approval from state insurance regulators before raising rates never came up for a vote on the Senate Floor. AB 52, authored by Assembly Member Mike Feuer,  was shelved for the year  because the legislation did not have enough votes in the insurance-friendly state Senate.  Consumer Watchdog is exploring a November 2012 ballot measure to regulate health insurance premiums, rollback rates by 20% and gives patients new options. Stay tuned for developments as our opinion research and drafting continues this fall.

Governor Brown hosted a kegger in his office for the legislature after it closed down in the early morning hours.  For the public, there wasn’t much to celebrate this session, other than that more damage wasn’t done.

————————————————————————-

Jamie Court is the president of Consumer Watchdog and author of The Progressive’s Guide To Raising Hell.

With the Republicans continuing their obstinacy, Democrats in the Legislature are looking for some way, any way, to make sure they don’t lose their pay after tomorrow’s Constitutional deadline.

The alternative plan would keep paychecks coming even though talks between Gov. Jerry Brown and Republicans have snagged on the issue of taxes.

“We will have a budget,” said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).

Barankin and others close to the process declined to provide details. But a fallback blueprint would almost certainly rely on accounting moves and other measures that would merely paper over the state’s remaining $10-billion shortfall: Democrats, who have sharply cut back many programs already, have little appetite for further reductions.

Barankin acknowledged that any plan written without a renewal of some tax increases or more drastic cuts would not fully restore the state’s financial health.

“There’s no way to solve our long-term fiscal problems without taxes],” Barankin said, and “Republicans are simply unwilling or incapable of supporting a budget that includes [more] revenue.” ([LA Times)

The Governor has already walked back from his hard-line “No Gimmicks” stance from the election.  Certainly that would appear to be what he wants, but he is trying to make some accommodation to get something, anything passed.  Most likely, some of that will be borrowing and a bunch of accounting tricks.

They have about 36 hours to pass something, who knows what we’ll get.

Well, the Legislature is back in session, just in time for another exposee of California governance, or lack thereof.  This time, it is the Economist magazine’s monthly headline.  So, yay!

While the Economist looks at everything from an economic perspective first (uh…right…the title), they aren’t necessarily dogmatic.   Rather than simply joining the chorus of “man, California really sucks, their leaders are terrible,” they actually look for the root of the problem.  In their opening story of the section, they point the finger chiefly at the initiative system.

This special report has shown how one of the three ingredients of direct democracy, the initiative process, has, cumulatively over the past three decades, caused much of the dysfunction that paralyses California whenever it suffers an economic shock, as it is doing at present. Does it follow that California must get rid of the initiative process?

It is a moot question because Californian voters would never agree (in what itself would have to be an initiative) to end initiatives. Ronald George, California’s former chief justice, says that “people will never vote to give up their own power.” The best we can hope for is to make the process “less extreme”. (The Economist)

The entire series takes a serious look at where we are, how we get there, and how we get out of this situation.  Particularly, how we harness the power of direct democracy in a state of nearly 40 million people.  This is no easy question, and while it is easy to be glib, it is harder to get to real solutions.

They do suggest some particular reforms, from emphasizing referenda over initiatives, to requiring a sunset of all initiative legislation.  These are all solid ideas, and I think you could get a majority of Californians to agree to many of them.  However, getting them on the ballot, in a hostile climate amongst consultants, with a fair bit of money coming from those who have used the system to hijack the apparatus of state?  Well, that’s more easily said than done.

At any rate, while some of the particulars, which I’m going to try to take a greater look at this week, are slightly skewed, the report as a general is well-done and informative.  Take a look, and hey, let me know what you catch.

(Hey, look who it is, and he’s drawing attention to the prison crisis again. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

(this is cross-posted at FDL News)

When I wrote regularly for Calitics, the progressive blog for California politics, I took a particular interest in the prison crisis, which has reached epidemic proportions in the Golden State.  The health care system has already been taken over by a federal receiver because it violated the prisoners’ Constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment, with at least one prisoner dying each week from medical neglect.  The entire system, which fits 170,000 convicts into jails with 100,000 beds, may get taken over by the courts as well.  Severe overcrowding, cutbacks to rehabilitation and treatment programs, and an insane parole policy which sends 2/3 of all recidivists back to jail for technical parole violations have contributed to the problem.  As has the pervasive “tough on crime” stance from the political leadership of both parties, which has yet to be contrasted with any kind of progressive message on how to fight crime smartly and safely, at lower cost and with corresponding lower incarceration and crime rates.

Here are a few stories that all happened within the past 24 hours in California, regarding these matters: (over)

1) The State Assembly, dominated by Democrats with a 50-29 majority (with one independent), voted down a bill that would have allowed courts to review cases of juveniles sentences to life without the possibility of parole.  The sponsor of the bill, LeLand Yee (D-San Francisco), noted that “No other country in the world outside of the United States allows children to be sentenced to life without parole.”  But over a dozen Assembly Democrats, either worried about close races in November or future statewide races (and the hopes of gaining support from police officers, prison guards or other interests that support the “tough on crime” status quo), either voted against the bill or walked away from the vote.  This bill would have affected a grand total of 250 inmates and gave them the opportunity to prevent being locked up from a mistake made when they were children.

2) While only 34 of an 80-seat Assembly could bother to vote to end life sentences for juveniles, the entire state Senate voted unanimously for something called “Chelsea’s Law,” another in a parade of sentencing constrictions against sex offenders.  I believe this adds the death penalty into the mix, in addition to raising sentences for all permutations of the crime.  California has already deprived sex offenders from living in homes if they ever manage to get out of prison, leading them to sleep under bridges and get lost in the system, which defeats the entire purpose of making children safer.  

This is part and parcel with 30 years of stiffer sentences coming out of the state legislature – over 1,000 sentencing laws in that time and every single one of them increased sentences.

3) LA County has a new toy, a “gift from Raytheon,” as it was put on the radio (does it come in blue?), called an Assault Intervention Device, basically a modified taser that gives the sensation of extreme heat and forces any instigator into submission.  This should be a nice experiment in efficient torture of the “pain without injury” variety, with the prisoners used as guinea pigs.  Hopefully the guards will get to see how far it can go!

4) The prison health care system has actually not fully improved under federal receivership, with prisoners still suffering from extreme medical neglect.  One woman told the story of a convict relative who was refused treatment for glaucoma for so long that his eye exploded.

Again, most of this washed over me in one 40-minute car ride.  And nobody seems to care much about it.  There’s precious little organizing on this topic from the “smart on crime” perspective, outside of the Ella Baker Center and a couple other underfunded concerns.  In my time at Calitics I probably wrote 40 posts about the prison crisis, and maybe drew a half a comment per.  I don’t know whether it’s the racial and socioeconomic composition of the blogosphere or the “out of sight, out of mind” tendency of most people, but here we have the vulnerable and the voiceless who are basically getting their Constitutional rights stripped away in some of the most unjust ways imaginable, and they need someone speaking up for them.  

Furthermore, the prison crisis connects to virtually everything that’s wrong with California.  The white flight ushered in by inner-city riots in the mid-1960s prefigured movement conservatism in places like Orange County.  Nixon was among the original law and order candidates, and that perspective gets a lot of support among the sprawl of California, regardless of party.  This sprawl, of course, breeds entitlement on the part of the suburban classes, as they want their tax dollars to go to their infrastructure to support their gas guzzlers, and not to turn around the inner cities that house “those” people.  Environmental issues, land use, water, immigration, race – all of this can be traced back to the crisis in the prisons, or at least shown as a major symptom.

It’s pathetic that every leader in this state for the last thirty years has looked to the empirical political disadvantage of standing against this human cruelty, and the advantage of steering clear of the issue.  The leadership vacuum has led to a severe loss of dignity and justice, and worse, it could lead to a systematic decline in political participation, according to a fascinating new paper.

Weaver and Lerman argue that experience with police and prisons is an important contact — indeed, perhaps the only contact — between many citizens and their government.  This contact then socializes people to have particular attitudes toward that government.  And these attitudes are far from democratic ideals […]

It shows the apparent effect of contact with the criminal justice system on whether people are registered to vote, actually vote or participate in at least one civic organization.  People are far less likely to do any of these things as their contact with police and prisons ranges from no contact to being questioned, arrested, convicted, serving time in prison or serving at least one year in prison (“serious time”).

Meanwhile, distrust in all levels of government increases as contact with the criminal justice system increases […]

Weaver and Lerman conclude:

If we take seriously the results presented here, they suggest that those with contact at every level of criminal supervision withdraw from political life – they are not in civic groups, they are less likely to express their political voice in elections, they are less involved in their communities. Thus, the carceral state carries deep implications for who is included and how they are included in the polity.

This is not a joke or something to easily dismiss.  So much flows from this mindless, Hammurabic-style cycle of vengeance that creates terrible outcomes for society.  I wish someone would have the courage to speak about it.

On the scale of concerns with the Legislature, too much transparency would seem to be pretty low down on the list.  Yet in a story that seemed more like a slightly edited press release than actual journalism, Michael Gardner writes down the GOP theory that when it comes to transparency, the cost is around $33.

To make a long story short, some Legislative Democrats have decided to do something of a roadshow around the state to discuss the budget.  This is an undisputed good idea.  Now, the Republicans apparently would like more control in how they are conceived, but, you know, try winning a few more seats before you start whining.  So, instead of actually doing something to further the budget talks, the Republicans decide to attack the costs of the roadshow.  It seems they have found some expenses that they think would make the state furious!

The Legislative Dems spent $16,000 on these budget hearings!!! Can you believe it, that could, oh wait…that’s 16 thousand? Not million? For 12 hearings around the state? That seems like a pretty reasonable tally, all things considered. But, apparently they should have been more thrifty.

That $16,000 in tax dollars was spent on staff airfare, hotels, rental cars and meals as they assisted lawmakers who held sessions on the state’s grim financial situation, including a stop May 8 in San Diego. The bills included four $19.99 bar stools, $500 audiovisual equipment rentals and a $35 cab ride. (San Diego U-T)

Really? This is what the Republicans are going off about? Some $20 bar stools? Frankly, that seems like a bargain. A quick search of Target’s website gives me a cost of $54.99 for the cheapest stool.  $500 in A/V rental is basically the cost of renting a mic and a multi-box.  And a cab ride? Really?  This sentence closes the story:

In another, an employee took a $35 taxi to the airport instead of the $2 bus.

Is this really all we have to fill our newspapers with? Look, I don’t know how to tell Mr. Gardner and his friends in the Republican caucus this, but the employee’s time also holds value.  Him sitting in the bus also costs the state money. We lose his productivity that we could be gaining were he to sit at his desk.

Honestly, if this is where we are headed, fighting over a cab ride to the airport, the tone of the budget talks is way ahead of last year.  I mean, we didn’t get to this petty stuff for at least another month in 2009. Well, actually, I’m not sure if we even got this bad last year.

In the end, while I understand the desire to reduce expenses, there is being economically prudent, and then there’s just being cheap. And this one is clearly on the counterproductive side.