Appellate Court Reverses Ruling on Prop 25
The court giveth and the court taketh away.
On Friday, I wrote about a Superior Court decision that removed a phrase from the ballot title of Proposition 25 that said while lowering the two-thirds vote to majority to pass the budget, the measure: "Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes."
Yesterday, an Appellate Court overruled the lower court and put the phrase back into the title, arguing that the voters would not be confused, as the Superior Court judge asserted, that they must vote YES to retain the two-thirds vote.
Struck Speechless by Bell
Outrageous. Unbelievable. Cries of rage and astonishment were heard throughout California and on network news when the Los Angeles Times revealed the salary of Bell city manager Robert Rizzo a few weeks ago.
This weekend the Times continued its focus on the Bell scandal with a new report that Rizzo’s compensation package topped $1.5 million when all benefits were calculated.
This news is so beyond the pale. From screaming indignation, the reaction changes to stunned silence. I am struck speechless.
Court Decision Casts More Doubt on Prop 25
Opponents of Proposition 25 have attacked the assertion by proponents that the initiative would only require a majority vote to pass the budget, while tax increases would still require a two-thirds vote. (Full disclosure: I am on the committee opposed to Prop 25 and signed one of the ballot arguments.)
The Attorney General’s title and summary of the measure gave comfort to proponents, declaring the initiative "retains the two-thirds vote requirement for taxes." However, when that phrase was challenged in Superior Court yesterday, Judge Patrick Marlette ordered it removed.
Opponents of the phrase argued that it was false and misleading and the judge agreed. The judge ruled that the title and summary would make voters believe that they would have to vote Yes on Prop 25 to protect the two-thirds vote.
Buy My Mystery Novel – Please
If you like mystery and suspense, I think you’ll enjoy Lincoln’s Hand.
Take a break from California politics and business when you read Lincoln’s Hand. There is not a word about California politics in it.
Echelon Press published my first mystery/suspense novel. This column is a shameless self-promotion. While the "official" launch is this Saturday, Aug. 7 with a book signing at the Mystery Bookstore in Los Angeles, the book is now available in paperback and e-book formats, which you can link to from the book’s website www.lincolnshand.com.
Keith Richman, the Mayor of the San Fernando Valley
Keith Richman was my assemblyman and my friend. He was a passionate man. His passions focused on health care — both as a physician and the head of a health care provider service — and for his desire to see a healthy California through a government that worked for the people.
Richman was not afraid to take on fights to achieve his goals whether it was against the powerful public employee unions who opposed his pension reforms or members of his own Republican Party who objected to his budget votes.
Anchoring the you-could-fit-‘em-in-a-broom-closet Moderate Caucus with Northern California Democrat, Joe Canciamilla, the Southern California Republican did his best to find common ground solutions to California’s problems.
Report Co-Author Discusses State of School Funding
The Davenport Institute at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy recently released a report analyzing K-12 public school expenditures in California. Fox and Hounds Daily interviewed the co-author, Dr. Steven Frates, who is Director of Research at the Davenport Institute. You can find the full report here.
F&H: Your report reveals that total statewide expenditures for K-12 education increased more rapidly than inflation from FY 2003-04 through FY 2008-09.
Frates: Yes, that is correct.
F&H: We’ve heard a lot in the press over the last few years about cuts in education financing, but your report indicates otherwise. What are the facts?
Whitman’s Position on AB 32 Could Appeal to Voters
The newly hatched PPIC poll on the environment indicates Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s middle path related to California’s greenhouse gases law and a controversial November ballot measure could serve her well come Election Day.
Proposition 23 would suspend California’s greenhouse gases law (AB 32) until unemployment dropped to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. California’s unemployment rate now stands over 12%.
PPIC pollsters did not ask a question about Proposition 23 using specific ballot language. PPIC found that likely voters supported the idea behind AB 32 to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020, 61% to 28%. Without the ballot title, PPIC asked a general follow-up question whether the state government should act right away to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or wait until the state economy and job situation improve. Likely voters split down the middle on the question with 48% support to move ahead right away; 48% voted to wait.
Initiative & Referendum in the Spotlight at Global Forum in SF
A Global Forum on direct democracy will hold its U.S. conference July 30 to August 4 in San Francisco. The conference is free to the public. Nearly 300 participants have signed up so far representing 30 countries and 27 U. S. states.
While the conference features numerous panels on issues that run the gamut from direct democracy in the digital age to the question of creating a national initiative to international perspectives on the I&R process, there are many California centric events. Included is a Saturday morning panel that asks the question: Is California’s Initiative Process Ruining the State, Or Saving It?
Speakers from around the country include Ralph Nader, John Fund, and Grover Norquist along with California political figures Bob Hertzberg, Ward Connerly, Jon Coupal, Tom Hayden, Peter Schrag, Bob Stern and many others.
Too Many Laws
I’m no supporter of Barbara Boxer, never have been and am not now, but I don’t object, as Carly Fiorina does, that Boxer has authored only five measures that became law in her time in the U. S. Senate. We have too many laws already.
The San Jose Mercury News ran articles focusing on the number of bills sponsored by lobbyists in Sacramento. The paper reported that there were 1,883 sponsored bills in the 2007-2008 two-year legislative session on top of 2,982 bills with no sponsors offered by legislators.
That’s 4,865 bills that were introduced in one session of which about 1500 became law. Fifteen-hundred new laws in one legislative session! Each session the law books get fatter and fatter and no one can know all the laws in those books and how they interact with each other.
Wringing Bell
Citizens of the City of Bell responded vociferously to the Los Angeles Times article revealing that top city officials pocketed outrageous salaries. The Times is not letting up on the story. Not only was there a follow-up story on the most recent city hall meeting on Wednesday, but two columns, one by Steve Lopez and one by James Rainey, on the Bell situation ran the same day.
Now comes the news that I touched on in my column on Bell last week: what Robert Rizzo, the nearly $800,000 a year Bell city manager, pockets to head out the door. According to the Times, Rizzo would command a minimum pension of $600,000 the first year (increasing dramatically over time) for the rest of his life.
Other estimates have Rizzo bringing in over $1 million a year in pension a decade from now.