Brown, Legislature study ways to avoid UC, Cal State tuition hikes

By MELANIE MASON, PATRICK MCGREEVY AND LARRY GORDON

December 11, 2014

The fate of the proposed tuition increase at University of California campuses now rests in the hands of the governor and state lawmakers, who are aligned in opposition to it but divided over how to scrap it.

The UC regents voted in November to increase tuition by as much as 28% over the next five years, triggering student protests and a chorus of political bellowing, and promised to make higher education funding one of the Capitol's hottest policy debates in the coming year.

The leaders of the state Assembly and Senate have offered plans to defeat the proposed increase and raise government funding for California's public universities.

Brown, a member of the UC Board of Regents, has proposed an annual 4% increase in state funding for the 10 University of California campuses if the current three-year tuition freeze remains in place. He also is pressing the regents to consider cost-saving changes such as offering more online courses and consolidating academic programs that are now duplicated at multiple campuses. Administration officials said the governor will address UC's financial well-being in his budget, to be released in January, but offered no details.

UC President Janet Napolitano has expressed support for some plans offered by legislators and she said she is open to studying Brown's proposals. However, she has said that the governor's proposed 4% increase is not enough to pay UC's payroll and retirement costs or to cover its plans to hire more faculty and enroll 5,000 more California undergraduates over five years.

UC received $2.64 billion in state general fund revenue this year, $460 million less than seven years ago. More than 166,000 undergraduates attend the UC campuses, and tuition is currently about $12,200 for in-state students. Here's a breakdown of the proposal to increase tuition and the alternatives being offered:

The tuition increase

A 14-7 vote by the regents gave Napolitano the authority to raise tuition each year for the next five years, with the amount dependent on state funding. The annual increase could be as high as 5% — which by 2019 could add up to a cumulative 28% increase over the current tuition.

•A third of the money raised by the increase would go toward financial aid programs.

•By 2019-20, tuition could be as high as $15,564 a year if the state does not increase funding.

•The cost of a UC education — tuition, room and board, books and other expenses — currently can total $30,000 for state residents. Students from other states and countries pay a $23,000 premium in addition to tuition.

The Assembly proposal

Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) proposed an additional $50 million in state funding for the UC system to avoid tuition increases; the California State University colleges would get extra money as well.
The plan also would:

•Increase Cal Grant financial aid for lower-income families and require UC to maintain existing aid.

•Speed up the Middle Class Scholarship program to cut fees for qualifying families by more than 20% in the 2015-2016 school year.

•Increase UC enrollment of California students by 10,000 over five years and cap enrollment of out-of-state students at 2014-2015 levels.

•Increase the tuition premium for out-of-state students by $5,000, which would raise an additional $100 million annually.

Atkins also vowed to take a "zero-based" approach to crafting the UC budget next year. That would build the system's budget from zero, rather than from previous years' spending, and would mean scrutinizing each line item in the proposed plan. Assembly Republican Leader Kristin Olsen of Modesto supports the zero-based budgeting. Also, Assembly member Young Kim (R-Fullerton) has proposed legislation that would freeze tuition at the state's public colleges and universities as long as the temporary state tax increase under Proposition 30, approved by voters in 2012, remains in effect.

The Senate proposal

Democrats have offered a plan to eliminate the tuition increase, expand enrollment at the UC and Cal State systems and provide grants as incentives to Cal State students who stay on track to complete their degrees in four years. The plan was proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles).

It would cost the state $342 million next year, rising to $434 million. Money would come from taking $580 million over three years from the Middle Class Scholarship program, instituting a 17% increase in the premium charged to out-of-state students and siphoning $156 million from the general fund the first year, dropping to $66 million in the third year.

The plan would also:

•Increase UC enrollment by 5,000 students and Cal State enrollment by 10,500 students next year, at an additional total cost of $113 million per year.

•Provide $75 million each to UC and Cal State annually to pay for more courses and counseling services so students can graduate on time.

•Provide up to $4,500 in "completion incentive grants" to motivate Cal State students to carry a full load of at least 15 credits so that they can graduate in four years, rather than the current average of six years. Students would get a $1,000 grant for completing 30 units by the first year, an additional $1,500 for completing 60 units by the second year and an additional $2,000 for completing 90 units by the third year.

•Fund 7,500 additional Cal Grant competitive awards for older, nontraditional students.

•Repeal this year's scheduled 11% cut to Cal Grants for about 29,000 students attending private and nonprofit universities.

•Encourage corporations and individuals to invest in the College Access Tax Credit Fund, which provides $500 million in tax credits for charitable donations to the fund. The money would go to double funding of Cal Grant Access Awards for community college students.

•Phase out the Middle Class Scholarship program, which in its first year provided tuition credits for 73,000 students from families with incomes between $80,000 and $150,000. Current recipients would continue to get funds until they graduate, but no other students would be allowed into the program. The credits average $1,112 for those enrolled at UC and $628 at Cal State.

Neither the governor nor the California Legislature has the authority to force the UC regents to rescind the tuition increase. However, they do have power over state funding provided to the university system, giving them political leverage.

via: http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-pol-uc-tuition-explainer-20141211-story.html#page=1

Brown picks aide to lead troubled California utility board

Gov. Jerry Brown named a former adviser on Tuesday to be the next head of California's troubled utilities commission, replacing a regulatory chief accused of back-channel dealings with utilities.

Michael Picker, a former adviser to Brown on renewable energy and a former board member of a California utility, was Brown's pick to lead the California Public Utilities Commission, the governor's office said in a statement.

The appointment requires state lawmakers' approval.

Picker would replace Michael Peevey

as commission president. Peevey announced in October he would not seek reappointment when his term expires at the end of December, after 12 years on the board.

Emails made public this year by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., California's largest power utility, described Peevey and PG&E officials holding repeated private discussions on rate cases, penalties and other PG&E regulatory matters before the commission, as well as Peevey soliciting donations from the utility for a commission celebration and for a political campaign backed by the governor. Peevey has made no public comment on the conversations contained in the emails.

The email disclosures stemmed from federal investigations and public criticism over a 2010 PG&E pipeline blast that killed eight people in a San Francisco suburb. The National Transportation Safety Board said lax oversight by the state utilities commission was one reason for the disaster.

Federal prosecutors have indicted PG&E for alleged obstruction of justice in that investigation. PG&E says federal and state prosecutors have since informed the utility that they are also examining private communications between state utility regulators and PG&E.

Mark Toney, head of The Utility Reform Network, a public-advocacy group that has been critical of the CPUC and PG&E, said he welcomed Picker's nomination as the board's leader.

"We expect that he's going to stop the backroom deals and start making the decisions based on actual evidence," Toney said.

A Brown aide, Evan Westrup, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Brown's expectations of board transparency under Picker. Brown has publicly defended Peevey, describing him this summer as a man who gets things done.

In a separate interview with The Associated Press this summer, Brown described the emails as "troubling."

Brown noted then that state and federal prosecutors were looking into the communications, and added, "I can tell you, based on my own experience, there are conversations that go on in all these regulatory bodies. It's different than courts. There are rules on it and the rules should be enforced."

Brown first appointed Picker as a commission member earlier this year. Brown on Tuesday also appointed Liane Randolph, a staffer at the state Natural Resources Agency, to the commission.

via: http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/12/23/48869/brown-picks-aide-to-lead-troubled-california-utili/

Samuel L. Jackson calls out other celebrities with a song challenge

Watch on YouTube here.

County supervisors vote to create sheriff's civilian oversight panel

Los Angeles County supervisors voted Tuesday to set up a civilian oversight commission to oversee the Sheriff’s Department, marking a major milestone for the troubled law enforcement agency. 

Advocates of the move have long called for such a panel to oversee a department that has been beset in recent years by allegations of widespread abuses in the jails.

A divided board voted down a similar proposal in August, with then-Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky casting the swing vote against the proposal.

But with Yaroslavsky termed out of office last week, his successor, Sheila Kuehl, voted with the 3-2 majority in favor of the civilian oversight panel.

Kuehl, along with supervisors Mark Ridley-Thomas and Hilda Solis, said a civilian commission would help monitor and restore public trust in the department. They said the move is particularly important in light of the growing national controversy about police practices stemming from incidents in Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. Ridley-Thomas said there should be a "clear signal from the largest county in the nation with respect to reform."

Kuehl said the commission will provide a needed public forum to air issues in the department before crises develop.

"The public really doesn’t feel that they knew – or knew in time – what was going on," she said.

Advocates praised the decision to create a civilian oversight body.

"This is a historic moment," said Kim McGill, organizer of the Youth Justice Coalition. She asked members of the audience to stand up and remind the board of the county’s oft-cited mission to take care of the most vulnerable members of the community. "We are the people that have been in your jails and the people that buried our family members when they’ve been killed by the sheriffs."

Patrisse Cullors, founder of Dignity and Power Now, which has advocated for a civilian commission for the last two years, said the commission needs to be "legally empowered, community centered and independent." The commission should have subpoena power and should oversee the inspector general, she said.

Advocates also said they do not want the commission to include any current or former law enforcement officials.

Supervisors Michael Antonovich and Don Knabe voted against creating the civilian oversight commission. Antonovich said creating a separate oversight body would be "a step backwards" from efforts to focus on setting up an office of inspector general as a watchdog for the department.

Richard Drooyan, an attorney who oversaw implementation of reforms proposed by a panel that studied the issue of jail violence, argued that a new civilian commission would "dilute" the supervisors' ability to influence the Sheriff's Department. He said the most effective means of oversight would be a strong inspector general reporting to the board.

Inspector General Max Huntsman did not give an opinion on whether the board should create a new civilian commission, but said his office is still having problems getting access to documents from the Sheriff's Department. Without full access, he said, "I do not think this will succeed."

Key details of how the panel will operate remain to be worked out. Over the coming weeks, a panel of county attorneys and representatives of the sheriff, inspector general and supervisors will recommend a structure for the new commission, as well as what powers it would be granted.

Representatives of the deputies’ union said they want to ensure that their members have a representative on the panel that will figure out the powers and structure of the commission.

New Sheriff Jim McDonnell, who inherited a department facing a likely federal consent decree over poor conditions for mentally ill jail inmates, has also voiced support for civilian oversight.

The sheriff was out of town Tuesday, but said in a statement that civilian oversight "can provide an invaluable forum for transparency and accountability, while also restoring and rebuilding the community's trust."

McDonnell also offered some preliminary recommendations for structuring the commission. They include: The panel should be made up of seven to nine members, appointed by the board and other community or law enforcement representatives; the members should be appointed for a set term and removable only for cause; the commission should oversee the work of the inspector general.

For the full article click here. 

Via: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sheriff-oversight-20141209-story.html

California Assembly announces committee chairs

BY JEREMY B. WHITE

A new California Assembly class has been sworn in – and now members have begun to receive the committee assignments that will guide the fate of legislation and shape the power dynamics of the Democratic caucus.

Committee assignments, and particularly committee chairmanships, matter for a variety of reasons. Committee leaders have substantial sway over which bills get hearings and which bills perish quietly. Most significant bills must pass through the Assembly Appropriations Committee, for instance, and the Budget Committee chair has a key role in shaping the annual budget bill. Campaign contributions often flow to members who sit on committees overseeing powerful industries.

And with Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, holding power only through 2015, committee assignments are sure to prompt speculation about who is in position to next seek the leadership mantle.

Atkins’ office announced committee chairs for the new session Wednesday morning – the list is below. Last session’s committee leaders are in parentheses. An asterisk (*) next to former chairs indicates that the member no longer serves in the Assembly.

Accountability and Administrative Review: Assemblyman Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield (Assemblyman Jim Frazier)

Aging And Long-Term Care Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, D-San Bernardino (Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada,*)

Agriculture: Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno (Assemblywoman Susan Eggman)

Appropriations: Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles (Assemblyman Mike Gatto)

Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media:Assemblyman Ian Calderon, D-Whittier (was Calderon)

Banking and Finance: Assemblyman Matthew Dababneh, D-Los Angeles (Assemblyman Roger Dickinson*)

Budget: Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego (Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner*)

Business, Professions and Consumer Protection: Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord (Bonilla)

Education: Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach(Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan*)

Elections and Redistricting: Assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, D-Culver City (Assemblyman Paul Fong*)

Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials: Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville (Alejo)

Governmental Organization: Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced (Assemblyman Isadore Hall*)

Health: Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland (Assemblyman Richard Pan*)

Higher Education: Assemblyman Jose Medina, D-Riverside (Assemblyman Das Williams)

Housing and Community Development: Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park (Chau)

Human Services: Assemblyman Kansen Chu, D-San Jose (Assemblyman Mark Stone)

Insurance: Assemblyman Tom Daly, D-Anaheim (Assemblyman Henry Perea)

Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy: Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, D-Riverside (Assemblyman Jose Medina)

Judiciary: Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley (Assemblyman Bob Wieckoswki*)

Labor and Employment: Assemblyman Roger Hernández, D-West Covina (Hernández)

Local Government: Assembly members Brian Maienschein (chair) and Lorena Gonzalez (vice chair) (Assembly members Katcho Achadjian and Marc Levine)

Natural Resources: Assemblyman Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara (Assemblyman Wes Chesbro*)

Privacy and Consumer Protection: Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Glendale), Chair (new committee)

Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security: Bonta (Bonta)

Public Safety: Assemblyman Bill Quirk, D-Hayward (Assemblyman Tom Ammiano*)

Revenue and Taxation: Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco (Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra*)

Rules: Assemblyman Richard Gordon, D-Menlo Park (Gordon)

Transportation: Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley (Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal*)

Utilities and Commerce: Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood (Assemblyman Steven Bradford*)

Veterans Affairs: Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin, D-Thousand Oaks (Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva*)

Water, Parks and Wildlife: Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael (Rendon)

Call Jeremy B. White, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 326-5543.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article4258642.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#storylink=cpy

A Badge is an American Halo

A badge is an American halo,

We have to abide just because you say so?

But what if your intentions are not rightful...

They give you a badge and the same rule I'm supposed to follow, you don't follow.

Is it justice or do you have your own gang that supports you just because you have that metal thing?

Treyvon, Michael, or Samantha were just some that were taken from a badge with a gun.

When will it stop?

By Nakila

San Bernardino sees more votes amid historically low turnout

SAN BERNARDINO >> Record-low voter turnout throughout the state, including San Bernardino County, had an anomaly Tuesday — significant turnout growth in the city of San Bernardino.

Out of about 77,000 registered voters, the vote on whether to change the city charter’s drew nearly 19,000 votes (all of this election’s turnout numbers will increase slightly as another 15,365 votes are counted countywide, according to the Registrar of Voters). That’s more than 50 percent more than voted in what elections officials thought was a “compelling” but disappointingly ill-attended February election that chose Carey Davis as mayor.

Measure Q still received votes from less than one in every four registered voters — a group that already consists of only a fraction of the city’s 210,000 residents.

“It’s still nothing to be proud of,” City Clerk Gigi Hanna said. “Part of that might be people not feeling connected — but the way to be heard is to vote. It’s so sad that people let this issue, however you feel about it, be decided by such a small number of people.”

But the increase — a large one — comes amid almost universal drops in turnout. The national turnout isexpected to be the lowest in a midterm since World War II. California expects to fall below 2002’s record low. San Bernardino County’s 33 percent is almost certain to be a record low, according to Registrar of Voters Michael Scarpello.

So what’s different about this city, this year?

For one thing, people come out to vote when state and federal offices are on the line, said Fernando J. Guerra, director of the Thomas and Dorothy Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University and assistant to the president for civic enagement.

“You should have elections where the voters are,” Guerra said. “If people are voting in November of even years, that’s when you should have the elections.”

Guerra was head of a commission charged with finding ways to boost voter turnout in Los Angeles, whose first recommendation this year was to change the LA city charter to consolidate its elections with the state’s.

Proposition 47 Passes!

Proposition 47 lowers penalties for some nonviolent, low-level offenses and in doing so gives women and men a fair chance to rebuild their lives. Penalties for six low-level offenses will be reduced from potential felonies to misdemeanors, shortening the time people spend behind bars.

At the same time Proposition 47 saves the state money, as high as $1.25 billion in the first five years. Those savings will be allocated to K-12 after school programs, mental health and substance abuse treatment programs and victim services programs.

Read our October 3, 2014, Huffington Post article in support of Prop 47.

Why did we support this proposition? Because Proposition 47 supports women. Women are more likely to have been convicted of a crime involving drugs or property, just the offenses covered by this initiative. In California, women are three times more likely to be in prison for forgery or fraud and twice as likely for petty theft.

Our research also shows that women suffer disproportionately upon release from prison. Our recent report Bias Behind Bars revealed that, compared to men, women incarcerated for felonies are less likely to obtain public benefits and find stable housing. Despite the low risk women with criminal records for nonviolent crimes pose to public safety, women also have more difficulty finding employment upon release. This is due to the over representation of women in the fields of retail, childcare and home health care—all fields where criminal records are of great concern. Some states legally bar those with criminal records from working with children and seniors. Fields that tend to be male-dominated, such as construction and manufacturing, generally are focused less on employees’ backgrounds.

The harmful effects of a felony charge extend beyond women’s lives to those of their families. Today, six out of 10 women behind bars are mothers of minors. Thousands of children are growing up without a mother at home to fix their meals, get them ready for school or contribute to the family income. While mothers are languishing in prison, children are languishing at home.

So how does Proposition 47 work? It changes six non-violent, low-level offenses (such as simple drug possession, petty theft and writing a bad check) from felonies to misdemeanors. Of course, women and men who commit these offenses would be held accountable for their actions… but they would not be considered felons, would avoid the stigma that comes with that charge, would serve in county jails closer to home and closer to their children and, because their sentences would be shorter, they would be reunited with their families sooner.

We wanted to acknowledge our Race, Gender and Human Rights (RGHR) giving circle for supporting Proposition 47 from the get-go by funding the organizing and outreach efforts by the Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools.

The mission of RGHR is to promote human rights and racial and gender justice by challenging the criminal justice system and its use of mass incarceration in California.

via: http://womensfoundationofcalifornia.org/proposition-47-passes/

2014 California Ballot Measure Results!

California voters on Tuesday approved billions in borrowing for water projects, the creation of a tighter budget reserve fund, and lighter penalties for drug crimes and theft while rejecting measures to regulate health insurance rates and to drug test doctors while raising a cap on medical malpractice payouts.

Two ballot initiatives passed by the Legislature and promoted by Gov. Jerry Brown more vigorously than he campaigned for his own re-election – a water bond and a measure creating a rainy day reserve fund for state budgets – passed handily. You can read more about the water bond here.

A pair of health-related measure that ignited massive spending lost by large margins.

Proposition 45 sought to empower California’s elected insurance commissioner to oversee health insurance rates, prompting a well-funded opposition campaign by the insurance industry. Proposition 46 was the latest flareup in a long-smoldering fight between doctors and lawyers over California’s medical malpractice laws. In addition to lifting a $250,000 cap on pain-and-suffering damages recoverable in malpractice lawsuits, the measure would have imposed mandatory physician drug testing.

Proposition 45 lost by nearly 20 points. The gap for Proposition 46 was close to 35 points.

With California in the midst of a years-long effort to reduce prison overcrowding, proponents of Proposition 47 said the measure would improve criminal justice efforts by converting petty theft and drug possession from felonies to misdemeanors, while targeting savings at programs to reduce truancy and substance abuse. Despite law enforcement warnings that the measure would reduce penalties for possession of date-rate drugs and gun theft, Proposition 47 led by 17 percentage points in unofficial returns.

Voters rejected Proposition 48, a referendum that targeted a single casino but carried a broader context.

The “no” vote on the measure blocks a pact with the state to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to operate a Vegas-style casino miles from the tribe’s existing land. Opponents of the facility warned that the deal would lead to a spike of new casinos near urban areas. Some tribes with nearby casinos poured millions of dollars into the campaign to defeat Propositio 48.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article3577731.html#storylink=cpy

Get Out the Vote Tomorrow!

 

Tomorrow, join the thousands that will make their voice heard and Get Out Your Vote!

Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. You can find your polling place  

here. 

This election Gladys (right) voted for the very first time in her life. After years of incarceration and people making decisions for her she finally had the opportunity to choose for herself and let her voice be heard! 

Take Action California wants you to remember that Your Voice Matters! 

You are NOT Invisible!

More cities are making handing out food to homeless illegal

If you don't have a place to live, getting enough to eat clearly may be a struggle. And since homelessness in the U.S. isn't going away and is even rising in some cities, more charitable groups and individuals have been stepping up the past few years to share food with these vulnerable folks in their communities.

But just as more people reach out to help, cities are biting back at those hands feeding the homeless.

According to a report released Monday by the National Coalition for the Homeless, 21 cities have passed measures aimed at restricting the people who feed the homeless since January 2013. In that same time, similar legislation was introduced in more than 10 cities. 
Combined, these measures represent a 47 percent increase in the number of cities that have passed or introduced legislation to restrict food sharing since the coalition last counted in 2010.

The latest city to crack down is Fort Lauderdale, Fla. According to the Sun Sentinel, the city's commissioners passed a measure early Wednesday that will require feeding sites to be more than 500 feet away from each other, with only one allowed per city block. They'll also have to be at least 500 feet from residential properties.

Michael Stoops, director of community organizing for the coalition and the editor of the report, says that as cities have felt more pressure to make economic development and tourism priorities, they've decided that food sharing programs — especially those that happen in public spaces and draw dozens, if not hundreds of people — are problematic.

"We consider measures like the one in Fort Lauderdale to be criminalizing being homeless or helping the homeless," says Stoops.

And yet, Stoops argues that the measures will ultimately be ineffective in addressing the real problem: homelessness itself.

"Cities' hope is that restricting sharing of food will somehow make [the] homeless disappear and go away," Stoops tells The Salt. "But I can promise you that even if these ordinances are adopted, it's not going to get rid of homelessness."

The measures that restrict food distribution tend to take one of two forms: new rules on the use of public property and new food-safety regulations. Salt Lake City, for example, now requires that anyone preparing and serving food to the homeless get a food handler's permit.

In some cities, like Charlotte, N.C., it's not the local government that pressures the food groups to relocate or limit their programs — it's community groups practicing "not in my backyard" politics, or NIMBYism, according to the coalition's report. (The coalition notes that its report focuses on cities it has been able to track, but that many more cities may have anti-homeless-feeding legislation that the coalition may not be aware of.)

Robert Marbut, a consultant based in San Antonio, helps cities and counties deal with the problem of homelessness. He says he falls somewhere in the middle in this debate. While he's opposed to criminalization, he thinks "street feeding" programs that distribute food in parks and under bridges can do more harm than good.

"Street feeding is one of the worst things to do, because it keeps people in homeless status," he says. "I think it's very unproductive, very enabling, and it keeps people out of recovery programs."

Instead, he thinks food sharing programs should only be located near what he calls the "core areas of recovery": mental health, substance abuse and job readiness services. Otherwise, he says, homeless people may spend more time pursuing food than the services that will help them get back on their feet.

Stoops says that he agrees there should be options for the homeless to eat meals indoors — with heat and air conditioning at shelters, churches and other sites. But he points out that those programs can't meet the full scope of needs.

"Not everyone wants to go to a shelter or a meal program. In the best of all worlds, the homeless agencies get out of the office and go with ministry programs to bring services to where people are," he says.

Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

via: http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/10/22/47579/more-cities-are-making-handing-out-food-to-homeles/

Election Day is 1 Week Away!

We're 1 week away from election day!

Don't forget that your vote matters

VOTE on November 4th!

Election 2014 FAQ: Prop 2 — state budget and rainy day fund

Proposition 2 is a constitutional amendment put on the ballot by the California legislature to change the rules governing the state's rainy day fund. It also contains a new statute that will affect how schools manage their own reserve funds. 

Who's behind this ballot measure?

In 2004, voters passed Proposition 58, a cornerstone of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to help fix the state budgeting process. Prop 58 established a rainy day fund known as the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) to help the state weather downturns in the economy. Since a significant portion of the general fund comes from income taxes, a bad year for residents means less money for the state.

Prop 2 modifies the rules that govern how the state contributes money to the BSA and, in turn, how money in the account is used. It was authored by former Assembly Speaker John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles). The final vote to place it on the ballot was unanimous in both houses — 36-0 in the state Senate and 78-0 in the Assembly.

What would it do?

If approved, Prop 2 would:

• Require the state to put matching minimum amounts toward savings (in the BSA) and debt each year for 15 years — specifically, 0.75 percent of general fund revenues. Payments would be larger in years when revenues are higher from capital gains taxes.
• Allow the governor to declare a "budget emergency" in order to reduce the payment amounts in a given year, but only in the case of a natural disaster or if there is not enough money to keep general fund spending at the highest level of the past three years.
• Limit the amount the state could take out of the BSA to the amount needed to cover such a natural disaster or to keep spending up, with a maximum withdrawal of half the BSA. If a budget emergency is declared two years in a row, all of the money can be withdrawn in the second year.
• Increase the maximum size of the BSA to 10 percent of the general fund, which would amount to $11 billion currently — any extra money after the maximum is reached would go toward infrastructure projects.
• Create a state reserve for schools. Money would be contributed only in years when capital gains tax revenues are above average and spending already covers any increases in the number of students and cost of living.
• Create a new law that limits the amount of reserves school districts can keep at the local level (community colleges excluded) — for most school districts, between 3 percent and 10 percent of their annual budget. The law goes into effect only when the state has begun putting money into its school reserve fund, and it could be changed later by the legislature without a vote of the people, since it is not a constitutional amendment.

How is this different from existing laws?

The Legislative Analyst's Office provides a comparison of existing law and Prop 2 in the following areas:

STATE DEBTS

	TODAY'S LAWS	CHANGES MADE IF PROPOSITION 2 PASSES
Required extra spending on existing state debts each year(a)	None.(b)	A minimum of $800 million. Up to $2 billion or more when capital gains tax revenues are strong.(c)

STATE RESERVES

	TODAY'S LAWS	CHANGES MADE IF PROPOSITION 2 PASSES
Basic amount that goes into the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) each year	A little over $3 billion.	A minimum of $800 million. Up to $2 billion or more when capital gains tax revenues are strong.(c)
When can state put less than the basic amount into the BSA?	Any time the Governor chooses.	Only when the Governor calls a "budget emergency" and the Legislature agrees.(d)
How much can state take out of the BSA?	Any amount available.	Up to the amount needed for the budget emergency. Cannot be more than half of the money in the BSA if there was no budget emergency in the prior year.
Maximum size of the BSA	$8 billion or 5 percent of General Fund revenues, whichever is greater (currently $8 billion).	About 10 percent of General Fund revenues (currently about $11 billion).

SCHOOL RESERVES

	TODAY'S LAWS	CHANGES MADE IF PROPOSITION 2 PASSES
State reserve for schools and community colleges	None.	Money would go into a new state reserve for schools and community colleges in some years when capital gains revenues are strong.
Limit on maximum size of school district reserves	None.	Sets maximum reserves that school districts can keep at the local level in some years.

LAO NOTES:
(a) The term "state debts" includes debts for pension and retiree health benefits and specified debts owed to local governments and other state accounts.

(b) Proposition 58 (2004) requires that half of the money put into the BSA be used to pay down certain state bonds faster. This year’s budget is expected to pay off the rest of those bonds, meaning this requirement will no longer apply beginning with next year’s budget.

(c) After 15 years, debt spending under Proposition 2 becomes optional. Amounts that would otherwise be spent on debts after 15 years instead would be put into the BSA.

(d) Governor could call a budget emergency for a natural disaster or to keep spending at the highest level of the past three years—adjusted for population and cost of living.

How much will it cost taxpayers?

The fiscal impact of Prop 2 is not immediately clear, since it will depend on how it is implemented at the state and local levels moving forward, according to the LAO. However, the LAO estimates that Prop 2:

• Would likely lead to a faster payoff of debts, which in turn could lead to less spending on interest and more money for other budget items.
• Could lessen the "ups and downs" of state spending if, on balance, Prop 2 results in more money being put into the BSA over time.
• Would likely not lead to the establishment of a state reserve account for several years, until the conditions can be met. Money would be deposited only sporadically — in years when the economy is particularly strong.
• Would in many cases lead to schools keeping less in their reserve funds than they currently do, making it more difficult to balance their budgets in down years.

Who's supporting it and why?

The biggest financial supporter of Prop 2 is the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, which has given $500,000 as of September 24.

Other major financial backers comprise a rather eclectic mix of union, business and private interests, including Reed Hastings of Netflix, insurance provider Health Net, the American Council of Engineering Companies and Abraxis Bioscience.

However, three of the five campaign committees formed to raise money for Prop 2 are also raising money for Prop 1, making it difficult to determine how individual donors' money was actually spent.

Supporters, which include Pérez, Gov. Jerry Brown and Allan Zaremberg, the president of the California Chamber of Commerce, argue that Prop 2 will strengthen the state's rainy day fund and help avoid a boom-and-bust cycle of painful cuts and tax increases. They also argue that a stable budget will offer protection against cuts to education spending.

More: Yes on 2 campaign

Who's opposing it and why?

The grassroots parent organization Educate Our State leads the opposition campaign, though no major financial opposition to Prop 2 had been reported as of September 24.

Educate Our State takes issue in particular with the new law created by Prop 2 that would limit the amount districts can keep in their reserve funds, forcing them to spend any excess once the state's school reserve fund is established. Educate Our State argues that decisions over how to weather economic ups and downs should be made at the local level.

More: No on 2 campaign

…a YES vote means…

You accept the changes to the rules governing the state's rainy day fund, the creation of a state reserve for schools and the new limits on school districts' reserves.

…a NO vote means…

You reject the changes proposed: existing laws will continue to govern the state's Budget Stabilization Account, no state reserve for schools will be created, and school districts will retain full control over their reserve funds.

Your Vote Matters!

Absentee ballots have dropped and we want to remind you to get out the vote!

You are not invisible and together we can change things for the better!

Election Day is Tuesday, November 4th!

Polls are open from 7 am - 8 pm

If you are not registered to vote you can register online at www.registertovote.ca.gov

DIRTY POLITICS EXPOSED IN BANKRUPT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

For Immediate Release

Contact: Nicole Wolfe

(909) 886-2994 Ofc (909-277-3825) cell

Date: October 13, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:       

DIRTY POLITICS EXPOSED IN BANKRUPT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

San Bernardino, California October 13, 2014 –Time for Change Foundation held a press conference on the steps of City Hall to expose the dirty politics, once again plaguing the bankrupt City of San Bernardino.  Concerned citizens, community activists, spiritual leaders and the homeless joined with Time for Change Foundation (TFCF) to demand that the City Council do at least what the community does for them, VOTE.  The community united in one voice for Honesty, Integrity and Transparency (HIT) within the city leadership holding signs declaring “Stop the Dirty Politics” and “Cheating is Bad for Business.” 

Kim Carter, Founder/Executive Director Time for Change Foundation, addresses
the crowd demanding an honest and transparent City Council.

TFCF, a local non-profit organization, and low income housing developer, dedicated to serving the disenfranchised, has been denied Federal Home Investment Partnership Funds designed to be administered through the City after winning a recent bid competition for their new low income housing development project.  “We won that competition fair and square. This is about the jobs that are going to be created in our community, it’s about the safe and decent housing that we are going to have in our community,” said Kim Carter, Executive Director and Founder of TFCF, “we’re not going to allow dirty politicians to rob us one more time.  We’re here today about the residents of San Bernardino who can’t afford to be cheated out of one more taxpayer dollar in our city.  We need investments in our community and that’s not going to happen if we keep allowing leadership to come in here and play dirty politics.  Is this city open for business or what?“San Bernardino is a city trying to rebuild itself.  No entity will be willing to come to San Bernardino to invest if the City does not hold to the competition process.

The community, along with the hardworking staff at TFCF want answers.  If the City Council went through the pretense of soliciting proposals, having the proposals analyzed by a Proposal Review Committee, publicly declaring a winner, and writing a Resolution to award the funds, the least the City Council can do is VOTE!  Today, the community called for the City Council to place the project item back on their agenda and to VOTE, publicly, yes or no.  The community is calling for the matter to be moved forward according to the democratic process which has been set in place for the orderly conducting of business.

Sergio Luna of Inland Congregations United For Change (ICUC) asserted “this is a fight that every single person in San Bernardino should take…we at ICUC we are standing with Time for Change in every way possible…we will continue to collaborate until we find justice in our community.”  Reverend Bronica Taylor was passionate, declaring “we are the people. It is our vote that can truly make the change. “

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

 üan open bid competition RFP was released by the City for the purpose of low income housing development

 üa Proposal Review Committee declared TFCF the agency scoring the highest in the  competition

 üthe Mayor and City Council issued a Resolution stating the funds had been identified and were available

 üthe Resolution authorized the City Manager and City Attorney to negotiate terms of the development project

 üthe Resolution was placed on the City Council agenda 9/15/14 and then removed

 üthe Resolution was placed on the City Council agenda 10/6/14 and then removed

Concerned community members gather on the front of City Hall steps in support
of Time for Change Foundation.

No one within the City government will publicly state why this development project is not moving forward in the normal course of business.  The community, attempting to pull out of bankruptcy, has been disappointed once again because of the lack of Honesty, Integrity and Transparency within the new leaders they voted into office.  How can you ask people to vote for you during reelection time when you are sitting in the seat and not living up to the promises of openness, transparency and accountability?  If the City was truly moving forward, the transparency and accountability would be obvious.  Kim Carter reiterated: “This is not about me, this is about the process which is honest, integrity filled and transparent … a healthy competition.  Is any business safe to come here and enter a competition only to be awarded but not rewarded? No one likes a “cheater!” 

The next City Council meeting will take place October 20, 2014 and the public was encouraged to attend and demand answers from public officials, from the dais, in that public forum.  TFCF put the matter publicly to the City Council to place the development project item back on the agenda and for every member to publicly vote to approve or disapprove.

###