UC Berkeley students lobby in Sacramento for bill to tax oil to fund public higher education

A group of UC Berkeley students joined forces with supporters from various California colleges and universities Thursday morning to lobby for a state Senate bill that aims to reduce tuition at California public institutions of higher education.

About 20 UC Berkeley students were among the 70 supporters who went to Sacramento to bequest members of the Senate Education Committee to support  Senate Bill 1017, which would impose a tax on oil and gas extracted from California soil. The revenue from the tax would be funneled into an endowment — established by the bill — that would generate funds for California public higher education. The proposal ultimately aims to stabilize tuition and roll costs back to 2008 levels.

“We all teamed up and went into the meeting, where we pretty much lobbied,” said UC Berkeley junior Elias Saigali. “I think it was very effective.”

Those who attended the Senate hearing had the opportunity to vocalize through testimony either their support of or opposition to the bill. According to Saigali, about 60 people spoke in favor of the bill — including students and supporters from the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, a grassroots organization that aims to empower ordinary citizens to take action in their communities.

“Our physical persistence showed that students really care,” Saigali said. “It’s a way for them to understand what we’re going through. It’s important to us.”

Also at the hearing, representatives from the Western States Petroleum Association enumerated their qualms. Particularly, they argued that the legislation would cost the oil industry about 10,000 jobs and would raise gas prices.

SB 1017, which was introduced two months ago by State Senator Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, has long been supported by a coalition of UC Berkeley students. The bill is a development of both Senate Bill 241 — a former iteration of SB 1017 that failed to pass in committee last year — and the California Modernization and Economic Development Act. Authored by UC Berkeley senior Harrison “Jack” Tibbetts, CMED is of similar sentiment to SB 1017 and, in fact, inspired the bill’s provision of an endowment fund.

In a February interview, Tibbetts said SB 1017 could generate upward of $5 billion for higher-education funding in California. He added that California is the only major oil-producing state that doesn’t impose a tax on extracted oil.

On Thursday, SB 1017 passed the preliminary vote in the Senate Education Committee. As a result of this, the state Senate Governance and Finance Committee will review the bill May 9.

“My hope is that if this does pass, it will inspire students to take legislation into their own hands,” Tibbetts said. “There is more to being reactionary. You can actually lead the discussion.”

 via: http://www.dailycal.org/2014/04/24/uc-berkeley-students-lobby-sacramento-bill-tax-oil-fund-public-higher-education/

California Senate Committee Stands up to Big Oil, Passes SB 1017

 The California State Senate Committee on Education stood up to the big money of Big Oil and took a step forward in the fight to end California’s status as the only oil and gas producing state in the nation to not tax the extraction of energy resources. SB 1017 could raise more than 2 billion dollars for California’s underfunded public universities and community colleges, devastated health and human services programs, and state parks.

Check out www.BigOilBeacon.com to see how Big Oil tries to buy big influence in Sacramento. Let’s end Big Oil’s free ride by passing SB 1017!

via: http://www.california-partnership.org/2014/04/24/california-senate-committee-stands-up-to-big-oil-passes-sb-1017/

Meet The Companies That Just Promised To Pull 60 Million Dollars From Private Prisons

Three investment groups announced this week that they will divest from the two major private prison corporations that constitute a massive share of America’s prison-industrial complex.

Scopia Capital, DSM, and Amica Mutual Insurance have all pledged to remove their collective investments of about $60,000,000 from the Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group — the two prison companies that own 75 percent of the nation’s private prisons. The decision to divest comes on the heels of pressure from Color Of Change, a racial and economic justice advocacy group that ran a campaign asking a total 150 companies to stop investing in the private prison industry.

“In accordance with the principles of the UN Global Compact, with respect to the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights, the pension fund has divested from the for-profit prison industry,” DSM President Hugh Welsh said in a Color of Change statement. “Investment in private prisons and support for the industry is financially unsound, and divestment was the right thing to do for our clients, shareholders, and the country as a whole. DSM is committed to good corporate citizenship and operating in a way that contributes to a better world.”

Sixty million dollars is actually a drop in the bucket for GEO and CCA. The groups together earn over three billion dollars annually on private prisons, and even more on immigrant detention centers. But the move signals a growing distrust in the ballooning private prisons industry, which grew by “approximately 1600% between 1990 and 2009,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Other groups have previously reportedly divested, as well, but this may be the largest single successful divestment campaign.

“It’s an important first step,” said Carl Takei, the private prison expert in the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “To the extent that investment firms are committing themselves publicly to divestment, that is a very important step. To the extent that investment firms are deciding that private prisons are a bad investment, that’s even more important.”

CCA lost four of its prison contracts with states last year — and that combined with slowly falling imprisonment rates may actually make private prisons not just morally questionable but financially unstable, Takei pointed out.

“We’ve started to turn the corner on mass incarceration and if that’s something that makes private prisons a bad investment, that’s important,” Takei added. He said that if investment firms chose to divest for ethical reasons, it is “an important first step,” but that “the financial reasons justification would be huge.”

Studies have found that private prisons spend millions on lobbying to send more people to jail for longer periods of time. The facilities are often rife with abuse and neglect, too; accusations against the companies range from wrongful death to bad sanitation and even forcing a woman to give birth in a toilet. They do no favors for states that support them, either; Idaho was one of the places that ended its contract with CCA after the company handed over a $1 million settlement for falsifying staff hours and leaving mandatory monitoring spots unattended.

Californians like Common Core education, finance overhaul

Two major changes in California's public education system - adoption of "Common Core" academic standards and giving extra money to school districts with large numbers of poor and/or English learner students - seem to have gained favor with the state's residents.

A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California tested the two changes now underway, along with a number of other education-related issues.

The poll found that 69 percent of adults support the Common Score approach to teaching, a system that's being adopted by a majority of the states as a way of ensuring that students leave public schools with skills in a variety of areas.

The change has been controversial, especially in other states, with those on the political right complaining that it will lead to federal control of school curricula. The concept was promoted by a bipartisan coalition of governors to replace the state-by-state determinations of what should be taught, how instruction should be given and how academic progress should be assessed.

The PPIC survey found that support was over 50 percent among all political subgroups but Democratic support was highest at 72 percent, while that among Republicans was 60 percent and among independents, 61 percent.

The change in school financing was championed by Gov. Jerry Brown on the theory that poor students and those not fluent in English need special attention to close what educators have called the "achievement gap."

The state Board of Education is finalizing regulations on how the Local Control Funding Formula is to be implemented, and there has been some criticism of the regulations that they leave too much discretion in the hands of local school officials. But Brown, citing the principle of "subsidiarity," has endorsed local discretion.

The PPIC poll found that 53 percent of all adults, and 57 percent of parents of public school students, are confident that the money will be spent wisely, and higher numbers, 68 percent and 71 percent respectively, believe the extra money will improve academic performance by the targeted kids.

The poll also tested support for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg's push for universal pre-kindergarten, which would cost about $1 billion a year when fully implemented, and, like other polls, found very strong support for the concept - 73 percent among all adults and 80 percent among students' parents.

About 40 percent of adults surveyed were aware that California ranks below average on per-pupil school spending and 46 know that it's also below average in academic test scores.


PHOTO: At right, Maiya Miller, 8, hugs Principal Shana Henry on the first day of school at Pacific Elementary school in Sacramento on September 3, 2013. The Sacramento Bee/Renee C. Byer

via: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/californians-like-common-core-education-finance-overhaul.html

California voter registration: ‘No party preference’ increase, Republican decrease

A voter fills out her ballot during early voting before the 2012 presidential election at the Gila County Recorder's Office in Globe, Ariz., on Oct. 26. Voter registration data published by Secretary of State Debra Bowen Tuesday show 17,660,486 Californians are registered to vote and of that number more are registered as “no party preference” compared to the last gubernatorial primary.; Credit: Joshua Lott/Reuters/Landov

Voter registration data published by Secretary of State Debra Bowen Tuesday show 17,660,486 Californians are registered to vote and of that number more are registered as “no party preference” compared to the last gubernatorial primary.

No party preference voters comprised 21.06 percent of the state’s total registered voters, a slight increase from 20.1 percent in April 2010.

Republican voter registration in California also had a notable change, from 30.8 percent of the total in 2010 to 28.5 percent.

The voter data is included in a 60-day report of registration, which reflects data across California’s 58 counties gathered 60 days before the June 3 statewide primary election.
Alpine, the California county with the smallest amount of eligible voters—881—had the highest voter registration, with 86.7 percent of the eligible voter population.

Tulare County had the lowest voter registration, with almost 53 percent of its 255, 378 eligible voters registered.

Of the eligible voters in Los Angeles County, the largest county in the state, 80.1 percent of them were registered to vote, according to the data.


“The clock is ticking and the May 19 voter registration deadline will be here before you know it,” said Secretary Bowen, the state’s chief elections officer, in a statement. “If you aren’t one of the 17.7 million Californians already registered to vote, take five minutes at the newly designed RegisterToVote.ca.gov which is now offered in 10 languages.”

via: http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/04/22/43693/california-voter-registration-no-party-preference/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+893KpccSouthernCaliforniaNews-Politics%2FpublicAffairs+%28KPCC%3A+Politics+News%29

Bids to shorten prison terms get bipartisan support (and opposition)

WASHINGTON — For decades the Republican Party prided itself for being tough on crime, often putting Democrats on the defensive by pushing for longer, mandatory sentences for convicts.

In 1988, that hard-line stance helped sink the presidential dreams of then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, who was blamed in Republican TV ads for having released convicted killer Willie Horton as part of a weekend furlough program. (Horton failed to return after a furlough and went on to commit robbery and rape.)

But now, as the U.S. Senate prepares to take up the most far-reaching changes in years to federal sentencing and parole guidelines, some conservative Republicans are flipping sides, driven by concerns about the rising cost of caring for prisoners and calls for compassion from conservative religious groups seeking to rehabilitate convicts.

A surprising number of high-profile Republicans are working arm in arm with Democrats on legislation to shorten jail terms and hasten prisoner releases. At the same time, in their own reversal of sorts, key Democrats are arguing against the legislation in its current form.

"It's a little counterintuitive," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a conservative former judge who is co-sponsoring a proposal to let tens of thousands of inmates out of federal prisons early if they complete rehabilitation programs.

Though prison sentencing was once a clear divide between the parties, politics around the issue have shifted in recent years, blurring old lines, he said. "This is one of those subjects there isn't any clear partisan divide on," Cornyn said in an interview.

Now that the drug-fueled crime wave that began in the 1960s and lasted through the early 1980s has abated, public opinion polls indicate that crime ranks well below the economy and other issues on the public's list of concerns.

But mandatory-minimum prison sentences and other tough-on-crime measures passed during that era have led to a surge in prison populations in state and federal facilities, causing costs to skyrocket. There has been an 800% increase in the federal prison population in the last 30 years, gobbling up a third of the Justice Department budget.

As a result of the growth, deficit hawks in the Republican Party began to rethink the issue. Nearly a third of the states, led by conservative Texas, have passed reforms to relax their sentencing laws in the past several years.

"Republican governors are seeing that they have to do something about corrections costs," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in an interview.

At the same time, evangelical Christians, partly led by the prison ministries set up by Watergate felon Chuck Colson, are helping to make the once-discredited goal of prisoner rehabilitation popular with the religious right.

"The 'lock them up and throw the key far away from you'" philosophy of old has gotten politically stale, Whitehouse said.

As soon as this month, the Senate is expected to take up legislation that combines two bills that easily passed the Judiciary Committee. One cuts in half mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, and the other makes it easier to win early release. The combined measure would also make retroactive a 2010 law that reduced sentences for those previously convicted of possessing crack cocaine.

The legislation has attracted strong support from Republican conservatives such as Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas. "I think it's a mistake for people to assume that all conservatives or all Republicans have the same view in this regard, that we should kill them all and let God sort it out," said Paul Larkin, a criminal justice expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

Sentencing nonviolent offenders to decades in prison is "costly, not only in dollars but also the people involved," Larkin said. "Sending someone to prison for a long time is tantamount to throwing that person away."

But the new politics of crime remain complicated, with some old-line Republicans still opposed to the proposals. "Do we really want offenders like these out on the streets earlier than is the case now, to prey on our citizens?" Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley said in a recent Senate speech, referring to the bill to ease mandatory-minimum sentences. Grassley, however, supports the early-release proposal.

In a twist, some key Democrats are also opposed to the efforts to relax mandatory minimums and allow early releases, while others remain on the fence. Facing a Republican campaign to seize control of the Senate this fall, Democrats are concerned about appearing soft on crime, a vulnerability that has haunted them in the past.

At least five Senate Democrats are fighting for their political lives in November, and proponents of the measures are not sure how many of them might vote against the bills, possibly jeopardizing passage.

"The ghost of Willie Horton has loomed over any conversation about sentencing reform for over 30 years," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), cosponsor with Lee of the mandatory-minimum cuts. Even Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) has voiced concerns about the early releases. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), another senior member, is also opposed to the current proposal. And Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat from New York who for years has cultivated a tough-on-crime profile, is working to diminish some of the reductions in mandatory sentences.

Feinstein objected to the bill because it would allow the early release of prisoners who complete certain rehabilitation programs with no individual assessment of how dangerous a prisoner might be.

But Durbin predicted that changes to his bill currently being negotiated with Schumer and Republicans would lead to passage of the package in the Senate.

Legislation to make some of the same changes has also been introduced on a bipartisan basis in the House. But House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.) has so far taken a go-slow approach, using a task force — which he said will continue to meet for months — to examine the issues.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sentencing-politics-20140421,0,1398195.story#ixzz2zXuJHn6C

Jerry Brown pushes his plan for state reserve fund

SACRAMENTO — Raising the stakes in his campaign to strengthen California's finances, Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday called a special session of the state Legislature for next week to consider a new plan to save money and pay off state debt, an election-year pitch that he must make to lawmakers without the benefit of a Democratic supermajority.

Brown's proposal is aimed at cushioning the state against recessions and calming its turbulent fiscal waters. It would require Sacramento to capture spikes in revenue and either save the money to prevent budget cuts during a downturn or pay off debt and cover long-term liabilities such as public pensions.

"We simply must prevent the massive deficits of the last decade, and we can only do that by paying down our debts and creating a solid rainy-day fund," Brown said in a statement.

California voters approved the creation of a rainy-day fund in 2004, but it has mostly sat empty amid persistent budget crises.

Brown's move forces lawmakers to address the issue more publicly while burnishing his own credentials as a financial steward for California. It is also his first major test of the new political landscape in the Legislature, where multiple criminal investigations have cost Democrats their two-thirds majority in the state Senate.

The governor needs some GOP support for his measure because it is a constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds vote for passage, and Democrats are now shy of that threshold. If the proposal passes, it would go before voters inNovember.

Republicans have wanted a rainy-day fund that functions differently from the one Brown proposes, and the governor risks a political black eye if they don't go along. But the special session offers Republicans a way to collaborate across the aisle on an issue likely to have broad public appeal.

"There's a huge opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate they are willing to join us in the interest of long-term stability for this state," Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) said in an interview.

The special session convenes April 24, concurrent with the legislative session already under way.

The GOP plan for new reserve-fund rules, which passed with bipartisan support during a 2010 budget standoff, includes spending restrictions that Democrats find objectionable.

That measure is already scheduled for the November ballot. Brown's plan would replace it.

The leader of the Assembly's Republicans, Connie Conway of Tulare, warned that the GOP would be wary of any plan that does not sufficiently limit lawmakers' ability to dip into reserves.

"Republicans will oppose any effort to replace the strict proposal that is already before the voters with a faux rainy-day fund scheme," Conway said in a statement.

Still, there are signs that Republicans are willing to work with the governor.

Assemblyman Jeff Gorell (R-Camarillo), the top Republican on the Assembly budget committee, said in a statement that "changing circumstances require a new look at the measure." He added: "Although the devil is in the details, the conversation is going in the right direction."

Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar), whose caucus members Brown will need to win over for his plan to be successful, also praised the governor's interest in the issue.

"It's just common sense for California to put away money during the 'boom' years to avoid future tax increases and spending reductions in the 'bust' years," he said in a statement. 

"However, we are mindful that legislative Democrats have undermined similar efforts in the recent past."

It's possible that Brown could face a challenge from his own Democratic Party. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said there was no need for lawmakers to pass a new reserve plan until later in the year.

"Constitutional Amendments must be done right, not rushed," he said in a post on Twitter.

Brown's proposal would create a new budget mechanism that kicks in when there is disproportionately high revenue from capital gains taxes, which can rise and fall sharply with the stock market. The governor and Legislature could then choose whether to save the extra money in the reserve fund or use it to chip away at long-term costs such as public pensions and maintenance projects.

"Both of them are absolutely critical to the state's future," said Brown's finance director, Michael Cohen. "But how you balance them in a particular year is really what elected officials are elected to do."

The fund could grow to 10% of general-fund spending under Brown's plan and would be accessible to lawmakers only after the governor declared a financial emergency.

Brown's latest budget proposal includes $1.6 billion for the reserve fund and $1.6 billion to pay off bonds used to balance the budget during the recession.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-brown-legislature-20140417,0,5769485.story#ixzz2zGKAPAT7

Document: More San Bernardino County jail deputies under investigation for alleged inmate abuse

SAN BERNARDINO >> In addition to four sheriff’s deputies who already have lost their jobs at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, the FBI and sheriff officials are investigating several other deputies in the San Bernardino County jail system for alleged inmate abuse, according to a document obtained Saturday by this newspaper.

The document, consisting of minutes from an internal Sheriff’s Department staff meeting distributed Wednesday, revealed that one employee had resigned, two or three were going to be terminated as a result of an FBI investigation, and several other deputies were still under investigation.

The FBI is investigating possible civil-rights violations of inmates at the center in March, FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said Friday.

She said the case will ultimately be submitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles for consideration of criminal charges.

As of Thursday, four deputies assigned to West Valley Detention Center were no longer employed by the department, but according to the document, several more employees also may be terminated, pending the outcome of the investigation by the FBI and Sheriff’s Department.

Sheriff’s spokesman Randy Naquin said Saturday he couldn’t comment due to the nature of the investigation.

“The Sheriff commended the fine work 99 percent of our employees are doing,” according to the document.

On Saturday, sheriff’s officials declined to comment on allegations of misconduct at the other county jails.

“What was indicated in the press release is all the information we have,” Naquin said. “We currently have no information about incidents occurring at any other facility.”

Sheriff John McMahon ordered an administrative investigation after allegations surfaced March 5 about the possible abuse of inmates at the Rancho Cucamonga jail, according to a sheriff’s news release on Friday.

“I will not tolerate any misconduct by department personnel,” McMahon said in a statement. “These allegations are being taken very seriously and this department is determined to get answers.”

The news comes in the wake of a jail abuse scandal in Los Angeles County in which 18 current or former sheriff’s deputies have been accused of abusing inmates at the Men’s Central Jail.

U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. said the alleged incidents did “not occur in a vacuum” and that the pattern of behavior of which the defendants are accused had become “institutionalized.”

via: http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20140412/document-more-san-bernardino-county-jail-deputies-under-investigation-for-alleged-inmate-abuse

Steinberg plan would dedicate California cap-and-trade dollars to housing, transit

In an effort to more closely manage how California spends revenue from its fledgling cap-and-trade program, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, on Monday unveiled a plan to dedicate ongoing money to affordable housing, mass transit and high-speed rail.

"National and international experts say that the climate problem grows worse, that we have no time to sit back and wait and think about an investment strategy year-to-year or just short-term. Now is the time to grab the moment and create these permanent sources," Steinberg said, adding that his plan would avoid an annual legislative fight over "who's in the front of the line, where is the need seemingly the greatest."

The proposal differs from Steinberg's previous proposal to change the state's system for curtailing carbon emissions. That plan, which the Democratic leader unveiled in February, would have imposed a gasoline tax rather than have industry purchase allowances for greenhouse gases emitted from "non-stationary fuels," a category that includes gas sold at the pump.

Now Steinberg has abandoned that change, shifting his attention from how California prices greenhouse gases to how the state allows levies on carbon emitters to be used. His new plan focuses on funding affordable housing, public transportation projects and the state's divisive high-speed rail project.

The gas tax plan was hit from the left and right. On Monday, by contrast, Steinberg spoke amid a phalanx of backers, including groups representing local government, (the League of California Cities) labor (the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California) and environmental (the Natural Resources Defense Council.)

"We stoked a debate a couple months ago, and a lot of consternation and controversy, and I understand it. But now many of us stand together," Steinberg said.

Under AB 32, the 2006 law that created California's cap-and-trade program, industry must purchase permits for generating the type of emissions blamed for global climate change. After six auctions, the program has generated $663 million for the state so far, according to the California Air Resources Board. Steinberg's office projects the permits could soon bring in $3 billion to $5 billion a year.
Current law dictates that the revenue will flow into a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. From there, entities like local governments and transit systems can apply for some of the proceeds by explaining how they will use the money to reduce overall emissions. One quarter of the money must go to disadvantaged communities, an acknowledgment that some of California's poorest places are choking on poor air quality.

Housing and public transportation sit at the center of Steinberg's proposal. Forty percent of the cap-and-trade revenue would go to affordable housing, including communities built around transit options; 30 percent would subsidize transit projects and 10 percent would fund basic transportation infrastructure like road and highway maintenance, with all three administered through competitive grants.

"Permanent sources of funding for mass transit and affordable housing are key if we are committed to long-term change," Steinberg said on Monday, noting that the two areas "face a catastrophic funding crisis in California" after years of cutbacks.
In addition to those outlays, $200 million a year would go to water efficiency projects, to fuel-related outlays that include rebates on monthly fuel bills, and to accommodating the use of electric vehicles.
California's proposed bullet train would get 20 percent of the money, channeled through a continuous appropriation that would not require year-to-year approval by the Legislature.

Already, Gov. Jerry Brown's has stirred controversy by proposing in his budget for this year spending $250 million from emissions permit sales to fund his financially precarious high-speed rail project, whose funding plan faces legal uncertainty. Some environmentalists have called high-speed rail an inappropriate use of the carbon auction funds.

But Steinberg's blueprint embraces high-speed rail as a tool for reducing emissions — provided, Steinberg said, it is one element of a larger strategy.

"I understand that high-speed rail is controversial," Steinberg said. "If it were the only thing that we were talking about or the only thing on the table I think that would be problematic. I think this is a better approach."

PHOTO: The union oil company refinery in Rodeo, Tuesday, December 17, 2002. The Sacramento Bee Michael A. Jones.

Inland Empire has greatest need for community college expansion, report says

A California budget proposal to increase community college enrollment with an emphasis on the neediest districts should focus on the Inland Empire, the Central Valley and Los Angeles,according to California Competes.

A new report from the Oakland-based higher education policy institute argues that these regions should receive the vast majority of a proposed $155.2 million in new funding for enrollment growth next year, which Gov. Jerry Brown has prioritized for districts with "the greatest unmet need in adequately serving their community's higher educational needs."

The report examined factors such as the number of adults without a college degree, unemployment ratesand levels of poverty in a community college district to determine where California had the greatest number of underserved students that could benefit from furthering their education.

It concluded that, of an estimated 40,000 classroom seats the new funding would support, nearly 15,000 should be created in the Inland Empire, with about 10,500 in the Central Valley and more than 9,000 in Los Angeles. The report also suggested about 2,300 new seats in greater Sacramento.

"There are definitely areas in the state where enrolling the needy population is not easy," California Competes executive director Robert Shireman said on a conference call.

Community colleges must figure out what additional programs and courses would attract and most benefit those students, he added. "Those decisions determine whether a needy student is really served and whether they are served well."

The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office condemned the report's conclusions, saying it would deny community college access in other parts of the state.

"California community colleges were forced to turn away 500,000 students from every corner of the state during the economic downturn," spokesman Paul Feist said in a statement. "To continue rationing education in some parts of the state but not others would not be equitable and would harm California's ability to increase the number of college educated workers that our economy is demanding."

PHOTO: Eduardo Ramos, center, has his photo id picture taken on the first day of school at Los Rios Community College District expansion in Elk Grove on August 26, 2013. The Sacramento Bee/Hector Amezcua

via: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/inland-empire-has-greatest-need-for-community-college-expansion-report-says.html

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/inland-empire-has-greatest-need-for-community-college-expansion-report-says.html#storylink=cpy

Judges appoint prison population oversight chief

A panel of three federal judges on Wednesday appointed Elwood Lui, a former associate justice of the California Court of Appeal, as the “compliance officer” empowered to begin releasing state prison inmates if California fails to meet court ordered deadlines to reduce its prisoner population.

Lui was one of two candidates for the position suggested by lawyers representing the state. He has agreed to serve without compensation but to have reasonable expenses reimbursed, according to the order from the panel issued Wednesday afternoon.

The compliance officer position was created through a Feb. 10 order by the court, which comprises 9th U.S. Circuit Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the San Francisco-based Northern District of California and Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of the Sacramento-based Eastern District of California.

The judges originally ordered California in 2009 to cut its inmate population to 137.5 percent of capacity, but appeals delayed that and resulted in the Feb. 10 order giving the state two more years to comply.

The February order also gave the compliance officer authority to release the necessary number of inmates to ensure that California meets the court-ordered deadlines.

The compliance officer now has the authority to release inmates if the prison population is not cut to 143 percent of capacity by June 30 (or 116,651 inmates); to 141.5 percent by Feb. 28, 2015 (115,427 inmates); and to 137.5 percent a year after that (112,164 inmates).

Last month, the state told the court that its prison population is about 502 inmates above the June 30 benchmark. The state indicated that it expected to get below the 143 percent mark before the deadline by using some contract prison cells.

Attorneys for the state and the inmates met and tried to agree on who should be appointed to the position, but their talks failed and both sides filed documents with the three-judge court on March 12 suggesting candidates for the position.

The state recommended two candidates: Lui and Curtis J. Hill, a former San Benito County sheriff.

Attorneys for the inmates recommended the appointment of Wendy Still, a Roseville resident who is the chief adult probation officer for the city and county of San Francisco, or Starr Babcock, the former general counsel for the State Bar of California.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/09/6311041/judges-appoint-prison-population.html#storylink=cpy

California still holds 4th place in state-local tax burdens

Californians carried the nation's fourth highest state and local tax burden in 2011, the Tax Foundation says in a new report, largely because its personal incomes are markedly lower than those of other high-tax states.

The Washington-based Tax Foundation annually calculates state and local tax burdens as a percentage of personal incomes and California has traditionally been in the top tier. But the data are always several years old and 2011 was the last year before a temporary, voter-approved increase in sales and personal income taxes went into effect. Therefore, the 2012 rankings a year from now could push California higher.

For 2011, the Tax Foundation calculated that California's tax burden was 11.4 percent of its average per capita income of $45,354, or $5,136. New York was the highest at 12.6 percent, followed by New Jersey at 12.3 percent and Connecticut at 11.9 percent. Wyoming residents had the lowest tax burden, 6.9 percent, and the national average was 9.8 percent.

One reason for California's high rank was that while its per capita tax burden was, indeed, relatively high, its per capita personal income was only slightly above the national average of $42,473, while other high-tax states also had markedly higher incomes.

Connecticut had the highest per capita income at $60,287 while California's was 15th highest. Texas, with which California is often compared, had the nation's fourth lowest tax burden of 7.5 percent of personal income which, at $41,269 per capita, was 23rd highest.

New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have occupied the top three places for a number of years. California was fourth in 2010 and fifth in 2009.

The state's 2011 tax burden of 11.4 percent was slightly lower than 2010's percentage but has been fairly consistent for decades, ranging from a high of 12 percent in 1977 to a low of 10.4 percent in 2005.

In 2012, voters approved a fractional increase in the state sales tax and a sharp boost income taxes on the state's highest-income families, raising about $6 billion more a year temporarily to balance the state's budget.

With Californians' personal income totaling about $1.7 trillion a year and state and local taxes approximating $200 billion, that would add perhaps a third of a percentage point to the overall burden. And it means California could challenge Connecticut for third place — especially if a spate of recent local sales tax increases continues.

PHOTO: Yolanda Odell of Sacramento dances to get the attention of last minute tax filers on the corner of Truxel Road and W. El Camino Ave. for Liberty Tax Service in 2011. The Sacramento Bee/Renee C. Byer 

Affirmative action non-action still causing waves in Sacramento

SACRAMENTO — When the state Senate took up the issue of affirmative action in late January, it was a relatively tepid affair. 

After 20 minutes of polite debate, senators passed a measure that, if approved by voters, would overturn California's ban on affirmative action in public higher education.

But within weeks, the debate turned fractious. Backlash arose among some Asian Americans who feared their children could lose access to the state's universities if more places were granted to students from other minority groups.

The measure is now shelved, derailed by the sudden opposition and the majority Democrats' slow-footed defense of it.

But political ramifications remain.

The controversy has caused unusual friction among the Capitol's ruling Democrats as lawmakers differ over how to control the fallout. Several legislators cited hard feelings among the party's Latinos, African Americans and Asian Americans.

State Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, said she had "deep concerns" about how some of her colleagues backed off the legislation.

The Democrats, who passed the proposal on party lines, are now trying to redirect a debate that threatens their "big tent" of ethnic and racial alliances. Republicans, sensing an inroad to an increasingly powerful group of voters, are keeping the spotlight on the issue.

The debate is rooted in a law voters passed in 1996 that forbids the state to consider race, ethnicity or gender in hiring, contracting or admissions to public institutions of higher education.

A 2003 report by the University of California found that implementing race-neutral admissions policies led to a "substantial decline" in the proportion of black, Latino and American Indian students entering the system's most selective institutions.

David A. Lehrer, president of Community Advocates, a Los Angeles public affairs group that opposes affirmative action, said that if admissions are meant to more closely reflect the state's demographics, Asian Americans are the one group that is "obviously disproportionately represented."

Asians make up 14% of California's population, according to 2012 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Last year, Asian Americans were 30% of the University of California's total enrollment, although supporters of affirmative action say the proportion of Asian American students increased by only a few points after the race-neutral admissions policy took effect.

News of the proposal to reinstate affirmative action spread mostly among the Chinese community through social networking sites such as WeChat, a Chinese version of Facebook.

An online group called the 80-20 Initiative, run by S.B. Woo, a former Democratic lieutenant governor of Delaware who now has no party affiliation, was particularly adept at harnessing its email list to exert pressure on Asian American lawmakers.

It worked. Three Chinese American senators — Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and Sen. Carol Liu (D-La Cañada Flintridge) — who had voted for the measure sent a public letter to its author, Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), urging him to delay it to ensure that Asian Americans' concerns were heard.

In the Assembly, several lawmakers, such as Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), said they'd oppose the proposal in its existing form, sinking its prospects.

Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), chairman of the Latino caucus, said he was "disheartened" by that response.

But within weeks, Hernandez — who said his Facebook page had attracted so much invective about the hot-button issue that he had to shut it down — withdrew his measure.

In the past, he had introduced a number of proposals to roll back the anti-affirmative-action law, none of which were enacted. He said he had never heard objections from Asian Americans worried that they would be harmed.

"I hadn't thought that would be a constituency that would have a concern," Hernandez said.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-affirmative-action-20140331,0,2270777.story#ixzz2yLJdoie6

Dianne Feinstein recasts California water bill

In a move designed to lure Republican support, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced a revised California water bill that could move lawmakers closer to meaningful negotiation.

The new bill drops spending proposals that had been included in the original California water bill introduced by Feinstein and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer on Feb. 11. The $300 million in spending, in turn, had stuck in the craw of some Senate Republicans.

"It was a problem on the Republican side," Feinstein acknowledged at a Senate subcommittee hearing Wednesday.

By cutting the bill's costs, and tweaking other elements, Feinstein hopes the bill reintroduced this week can secure the 60 Senate votes needed to avoid going through the standard committee review.

Speedier Senate consideration under what's called Rule 14, in turn, is designed to pass something that can form the basis of a compromise with a far different California water bill passed in early February by the Republican-controlled House.

The redrawn Senate bill mandates that federal agencies operate California water projects with "maximum flexibility" to boost irrigation deliveries, among other provisions. It also takes a number of technical steps, some going beyond California, but unlike the House bill it does not specifically authorize big new water projects and it leaves intact the current San Joaquin River restoration program.

PHOTO: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., left, talks with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013.Associated Press/ Evan Vucci.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/feinstein-recasts-california-water-bill.html#storylink=cpy