topnav

Home Issues & Campaigns Agency Members Community News Contact Us

Community News

Open dialogue among community members is an important part of successful advocacy. Take Action California believes that the more information and discussion we have about what's important to us, the more empowered we all are to make change.

Monday, June 30, 2014

Bill again boosting California minimum wage fails

With multiple Democrats not voting, a California Assembly panel on Wednesday rejected a bill that would raise the state's minimum wage beyond the boost agreed to in 2013.
Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, repeated the arguments that last year drove lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown to approve a bill boosting California's minimum wage to $10 a hour by 2016.

Leno's Senate Bill 935 would build on that, pushing the baseline to $13 an hour in 2017 and then allowing the wage to rise along with the cost of living thereafter.

"If we don't support this bill the outstanding question remains: What are we as the state of California going to do about paying poverty wages?" said Leno, who has called last year's legislation inadequate. "The phenomenon of income inequality and wealth inequality only continues to grow."

Business groups warned that Leno's bill could unhinge a faltering economic recovery and asked lawmakers to wait for last year's legislation to take effect. The hike included in 2013's Assembly Bill 10 kicks in on July 1, raising the minimum wage from $8 to $9.

"It is too much, too soon given that AB 10 is just going into effect next week, and we should allow that bill to implement," said Jennifer Barrera, a lobbyist for the California Chamber of Commerce.

That argument resonated with some Democrats on the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee. Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, the author of last year's minimum wage hike, said Leno's bill would mean reneging on agreements Alejo had made with business interests to not include a cost-of-living adjustment.

"The ink hasn't even dried on AB 10," Alejo said. "You've got to keep your word."
One vote separated the bill from passage. The final tally was 3-2 ( it needed four votes to move on), with Alejo and Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, not voting.

Editor's note: This post was updated at 4:19 p.m. to include the vote total and the fact that the bill was in the Assembly.

PHOTO: Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco during session in the Senate chambers in Sacramento, Calif. on Monday, March 11, 2013. The Sacramento Bee/Hector Amezcua.
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/bill-again-boosting-california-minimum-wage-fails.html#storylink=cpy

Saturday, June 28, 2014

How the ACA Can Revolutionize Inmate Healthcare

On May 1, Juan Martinez went to his fourth follow-up appointment since being diagnosed with hepatitis C (HCV) a little over a year ago. Martinez, whose name has been changed to protect his identity, doesn’t know how long he had the virus before his diagnosis. HCV often remains asymptomatic until its late stages, and it had been many years since he had last seen a doctor. The virus was discovered during intake at Hampden County Correctional Center, a jail in western Massachusetts, where he has been an inmate since April 2013.
Martinez looked much older than his 57 years. Wearing a green jumpsuit and government-issued sneakers, he sat as one of the jail’s doctors, Thomas Lincoln, asked him if anything had changed since the last time they saw each other. “I put on weight,” Martinez said in a raspy voice. “You told me to!” They both laugh.
Lincoln looked over Martinez’s file and glanced at a flat screen monitor displaying an electronic version. “You’ll be out in August?” he asked. Martinez nodded. “That’s about time we’ll need to check your blood again.”
Martinez is one of ten million people who enter the local jail system each year in the United States. In contrast to prisons, jails are used to detain people for short-term sentences and low-level offenses, or while awaiting trial for a more serious charge. The average stay in jail is three months and 96 percent of inmates return directly back to their community. Of the more than 1,400 inmates at Hampden, where Martinez was detained, somewhere between 20 and 30 percent carry the HCV virus. Many, like Martinez, are first diagnosed in jail.
As the US incarceration rate has skyrocketed over the last forty years, many healthcare professionals have come to recognize that jails offer an opportunity to identify and treat people who might not otherwise seek or have access to healthcare. “With more than 2.2 million men and women and children behind bars, the health of prisoners and jail detainees and the health of the public is becoming blurred,” says Gabriel Eber, staff counsel at the ACLU’s National Prison Project.
Jail inmates are disproportionately male, people of color and poor. This population suffers from higher rates of many health problems, including chronic and infectious disease, injuries, mental illness and substance abuse. And people are often at their sickest when detained. Eighty percent of detained individuals with a chronic medical condition have not received treatment in the community prior to arrest. “It’s like an emergency room,” says Ben Butler of Community Oriented Correctional Health Services (COCHS), a nonprofit promoting healthcare connectivity between jails and communities, of jail intake. In effect, jails have become the frontline for health problems that plague underserved communities in America.
Exacerbating the problem, once in jail, what treatment happens there stays there. Health records are hard to transfer in and out, leaving patients who have received care prior to arriving in jail with siloed histories, creating inefficient, costly and potentially inconsistent treatment. There is little protocol mandating follow-up care once someone is released—in fact, according to a recent study by The Journal of Urban Health, nationwide only 10 percent of people who qualify for assistance with arranging mental or physical health treatment when they re-enter their community actually receive it.
For twenty-two years, Hampden County’s innovative, collaborative healthcare model has allowed them to combat these problems. The jail, which serves Springfield, Massachusetts, the fourth largest metropolitan area in New England, has made patient care literally continuous: doctors from local public clinics also work several shifts a week in the jail, following patients and meeting new ones. For example, Thomas Lincoln, the director of the program, is an employee of the nearby Brightwood Health Center. He splits his time between there and Hampden. Three other local clinics, covering zip codes in which 75 percent of inmates are from, send doctors into the jail on regular shifts in a similar arrangement—most work one or two half-days a week.
The Hampden County model was conceived of during the AIDS epidemic. When the antiretroviral drug AZT was put on the market in the late 1980s, Lincoln and his colleagues struggled to ensure continuous treatment for HIV-positive people in Springfield. A disproportionately high number of HIV-positive people were frequently in jail, and so, frustrated by being left in the dark about their incarcerated patients’ treatment and progress, the doctors came up with a straightforward solution in a system typically defined by red tape and bureaucracy: they would move part of their practice to the jail.
A key to the program’s success was—and continues to be—the support of Hampden County’s Sheriff Michael Ashe, who began his career as a social worker and is known in the field to be a leader of progressive reform. The healthcare collaboration fit well with the larger model of corrections he was building, which focused on rehabilitation in jail and partnering with community organizations to facilitate inmate’s transition back into the community. “How can you really be dealing with remedial education or job training when you’re dealing with health issues, or substance abuse issues, or mental illness?” Ashe asks. Soon Hampden’s collaborative health program was expanded to include three other community health clinics and to cover all patients, not just those with HIV.
Today, upwards of 90 percent of the HIV patients from Hampden County Jail have follow-up appointments within thirty days of being released. Fifty-five percent of those with less severe medical problems see a provider within thirty days of release, as do 61 percent of those with mental health issues. These numbers should be understood in the context of the chaotic and unpredictable nature of jail release. Half of the inmates at Hampden County Jail are released pretrial—after bail is posted, when charges are dropped, straight from a court hearing and so on—which means that release happens without warning. Many other jails have even higher rates of pretrial release.
Numbers from Hampden County suggest that the program may also be helping to lower incarceration rates. Healthy people are less likely to end up back in jail. The county’s recidivism rates are among the nation’s lowest, and the rate of recidivism within three years of release—a common benchmark of success—has dropped by over 10 percent since the jail’s health system was reformed.
Other localities are taking notice. Programs based on this model have been successfully implemented in Washington DC and Marion County, Florida.
In most communities around the country, however, a chasm between jail health centers and healthcare on the outside persists. While not all jurisdictions have a sheriff with a Masters in social work, or a clinic with doctors who are willing or able to split their time between their hospitals and jails, the Affordable Care Act provides a unique opportunity to address this problem. Prior to the ACA, some 90 percent of those released from prison or jail each year were uninsured. Their primary medical treatment facility outside of prison or jail tended to be the ER. However, with the ACA’s Medicaid expansion in full swing in twenty-six states and Washington DC, 5.3 million people who are or have been incarcerated are newly eligible for Medicaid. The opportunity for continuity in treatment is palpable, and across the country, a movement is brewing among forward-looking jail administrators and healthcare providers to bridge this gap.
The first step in expanding continuous care models like Hampden’s is to get people enrolled in health insurance. Because it is in Massachusetts, which has had a healthcare mandate since 2006, Hampden County is ahead of the curve on this front: 65 percent of inmates are covered by MassHealth, up from 35 percent in 2011. Elsewhere in the country, in states that have less progressive healthcare laws and less experience with the influx of expansion enrollment—that is, every other state—the influx of poor single adults who can be covered by the Medicaid expansion has proven to be an enrollment challenge. According to research by The Urban Institute, as of February many uninsured adults were not aware of the Affordable Care Act’s coverage provisions. Outreach and education is needed to ensure that the newly eligible know what they’re qualified for and how to apply. At Cook County jail in Chicago, jail intake now includes starting the application process for health insurance. “Who is eligible for the Affordable Care Act very much mirrors the population you have in the county jail: low income, single adults. There was a lot of synergy there,” says Dr. John Jay Shannon, interim CEO of Cook County Illinois’s Health and Hospitals System (CCHHS)Similar programs are running in San Francisco, Louisville, and Portland, among other jail systems.
Part of providing continuous care is, of course, providing quality care in the first place, and many jails do not. “Whether it’s resources, whether it’s facilities, whether it’s staff, whether it’s training, we find all too frequently that detainees suffer because systems can’t meet their needs,” says Eber of the ACLU. “The inability to meet the health needs of prisoners and detainees is a direct result of the over-reliance on incarceration in this country. If we didn’t have as many people in prisons we wouldn’t have the crisis that we have in healthcare in prisons and jails.” In recent years the ACLU has charged several facilities with failing to do provide adequate care, including a 2012 class-action lawsuit in Arizona. Enrolling inmates in Medicaid would offset some of the costs of providing better care.
The next crucial step in achieving continuous care is connecting people to a provider once they have been released. As with Hampden, the discharge process itself can be chaotic and hard to predict. Nationwide, local jails process 13 million admissions per year, which includes many people with multiple admissions. “We hear stories of people who literally are discharged at two in the morning. It’s very difficult to maintain contact with someone who is cycling in and out of the county jail,” says Steven Glass, executive director of managed care for CCHHS. On average 100,000 inmates cycle through Cook County jail every year; the daily population is 9,000. “It doesn’t mean we can’t solve it, and it doesn’t mean we’re not trying very hard,” he adds.
In an effort to address this problem, some systems are looking to health information technology to track itinerant patients. Like the medical centers in their communities, a growing number of jails have upgraded to electronic medical records. With electronic health records a patient’s comprehensive medical history can be made accessible to doctors both inside jail and out, with the click of a mouse. Upgrading to electronic records is not an easy process in any setting, but it is even more difficult to find record systems that work for the type—and volume—of data that is recorded in jails. “It’s inpatient, it’s outpatient, it’s emergency room, it’s rehab,” explains Ben Butler from COCHS, the nonprofit that works at the nexus of public health and public safety.
Electronic records are only as useful as the number of people who can receive and input data into them. To this end, health information exchanges (HIEs) are of vital importance. HIEs are electronic databases for patient records, which can be accessed by healthcare providers and patients. Under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, every state was awarded money to develop the ability to exchange health information across the healthcare system, both within and across state lines. Some states run their own databases, others partner with private companies to do so—some have been successful, others less so. Today every state has at least one functioning HIE, while several states—New York, Michigan, Texas and Florida—have more than ten, according to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), a non-profit focused on health IT. More does not necessarily mean better. Delaware, for example, has only one database, but is considered among the best in the country because it encompasses so many providers, including not just hospitals but also specialists such as radiologists.
Some jail systems are now working to get onboard their local HIE. A perhaps unexpected leader in this field is Kentucky. The state’s exchange, Kentucky Health Information Exchange (KHIE), is among the most comprehensive in the country. Launched in 2010, KHIE connects many of the state’s largest providers and makes strategic partnerships with national organizations such as HIMSS. One of the state’s largest jails, Fayette County, is in the late stages of fully integrating its record system into the exchange.
Rodney Ballard, Fayette County Jail’s director, says administrators at KHIE were open to working with the jail when he approached them. “I said, well, 24,000 people come through my door every year, 865 people are on medication every day.” Mental health doctors at Fayette see around ninety inmates a day; nurses see 194. “They said, ‘hell we’ve got to get you onboard.’”
There were many technical difficulties along the way—including figuring out how to protect sensitive information collected in jail, such as drug abuse history. “In the past, we’ve not done a very good job in jails and prisons talking to healthcare providers about inmate healthcare,” says Ballard. “For one, they call them patients; we call them inmates. Something as simple as that.” Despite these barriers, they had the jail connected in a matter of months. The jail can now push its data onto the exchange, allowing all of the treatments that inmates receive and medications they start to be accessed by doctors in the community should he or she seek treatment upon release. The jail is now working on also receiving data.
Other city and county jails are in late stages of connecting their health record systems with local HIEs, notably New York City; Camden, New Jersey; Orange County, Florida and Multnomah County, Oregon, according to a recent COCHS paper.
As healthcare providers and correctional institutions increasingly recognize that public health and jail health should be treated as one, it is critical for government funding and regulation to follow. In August 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services published new regulations that made correctional institutions eligible to receive incentive payments for using electronic health records under the “meaningful use” program. These incentives were previously reserved for providers who cared for underserved communities outside of correctional walls. The implementation of meaningful use funds comes in three incremental stages as the provider upgrades their health information technology, with an end goal of the provider being capable of joining a HIE.
Funding aside, according to Ben Butler the most important element for success is having all of the key players engaged and supportive: the jail administrators, HIE administrators, the local government and so on. It is, Butler says, a matter of “opening eyes to the potential.”

Friday, June 27, 2014

Agreement on California business property tax bill blows up

It wasn't exactly a chorus of Kumbaya, but a few weeks ago, two lobbyists who have battled each other for decades over property tax policy sat together at a legislative hearing to praise a compromise bill.

Lenny Goldberg, who represents the California Tax Reform Association, praised the bill, which would alter the circumstances under which commercial property could be reassessed for tax purposes, as a "step forward."

"I get a little nervous sitting here with Rex Hime," Goldberg told the Assembly committee considering Assembly Bill 2372, referring to the president of the California Business Properties Association. "He and I have been at it for many, many years." Hime nodded in agreement.

However, when the bill, having passed the Assembly, reached the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on Wednesday, Goldberg pulled his support, saying in a letter to the measure's author, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, that it "does not provide real reform" and would allow business owners to escape reassessment with "slightly more sophisticated steps."

Under current law, adopted after Proposition 13 passed in 1978, business property is reassessed only when it changes ownership in one transaction. Goldberg and other critics have argued that it allows business deals to be structured in ways that avoid reassessment, mostly by never having more than 50 percent to be changed in any one transaction.

AB 2372, hammered out in weeks of private negotiations, says that property can be revalued for taxation when 90 percent changes ownership in a three-year period. It's backed by many business organizations as a way of staving off a long-threatened ballot measure that would create a complete "split roll" that treats business and residential property differently for tax purposes.

"We supported it as a means of opening up the discussion which we have always sought," Goldberg said in an email after Wednesday's hearing and committee approval, "but not as meaningful reform.

"Our concern is that, like many bills in the legislature, it projects the image of reform, allowing business to say, 'we closed the loopholes,' rather than the substance, since it in effect grandfathers in the thousands of properties which have changed ownership without reassessment."

Goldberg complained in his letter to Ammiano that his bill's change should apply retroactively to previous transactions that met its qualifications for reassessment. He also complained about amendments on the Assembly floor made after the hearing at which he appeared with Hime.

Goldberg's pullback drives a wedge between him and Ammiano, who has also been a long-standing champion of changing tax assessments on business property. Whether the split is fatal will depend on what happens when the bill hits the Senate Appropriations Committee and, perhaps, the Senate floor.

Were it to fail in those two venues, back in the Assembly or at Gov. Jerry Brown's hands, the long-pending issue might, indeed, find its way onto the ballot in a split roll initiative.

In a related action, the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee rejected another business property tax bill, one aimed at making it easier to impose higher parcel taxes on commercial property.

The measure, Senate Bill 1021, would allow local school districts to impose higher parcel taxes on business than it did on residential property. Under current law, parcel taxes must be equal amounts on each parcel regardless of size or value.

SB 1021, carried by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, won Senate approval but faced stiff opposition from theCalifornia Chamber of Commerce, which labeled it a "job killer," and other business groups, leading to rejection in the Assembly committee.

Wolk introduced the bill after a court ruled a differential parcel tax imposed by one school district to be illegal.

PHOTO: Lenny Goldberg is the executive director of the California Tax Reform Association. Photo courtesy of Lenny Goldberg

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/agreement-on-business-property-tax-bill-blows-up.html#storylink=cpy

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

IMMIGRATION: Legality of effort to repeal Prop. 187 is questioned

Some California legislators are poised to repeal Proposition 187, a controversial 20-year-old initiative that was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court and never enforced. But law scholars question whether the elected officials have the legal authority to act on their own.
“The California Constitution says you can’t amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting it to the voters unless there’s a waiver clause,” said Jessica A. Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who specializes on election law.
Prop. 187, which sought to cut off public education, health care and welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants in California, had no such waiver, said John C. Eastman, a Chapman University Law School professor and founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
“These guys are acting lawlessly,” Eastman said. “They’ll do it if they think they can get away with it and no one will challenge them.”
California voters approved Prop. 187 – also known as the “Save our State” campaign – in November 1994 with almost 60 percent approval. A federal court ruled most of the provisions unconstitutional, and the measure was not enforced. But some of the language remains embedded in various codes, including education codes.
Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said he learned of its existence in California codes accidentally. He was recently talking to his staff about his personal history and recounting how he “cut my teeth politically against the 187 campaign.” Chief of Staff Dan Reeves decided to look into the proposition and found it had not been removed.
“These code sections are unenforceable. The Legislature has the right and power and authority to maintain the codes with our statutes and that’s we’re doing,” Reeves said.
“Essentially, it’s code cleaning,” he said.
De Leon’s staff consulted with the state’s legislative counsel, Diane Boyer-Vine, whose opinion was that “it’s not necessary to go back to the voters,” Reeves said.
State Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, said unconstitutional laws should not remain on the books.
“The Constitution is the highest law of our nation, and I support any effort to remove any statute or language found unconstitutional,” he said.
Sen. Mike Morrell, a Rancho Cucamonga Republican who represents parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, said in a statement that he has not yet decided whether to vote for de Leon’s bill.
“I have not yet had a chance to review the specific language of the bill or the legal questions surrounding it,” he said.
Robin Hvidston, executive director of the anti-illegal-immigration We the People Rising and an Upland resident, urged legislators to keep the law in California codes.
“To me, it’s important because this was the direct voice of the people,” she said. “The people’s voice, the people’s will was overruled by the courts.”
She worried that stripping Prop. 187 language from state codes would set a dangerous precedent and lead to other voter initiatives being gutted.
But Maria Rodriguez, an activist with the Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition, said passage of de Leon’s bill would be another signal by the Legislature that California is “an immigrant-friendly state.”

Monday, June 23, 2014

Jerry Brown to sign budget Friday in San Diego

Gov. Jerry Brown will sign the state budget Friday in San Diego, his office announced Thursday, less than a week after both houses of the Legislature approved the spending plan.
Governors have the right to reduce or strike appropriations in budget bills before signing them, but it is unclear what line-item vetoes Brown will make to the $156.4 billion budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1. Last year, the Democratic governor made only a small number of line-item vetoes, totaling about $40 million.

This year's budget plan is a compromise between Brown and Democratic lawmakers. It includes an expansion of child care and preschool for poor children and more money for high-speed rail, Medi-Cal and welfare-to-work. It also puts about $1.6 billion into a special rainy-day account.

Brown will be joined for the budget signing by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. Brown is scheduled to travel to Los Angeles after signing the budget to attend a celebration with Latino lawmakers.

PHOTO: Gov. Jerry Brown signs bills in Sacramento on March 24, 2011 as Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco look on. The Sacramento Bee/Hector Amezcua




Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/jerry-brown-to-sign-budget-friday-in-san-diego.html#storylink=cpy

Friday, June 20, 2014

Optimistic on economy, California lawmakers OK $156.4-billion budget

Flush with optimism from California's resurgent economy, lawmakers approved a $156.4-billion state budget that expands preschool for children from poor families, increases welfare payments and provides critical funding for building the nation's first bullet train.

The state's financial turnaround has allowed the Democratic-led Legislature, with the blessing of Gov. Jerry Brown, to spend more freely just a few years after the recession prompted deep cuts to government services. And if tax receipts outpace expectations, the budget could send even more money to schools, public universities and local governments.

Lawmakers also are addressing more of California's lingering financial problems, stockpiling cash in a rainy-day fund and chipping away at pension costs.

"This is a much brighter day than what we've seen in years past," Senate Budget Chairman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said.

The spending plan — which includes a $108-billion general fund, $7.3 billion larger than last year's — now goes to Brown, who has until the end of the month to sign it. He can still veto items he dislikes.

The budget marks lawmakers' first major effort to combat global warming with revenue from the state cap-and-trade program, which charges fees on polluters when their carbon emissions exceed set limits.

Over the next several years, billions of dollars from those funds could flow to affordable housing, mass transit and environmental programs in a broad effort to get Californians to drive less and consume less energy.

A quarter of the money will be used for building the $68-billion bullet train, a decision that may draw legal challenges from groups that oppose the project and view it as an improper use of cap-and-trade revenue.

Republicans criticized the money for high-speed rail, and Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) called the budget a "missed opportunity."

"You're enacting policies to make California unnecessarily expensive, drive people into poverty and then propose new government programs to subsidize their life in poverty," Huff said.

Long-term costs for public employee retirements and overdue maintenance continue to weigh on state finances, and the budget starts tackling the $74-billion shortfall in the teacher pension fund. Under the plan, schools, teachers and the state will contribute more money to the fund in an attempt to close the gap over the next three decades.

The budget also deposits $1.6 billion into a reserve fund, a down payment on the state's effort to create a cushion for future economic downturns. Voters will have an opportunity in November to approve a constitutional amendment that would set aside money in the fund every year and help pay off the state's debt and long-term costs.

Despite the budget's increasing size, some cuts remain in place. Most notably, doctors who participate in Medi-Cal will continue receiving reduced payments even as hundreds of thousands of new patients enroll in the state's public healthcare program. Brown's resistance to increasing the payments disappointed lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, who fear fewer doctors will agree to care for Medi-Cal patients.

"The Senate wants to do this, the Assembly wants to do this and the governor understands we need to," Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) said. "So we are working as of tomorrow to figure out how soon we can do this. But we have to make sure we can pay for it."

Other programs for California's poor are being boosted. Beginning next April, welfare payments for a family of three in such high-cost counties as Los Angeles would increase to $704 per month, up from $670.

Over the next few years, preschool enrollment is expected to increase by 43,000 4-year-olds from low-income families. There's also more money for subsidized child care.

The budget already had been negotiated among Brown and top Democratic lawmakers before Sunday's vote, tamping down the drama in the Capitol. Still, controversy bubbled over a series of new policy proposals that were included in budget-related bills, sometimes after little public vetting.

For example, Brown has pushed new limits on how much money school districts can keep in their reserve accounts. Administration officials say the schools won't need to stockpile as much cash because the state will have its own rainy-day fund, but angry district officials called the proposal a ploy by the powerful teachers union to make more money available while negotiating contracts.

The California Teachers Assn. spent $4.7 million to help elect Brown in 2010 and donated nearly $290,000 to lawmakers, mostly Democrats, for this year's campaigns.

Lawmakers from both parties criticized the governor for inserting the proposal late in the budget process, but Democrats ensured the bill passed.

Another measure approved by the Legislature would modify California's new rules for granting driver's licenses to immigrants here without documentation, eliminating the requirement for applicants to submit affidavits saying they cannot prove legal residency.

Ronald Coleman, a lobbyist for the California Immigrant Policy Center, said the change would provide "peace of mind" that applying for a license won't increase the risk of deportation for immigrants who are here without those papers.

A separate budget-related bill, also approved Sunday, would remove the ban on drug felons receiving food stamps and welfare payments. Democrats say the measure would help former inmates reintegrate into society, but Republicans were critical.

"In what universe does it make sense to give cash benefit cards to drug users?" Huff said.

More budget bills have yet to be considered by the Legislature. Democrats are angling to pass two new taxes, on fireworks and insurance. The levy on fireworks — 10 cents per pound, to be paid by distributors — is intended to finance the safe destruction of illegal pyrotechnics. The other tax — 15 cents per insurance policy for residential and commercial renters — would fund earthquake research.

via: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pol-state-budget-20140616-story.html

Thursday, June 19, 2014

California soda warning label bill stalls in committee

California lawmakers on Tuesday turned back legislation that would require warning labels on sugary beverages, voicing skepticism about the public health benefits. 

"It's an honorable effort but I feel it's ineffective," said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, who acknowledged that soda manufacturers are prominent job generators in her district. "I think this bill creates as much confusion as it does information. A label which will appear on soda and sports drinks with no labels appearing on chocolate milk, juices or alcoholic beverages sends the wrong message."

Senate Bill 1000 slipped out of the Senate last month with the bare minimum 21 votes needed to advance. Legislators on the Assembly Health Committee halted its progress, with two Democrats voting against the measure and four others abstaining. The measure fell three votes short of the 10 needed to pass.

After trying unsuccessfully in the past to impose a tax on sugar-suffused drinks, Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, this year sought to drain soda consumption by having the drinks bear warning labels. Monning and public health officials backing the legislation called sugary drinks a key culprit in the nation's swollen obesity rate.

"The label is based on the science that says liquid sugar is a unique driver in today's obesity and diabetes epidemics," Monning testified.

Opponents representing the beverage industry argued that Monning's bill unfairly singled out soft drinks. They argued that other factors, including a lack of exercise, genetics and unhealthy diets, contribute in concert to ballooning obesity and diabetes rates.

"This bill would not give consumers meaningful, helpful information," testified John Latimer, a lobbyist representing the California Retailers Association and PepsiCo. "Instead it will disparage many hundreds of beverages that can be safely consumed and responsibly added as part of a healthy diet."

Holding aloft a picture of a thick slice of chocolate cake, Latimer dismissed a soda-labeling policy as inconsistent.

"This beautiful piece of chocolate cake, which can be secured at a restaurant nearby, has 2,700 calories, 150 grams of fat, 55 grams of saturated fat," Latimer said. "And yet it doesn't need a warning label, but a 75 calories beverage does?"

Members who declined to support the bill said they were not convinced that labeling would do enough to influence consumer behavior.

"I've looked for any kind of information that shows that labeling changes peoples' habits," said Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles. "I haven't found one."

Comparisons to the tobacco industry, both overt and implicit, surfaced throughout the debate. Dr. Harold Goldstein of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy wondered, "how bad will it have to get before we begin to tell the truth about these sugary drinks?" Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, was more direct.

"I do remember some of these same arguments and some of the same struggles around labeling of cigarettes," Ammiano said, "and it took a long time to permeate peoples' consciousness."

Critics of the bill rejected those comparisons, saying it is disingenuous to equate soda and smoking.

"Smoking is inherently dangerous," said Bob Achermann, a lobbyist representing a trade group called the California Nevada Soft Drink Association. "Consumption of a sugar-sweetened beverage, or anything else for that matter, is not inherently dangerous."

PHOTO: In this Monday, Feb. 9, 2009 file photo, Pepsi drinks sit on display at JJ&F Market in Palo Alto, Calif. Paul Sakuma/AP Photo.

via: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/california-soda-warning-label-bill-stalls-in-committee.html



Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/california-soda-warning-label-bill-stalls-in-committee.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/california-soda-warning-label-bill-stalls-in-committee.html#storylink=cpy




Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/california-soda-warning-label-bill-stalls-in-committee.html#storylink=cpy

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

New proposal would require climate change warning labels at city gas stations

Berkeley commissioners are working to bring climate change awareness right to the gas pump in a proposal that would place warning labels on fuel nozzles.
The city’s Community Environmental Advisory Commission voted Thursday to move forward with a plan that would mandate such labels to be placed in Berkeley gas stations. The signs would state that gasoline consumption releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.
Max Gomberg, chair of the commission, said the label would be a reminder to customers that the gas in their cars has a direct effect on the environment.
“We already require cigarette packs to include warning labels,” said Matthew Lewis, a UC Berkeley sophomore and co-chair of the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Sustainability, in an email. “Requiring labels at gas pumps would similarly keep the harm of burning gasoline fresh in people’s minds.”
The plan, which was originally proposed about six months ago to the city by environmental advocacy group 350 Bay Area, has generated backlash from the Western States Petroleum Association, an entity representing petroleum-producing companies.
On Wednesday, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the petroleum association, sent a letter to the commission stating that the plan would violate gas station owners’ First Amendment rights. Citing various court cases, she wrote that a governing body cannot compel a business to state information unless doing so would “prevent consumer deception.” Reheis-Boyd also questioned if climate change was a serious threat to California’s resources.
“Though the proposed ordinance calls these messages ‘warnings,’ they are, in reality, forced reproductions of the state’s and city’s policy opinions,” Reheis-Boyd wrote. “But the messages are not ‘purely factual and uncontroversial information’ – they touch on issues that represent some of the most contentious issues in existence today.”
Still, Tupper Hull, spokesperson for the petroleum association, said he did not doubt the scientific evidence of climate change’s negative effects. Instead, he was concerned with the way the proposal would only affect gasoline distributors.
“To single out one source to the exclusion of others is where we have a strong objection,” Hull said. “I am not aware that they have proposed placing warnings on your vehicles, your stoves and your household furnaces, all of which produce carbon dioxide emissions.”
To assert the veracity of the claim that climate change presents a risk to California, commissioners are planning to cite the California Global Warming Solutions Act, according to Commissioner Andrew Torkelson. The law, which was passed in 2006, contains provisions aimed at lowering the levels of greenhouse gasses and requires certain industries to disclose their emission levels.
Gomberg said City Council is expected to vote on the plan in six to eight weeks.

via: http://www.dailycal.org/2014/06/16/new-proposal-require-climate-change-warning-labels-city-gas-stations/

Friday, June 13, 2014

Repackaging Mass Incarceration

by JAMES KILGORE

Since my CounterPunch article last November which  assessed the state of the movement against mass incarceration, the rumblings of change in the criminal justice have steadily grown louder. Attorney General Eric Holder has continued to stream his mild-mannered critique by raising the issue of felony disenfranchisement; the President has stepped forward with a proposal for clemency for people with drug offenses that could free hundreds. In the media, we’ve seen a scathing attack on America’s addiction to punishment in the New York Times and the American Academy of Sciences has released perhaps the most comprehensive critique of mass incarceration to date, the 464 page The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. In late May, several dozen conservatives including Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, and former NRA President David Keene pulled together the first Right on Crime (ROC) Leadership Summit in Washington DC.


The ROC, an organization which boasts a coterie of members with impeccable right wing credentials, reiterated the need for conservatives to drive the process of prison reform. The Conference  “call to action” argued: “In our earnest desire to have safer neighborhoods, policy responses to crime have too often neglected core conservative values — government accountability, personal responsibility, family preservation, victim restoration, fiscal discipline, limited government and free enterprise.” Gingrich engaged in similar kinds of soul searching:  “Once you decide everybody in prison is also an American then you gotta really reach into your own heart and ask, is this the best we can do?”

All of this has precipitated another round of optimistic cries about the possibilities of a Left-Right Coalition on mass incarceration, including a high profile Time Magazine op-ed co-authored by Norquist and MoveOn.org co-founder Joan Blades.

While the spirit of reconciliation in criminal justice attracts most of the media attention, a number of pieces have also emerged rejecting any rush to positive judgment.  For example, fellows at the Brennan Center compiled a statistically based report which contends that careral change has not yet turned the corner while Black Agenda Report co-founderBruce Dixon asserted that Obama’s clemency measures would have no significant impact on mass incarceration.

However, another process, likely at least as important in the long run as number crunching, coalitions or clemency also has been gaining steam. The official voices of incarceration- politicians, corrections officials, private prison operators, prison guards unions and county sheriffs, are exploring changing discourse and cosmetic reform in order to avoid systemic restructuring. In the business world, they call this re-packaging.
Re-Packaging Mass Incarceration: Carceral Humanism

Currently this re-packaging assumes several forms.  One of the most important is carceral humanism or what some people refer to as incarceration lite.  Carceral humanism recasts the jailers as caring social service providers. The cutting edge of carceral humanism is the field of mental health. According to a recent report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, in 2012 the US had over 350,000 people with serious mental health issues in prisons and jails as compared to just 35,000 in the remaining state mental health facilities.  Prisons and jails have become the new asylums and the jailers are waking up to the fact that mental health facilities also represent a new cash cow. Likely the most important examples of carceral humanism are happening in California. There Governor Jerry Brown has played a shell game called realignment in which he’s transferred thousands of people from state facilities to county jails in order to comply with a Federal court order to reduce the state prison population. To help counties adapt to all these new prisoners, the Governor put up $500 million to the state’s sheriffs to build extensions onto their jails. In response, the Sheriffs had to come to Sacramento to pitch for a slice of that money. They didn’t come talking about public safety. Their mantra focused on caring-providing opportunities and improved circumstances for those in custody. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s summary from Lake County, one of the 15 winners out of 36 submissions, is illustrative:
“$20 million for a new Type II, 40-bed women’s jail with a new stand alone 39-bed Medical/Mental Health Services building with program space, a new administration building, and renovations so that existing space can accommodate programs.”
The new jails are about institutionalizing the funding of mental health and other services behind the walls, further diverting money from the already bare bones social services in communities.  The Lake County proposal also featured another prominent strain of carceral humanism- a woman’s jail or in the present corrections jargon, a “gender-responsive” facility. Since mainstream research now argues that women experience incarceration differently than men, law enforcement is waving the gender banner to access more funding for construction.  Los Angeles lies at the cutting edge in this regard. In March the LA Board of Supervisors authorized $5.5 million for consultants to draw up a plan for what some law enforcement people are calling a “women’s village.” Deputy Sheriff Terri McDonald of Los Angeles suggested that the new facility could be a place where “women and children could serve their time together.”
Carceral humanism has also surfaced in the repackaging of immigration detention centers.  The latest immigration prisons carry the label “civil detention” centers. The GEO Group, the nation’s second largest private prison operator, opened their latest such facility in Karnes Texas. TheLA Times called it a “pleasant surprise for illegal immigrants.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials boast that people detained in Karnes won’t be housed in cells but in “suites” holding eight people.  Those detained will be supervised not by guards or correctional officers but by “resident advisers.”

Repackaging 2: Non-Alternative Alternatives to Incarceration
A second form of repackaging mass incarceration falls under the heading of non-alternative alternatives to incarceration. These non-alternatives purport to change things but in essence simply perpetuate the culture of punishment.  The most common forms of these are Drug Courts, Mental Health Courts and Day Reporting Centers. While many of these may be well-intentioned and in some cases have positive effects, they typically involve heavy monitoring of a person’s behavior including frequent drug testing, limitations on movement and association, a whole range of involuntary but supposedly therapeutic  programs of dubious value and very little margin of error to avoid reincarceration.  Perhaps the most extreme example of a non-alternative alternative to incarceration, and one which is likely to gain increasing traction, is electronic monitoring.
While advocates claim electronic monitoring facilitates employment, building family ties and participation in community activities, my interviews with a number of people on a monitor have revealed a different experience.  Jean – Pierre Shackelford, who spent two years on an ankle bracelet in Columbus, Ohio said that he felt like his probation officer had him in a “choke hold” while he was on an ankle bracelet. He labelled monitoring “another form of control and slavery, 21st century electronic style.” Shaun Harris, on a monitor for a year in Michigan called it a form of privatized incarceration, “it’s like you just turned my family’s house into another cell” was his comment. Shackelford and Harris, like many others I spoke with, both reported difficulty getting movement for family activities and a lack of clarity about what was and wasn’t permitted.  Shackelford finally took to going to church because that seemed to be the only activity his probation officer would approve.  Both Shackelford and Harris, like most people interviewed, complained that they could be put on 24 hour “lockdown” (meaning they couldn’t leave the house at all) for any reason for an indefinite period and there would be no way to appeal such a decision.  Even a late return home from work due to a delay in public transportation could result in a re-arrest. To make matters worse, most electronic monitors come with a daily user fee which ranges anywhere from five to twenty dollars a day.

While the punitive nature of ankle bracelet regimes is a cause for concern, the potential to implement exclusion zones with GPS-based monitors contains more serious long-term implications.  Exclusion zones are places where monitors are programmed not to let people go.  At the moment authorities mainly use exclusion zones to keep individuals with a sex offense history away from schools and parks. But such zones have the potential to become new ways to reconstruct the space of our cities, to keep the good people in and the bad people out.  This technology, which can be set up via smart phones, holds the possibility to turn houses, buildings, even neighborhoods into self-financing sites of incarceration.  In the meantime, firms like the GEO Group, which owns BI Incorporated, the nation’s largest provider of electronic monitoring technology and backup services, are experimenting with new target groups for ankle bracelets. In parts of California and Texas they’ve used electronic monitors on kids with school truancy records. Under a $370 million contract, BI already has thousands of people awaiting immigration adjudication on monitors. Packaged as an alternative these bracelets actually represent a new horizon for incarceration, finding ways to do it cheaper with technology through the private sector and then getting the user to pay, likely a  model that would line up squarely with Right on Crime’s notions of reform..
Re-Packaging: Why Now?
Most commentators attribute the spirit of change in criminal justice to a belated recognition of the fundamental irrationality of spending so much money locking up so many people for so long.  As Grover Norquist put it, “Conservatives may have wanted more incarceration than was necessary in the past, so what we’re trying to do is find out about what works.”
Such analyses make perfect sense but they also ignore a big picture political question. Mass incarceration is becoming a flash point of rebellion and resistance, with African American communities the most visible hot spot. Mass incarceration and the racialized vagaries of criminal justice have been going on for decades but recently we’ve seen new levels of anger and frustration in reaction to the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, as well as to the sentencing of Marissa Alexander.  Even mainstream Black commentators like Melissa Harris-Perry appear incensed.  At the grassroots level we’ve witnessed campaigns against stop and frisk, solitary confinement, mandatory minimums, crack cocaine laws and a host of new jails and prisons.  On the ideological plane, the notion of the New Jim Crow, categorizing  mass incarceration as a new form of slavery and segregation is catching on.  People are latching onto the idea of mass incarceration as a systemic problem that can only be solved with a vast redirecting of resources into the communities that have been devastated by imprisonment.  In other words, mass incarceration requires a total paradigm shift. The situation has the potential to explode.  Politicians and business people don’t like explosions.  When explosions appear a genuine possibility it is time to talk reform, time to re-package.
To make matters worse for purveyors of the carceral status quo, the immigrants’ rights movement has also been erupting over the last decade. From the immigrant worker strikes and demonstrations of 2006 to the endless string of demonstrations by the Dreamers and the Dream Defenders in the face of continued mass deportations, a steady stream of unrest has materialized.  With the changing national demographics, key players in criminal justice need to be seen to be doing something if they want to maintain their power.
Lastly, there is the movement inside the prisons themselves.  The hunger strikes at Pelican Bay in California and in Washington’s Northwest Detention Center coupled with the outpouring of solidarity these actions prompted,  pose a serious threat to the already heavily smeared image of US prisons. In addition, even once notorious political prisoners are gaining increasing legitimacy. Captives from across several generations are attracting large coteries of supporters.  This includes high profile individuals who have served decades behind bars, individuals  like Mumia Abu-Jamal, Albert Woodfox, Oscar Lopez Rivera, Russell Maroon Shoatz and Leonard Peltier, along with more contemporary prisoners like Lynne Stewart (recently released), Marie Mason and Chelsea Manning. Inside and beyond the walls, there is rebellion in the air.
This reality raises another question: whether a Left-Right Coalition can deliver even enough change to calm the waters. Mass incarceration has become such a fundamental part of how the US addresses issues of race, crime, poverty, gender and inequality, it appears unlikely to collapse from gradual reforms whether inspired by carceral humanism, punitive alternatives to incarceration or more genuine critique. As with civil rights, pressure from below will be required, from a social movement that has the creativity to envision an alternative, the skills and legitimacy to mobilize the people who are most directly affected, and the political power to make their voices be heard and get others to join them. Perhaps this social movement is, to borrow a phrase from the Spanish poet Antonio Machado, making the path by walking at this very moment.

James Kilgore is a Research Scholar at the Center for African Studies at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign).  He is a frequent commentator on mass incarceration, a social justice activist, and the author of three novels, all of which were written during his six and a half years of incarceration.  He is currently working on a primer on mass incarceration to be published by The New Press in 2015. He can be reached at waazn1@gmail.com   His writings are available at his website, www.freedomneverrests.com

via: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/06/repackaging-mass-incarceration/

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

San Quentin plans psychiatric hospital for death row inmates

Under court pressure to improve psychiatric care for deeply disturbed death row inmates, state officials are moving quickly to open a 40-bed hospital at San Quentin prison to house them.

The court-appointed monitor of mental health care in California's prison system reported to judges Tuesday that about three dozen men on death row are so mentally ill that they require inpatient care, with 24-hour nursing.

For now, they are being treated in their cells, but the state plans to have a hospital setting ready for them by November, according to documents filed Tuesday in federal court.

The plan calls for taking over and retrofitting most of a new medical unit recently built at the prison. A spokeswoman for the court's prison medical office said San Quentin officials plan to use medical facilities at other prisons if a shortage of beds arises as a result.

The urgency of psychiatric treatment for the mentally ill prisoners demands swift action, the court's monitor, Matthew Lopes, said in court papers. He said an agreement to provide the psychiatric wing at San Quentin was made possible by collaborative effort among the state, courts and prisoners' lawyers.

In December, after weeks of courtroom testimony on the treatment of about 10 unidentified death row prisoners, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ordered the state to provide condemned inmates access to inpatient psychiatric care. The court files show negotiations and planning began almost immediately.

Karlton also ordered mental health screenings of all 720 condemned men at San Quentin. Those evaluations concluded in late May with the identification of 37 condemned men for admission to the psychiatric unit. Lopes' report notes that San Quentin is bound to need room for additional patients.

Twenty female prisoners who are sentenced to die and housed elsewhere are not covered by Karlton's order.

Some analysts see irony in providing for the long-term mental health of those sentenced to die.

"This is the only place on Earth where you'd be talking about building a psychiatric hospital for condemned prisoners," said Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring, who has written about the U.S. capital punishment system. "It is a measure of American greatness and American silliness at the same time."

Federal courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute people who are not aware of what is happening to them. "We are curing them to make them executable," Zimring said.

But San Francisco prisoners' rights lawyer Michael Bien, who argued the San Quentin case in court last fall, regards adequate psychiatric care as a fundamental right.

"The reality is these guys are going to live in this place for a long time, and you need to see they get the care they need," Bien said.

California, with the nation's largest death row, has not killed a prisoner since 2006. Later that year, state executions were stayed when condemned inmate Michael Morales challenged the lethal injection procedures.

The state attempted to adopt new protocols involving different drugs in 2010, but they remain under legal challenge.




In the interim, 44 inmates have died of age, disease, drug overdose or suicide, with the latter raising concerns about psychiatric care on death row. One of those who committed suicide was Justin Helzer, who helped his brother kill five people and dump their dismembered bodies into a Sacramento river in 2000.

According to last year's testimony, Helzer was found by San Quentin doctors to be delusional and schizophrenic and often refused medication. In 2010, he blinded himself by jabbing pens through the sockets of his eyes. In 2013, he made a noose out of his bed sheet and hanged himself in his cell.

Corrections officials had testified that psychiatric care for death row inmates was limited. Those sent to a psychiatric hospital within another state prison were quarantined from the rest of the population, limiting therapy.

San Quentin had set up unlicensed beds, providing the equivalent of outpatient treatment within a corner of its medical building. Karlton found both provisions inadequate.

Unlike other psychiatric hospitals within men's prisons, the one at San Quentin will be run by the corrections department and not the Department of State Hospitals.

Gov. Jerry Brown's administration has not sought legislative approval for the San Quentin project. Finance Department spokesman H.D. Palmer said the state plans to use savings in prison mental health services elsewhere in the state to run the unit.