ACLU SoCal Files Lawsuit Challenging Efforts to Shutter Transitional Housing in Hesperia

RIVERSIDE, CA – A charitable organization dedicated to reducing homelessness and several of its clients filed a federal lawsuit today challenging the city of Hesperia’s attempts to unlawfully restrict housing and support services for individuals with criminal records.

The ACLU Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal) filed the lawsuit on behalf of Victor Valley Family Resource Center (VVFRC), a nonprofit in Hesperia that connects individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to transitional supportive housing. The suit argues that efforts by Hesperia to shut down three transitional homes are intended to banish residents released on probation.

“The city’s efforts to shutter these homes is little more than an attempt to banish individuals with criminal records from their community,” said Adrienna Wong, a staff attorney with ACLU SoCal. “That’s unacceptable and violates the California Constitution and the 1st & 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”

Currently, the San Bernardino County Probation Department refers individuals released from incarceration who have no place else to go to VVFRC, which provides transitional housing for up to one year, as well as meals, case management services and permanent housing placement.

The lawsuit, filed against the city of Hesperia, San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon and other city and sheriff’s officials, argues that several Hesperia municipal codes which were used to target VVFRC violate both the California and U.S. Constitutions. In some cases, Hesperia enforced a code prohibiting residential structures that house more than one individual on probation who are not related by blood or marriage, violating the individual plaintiffs’ right to association. One of VVFRC’s transitional homes was forced to close as a result, and the remaining homes may face the same fate.

The city also violated privacy rights by enacting an ordinance requiring landlords to provide their tenants’ personal information to police in Hesperia for purposes of a background check and registration of tenants in a database administered by the police. Under the same ordinance, the city requires landlords to evict tenants if the chief of police sends a “notice of criminal activity” – even if the tenants are never convicted, charged, or even arrested for any crime.

Hesperia’s efforts to shut down or severely limit the operations of VVFRC are a direct challenge to the state Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109), the sweeping reform package enacted to ease severe overcrowding in California’s jails and prisons. AB 109 redirects state resources from building more prisons to investing in community-based programs that provide services such as transitional housing, addiction treatment, mental health counseling, job placement and more.

Also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are six VVFRC clients who are on probation and have benefitted from these and other services. Without VVFRC, these and other clients would be vulnerable to homelessness, which increases the risk of re-incarceration.

“The city’s stance is not only unlawful but it also undermines public safety by eliminating the kind of re-entry and sober living group homes that provide crucial services to individuals who have no other recourse,” said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, ACLU SoCal general counsel and director of its Dignity for All Project. “Without a safe and supportive environment, they are at great risk of falling into homelessness and returning to criminal activity. Efforts by the city of Hesperia to eliminate this critical resource are ill-considered, unconstitutional and detrimental to public safety.”

Read the complaint

Contact:
Sandra Hernandez 213.977.5247, shernandez@aclusocal.org
Tony Marcano 213.977.5242, tmarcano@aclusocal.org

Via: https://www.aclusocal.org/pr-vvfrc-v-hesperia/ 

FREE Help with Felony Removal

#CHAMP47 Removes Barriers

Is a felony preventing you from moving forward in your life? Increasingly, a proportion of people in the United States, especially from lower income communities and people of color, has been increasingly marginalized in civic and political life. For most people with felony convictions, civil rights and privileges are unimaginably obtainable. Studies have shown that gaining employment and promotions continue to become more challenging. In addition, to limited resources, access to benefits, the right to vote and adequate housing are only a few socio-economical and disenfranchised consequences you may be faced with.  CHAMP 47 (Creating Healthy Alternatives Mobilizing Prop. 47), an initiative of Time For Change Foundation created to implement Proposition 47 gives hope to our community that you can live a sustaining and prosperous life after incarceration. The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which was approved by voters in November 2014 and CHAMP 47 campaign will help to improve our communities’ quality of life and restore our families. U.S. Sen. and 2016 Presidential Candidate Rand Paul (R) praised "PROP 47 does have the potential to help tens of thousands of Californians gain their freedom and work towards rebuilding their lives. The sooner individuals with qualifying convictions take action to reduce their sentences, the greater the impact of this law will be." Reduce low-level crimes ($950 or less) shoplifting, simple drug possession, forgery/fraud, petty theft/grand theft, writing a bad check, receiving stolen property For more info:  Contact Porscha   (909) 886-2994  info@TimeForChangeFoundation.org  JOIN US! DATE: Saturday May 7, 2016 TIME: 10:00 am-2:00 pm LOCATION: Cal State Reentry In/Parole Bldg  14040 Park Ave. Victorville, CA 92392 Items to bring with you Rap Sheet, CA ID or Drivers License Court documents, Case Numbers, Live Scan result

Extend Prop 47 Bill!

Are you aware that Proposition 47 (The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) has a time limitation? Also, are you aware that there are at least 1 million Californians that may be eligible under Proposition 47 to change their felony convictions? 

Well, just in case the awareness is not there, Proposition 47 can do a numerous amount of good for non-violent criminals, only if it is allowed to do so. 

Furthermore, Proposition 47 (The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) will be coming to a complete halt in November 2017, if AB 2765 (Weber) does not get amended to extend the bill, or eliminate the Proposition 47 deadline to petition for a sentence reduction. 

Most important, AB 2765 (Weber) was introduced on February 19, 2016, to extend the Proposition 47 bill time limitation for petitioning, and is required to have 2/3 votes of the Legislature to amend the act. 

In fact, since then, the bill has passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee by a vote of 5 to 2, on April 19, 2016, and will now proceed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. 

Congratulations, AB 2765 (Weber)!!!!! 

Altogether, let's make sure that we support this bill, and provide the pertinent information to the population of people that this bill can truly have an impact on. 

We have to band together for this!

By: 

Porscha N. Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

Shame the Prosecuting Attorneys!

Do prosecuting attorneys really withhold evidence? Some actually do! This thought is not too far-fetched for it not to be a reality; especially if the prosecuting attorney is in dire need of a conviction.

As stated by Lopez, "Prosecutorial misconduct is an epidemic in our nation. Bad-acting prosecutors tarnish the image of otherwise hard-working, justice seeking, and law-abiding prosecutors. However, this small group of bad-acting prosecutors have a destructive impact on our criminal justice system. Not only do these bad-acting prosecutors put their conviction rate ahead of seeking justice, these bad actors often send innocent people to prison for a very long time. These bad actions forces the public to lose confidence in the system while costing the systems millions of dollars in costly appeals."

Thankfully, AB 1909 (Lopez) wants to make it a felony for a prosecuting attorney who intentionally withholds exculpatory evidence with a 16 month, 2, or 3-year county jail imprisonment term. What a way to teach those prosecutors! 

But, will it really change their ideology and approach to convictions? Will the corrupt prosecuting attorneys be held accountable for their actions? Really?!? Those are the burning questions for us all. 

To summarize, criminal charges are the best recipe and remedy for the destructive, thoughtless prosecuting attorneys; because something has to occur for the prosecuting attorneys to be held liable for their devastating and despicable behavior. The "withholding evidence chain" has to eventually be broken, specifically for criminal justice reform to occur. 

By: Porscha Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

                                                                   References:

AB 1909 (Lopez) – As Amended March 28, 2016. As Proposed to be Amended in Committee. 

SECRETS of misconduct to become PUBLIC!

Were you aware that California has the most "secretive" laws when it pertains to law enforcement and police records in the nation? Well, SB 1286 (Leno) wants to expose the shadiness of peace officers to end their sneaky ways of destroying, tampering, and deleting evidence, and make it a felony conviction for the particular peace officer who practices this detrimental approach to getting convictions. 

Given these points, it will be a great feat if police misconduct is publicized for the public to view, because peace officers have their own bill of rights to hide this admissible information. In any event, the public should be allotted the right to review the necessary records that provide insight about the misconduct, and be shown documentation of the process and elimination of a deceitful, monstrous peace officer.

In conclusion, fraud, deception, and trickery from peace officers has to come to a complete halt, AND peace officers have to be held responsible for their heinous acts of misconduct with an arrest and a felony conviction. 

Porscha N. Dillard
Special Project Coordinator
Time For Change Foundation

A Bill on the RISE!

Have you heard!?! Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) introduced SB 966, the Repeal Ineffective Sentencing Enhancement Act (The RISE Act) for prior drug convictions. The RISE Act will abolish expensive and fruitless sentencing improvement, emulating the Legislature’s and voters’ unity to essentially dismantle from mass incarceration; in order to invest back into the vast need of public services for the communities.

The objective of SB 966 is to:

• Save California taxpayers money to reinvest back into the needed community-based programs
• Reduce the racial disproportion within the criminal justice complex
• Address the severe sentencing
• Re-establish balance back in the judicial proceedings
• Abstain the ruthless punishment towards individuals that endure substance abuse disorder

Not to mention, SB 966 wants to show that the deteriorated pursuit has demonstrated and become immensely expensive; by defrauding state and local appropriations that should be disbursed to social and health providers, schools, and channels that veritably diminishes drug use.

Altogether, incarceration can progress to a higher amount of crime by damaging family and community dynamics. For the many individuals who re-enter back into society from incarceration, are challenged with overwhelming barriers in seeking employment, housing, and education.

In the long run, elongated sentences do not reduce recidivism, nor does it impede on the distribution, use, and recovery of drugs.

By:

Porscha Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

A Great Act - Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016

Great news! An incredible act called the Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (PSRA) is trying to improve public safety, and save California taxpayers money by reducing frivolous spending on our correctional system. One pivotal point of this act, is to transfer the power back to the judge and away from the District Attorney, to decide whether a minor of 14 years of age or older should be tried as an adult. Key factors have to be considered when making this decision such as: the minor's family and school life. It has to be a clear process to decide the outcome of the minor’s life.

Next, for those who are incarcerated with non-violent offenses, Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016 will add funds for rehabilitation, and will give credit for completion of educational programs with an early release. Ultimately, it is the next step to improve Prop 47.

Altogether, 1 million signatures need to be collected in order for this act to make it on the ballot in November. Governor Brown supports and is willing to sign this act, but requested 100,000 signatures by the end of April 2016 be gathered.  

Equally important, collaborative help is needed for the collection of the mandatory signatures from all that are in support of this act. Let’s be overt, prison reform is needed in the state of California, and this is a productive step towards obtaining that goal. 

For more information or to support the (PSRA) contact Vanessa Rhodes at vanessarhodes@gmail.com or visit SafetyandRehabilitation.com.

By: 

Porscha N. Dillard

Special Project Coordinator 

Time For Change Foundation

Analyst estimates $100 million more in Prop. 47 savings than Brown

The Legislature’s non-partisan fiscal analyst believes Gov. Jerry Brown is underestimating the amount of savings from Proposition 47, the controversial ballot initiative that reduced some nonviolent drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

The initiative required the savings be used for mental health, drug treatment, truancy and victim services. In a report issued Friday, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that the first deposit should be about $100 million more than what the state Department of Finance has accounted for.

In his January budget proposal, Brown set aside $29.3 million for the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund – $62.7 million in savings from inmate and caseload reduction, minus $33.4 million for resentencing and increased parole capacity.

The vast gap is mainly due to different methods for calculating prison costs. Thousands of inmates have been resentenced and released from state facilities under Proposition 47, pushing California’s overcrowded corrections system just under a court-mandated capacity.

Brown’s budget estimates that the average daily inmate population is about 4,700 fewer this year because of the law. But the Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that, to stay below capacity levels, most of those potential prisoners would have had to be contracted out to beds in other states, which would have set the state back an additional $83 million.

The LAO also said the governor is likely underestimate the savings from fewer felony cases being filed and overestimating the cost of reclassifying the records of former offenders who already served out their felony terms.

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article60119951.html 

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article60119951.html#storylink=cpy

Old Brown tries to fix a young Brown's mistake

— Hang around long enough and you might see things turn full circle. People included.

Like a comet, they come back around.

Gov. Jerry Brown is a comet. He dominated the Capitol cosmos two generations ago, floated off and circled back.

Now one of the major public policy issues of 40 years ago also has returned, meteor-like. It concerns criminal sentencing.

Like too many things involving government, however, the jargon is wonky: "determinate" and "indeterminate."

Put simply, it's about whether a judge determines how long a felon will be locked up, or left undetermined, with parole boards having the flexibility to retain or release an inmate based on behavior and perceived rehabilitation.

In 1976, young Gov. Brown was a reformer who signed legislation changing sentencing from indeterminate to determinate.

Last week, he proposed a new reform: Scrap that 1970s reform and return to basically the way things had been for six decades before.

Times change. Situations change. Ideas? Not so much.

I asked Brown why he and the Legislature had changed the system in the first place four decades ago.

Back then, he'd been thinking about it for a long time, he recalled, even when his father, Pat Brown, was governor in the 1960s.

"People were lingering in prisons and didn't know when they were going to get out," he said. "Racial minorities might be in longer."

Prisoners, the governor continued, were compelled "to mouth certain words" to demonstrate their readiness for freedom. White parole boards seemed to be "trying to get the prisoners to have a certain mentality, messing with their heads. It didn't seem right to me.

"It came to me that if they did the crime, they should do the time. And then get out."

That became many legislators' attitude: The whole system was arbitrary and unfair — sometimes political and racial.

What else could you expect from sentences so broad? For example, one to 14 years or five to life.

Republican Sen. John Negedly, a former Contra Costa County district attorney, had sponsored the bill that switched sentences from flexible to more fixed.

"Punishment should be swift, certain and definite," Brown said after signing the measure. But soon he began having second thoughts, mentioning "ambiguities" in the new law.

There was bipartisan criticism.

Then-LAPD Chief Ed Davis, a conservative Republican, planning to run against Brown, complained that prisoners no longer would "have to pay much attention" to guards. Brown "is going to blow these prisons up before I can take over as governor."

State Sen. Alan Sieroty, a liberal Democrat from Los Angeles, feared that fixed sentencing would lead to longer terms. That would only "further brutalize the individual and make his reentry into society less possible."

Both were right.

"Liberals thought the Legislature would jack up the sentences, which it did," Brown told me. "And it never stopped. I never imagined there'd be thousands of [increased sentencing] laws and enhancements."

State government embarked on a prison-building, lock-em-up binge. There was a political stampede in the 1990s after the L.A. riots and the gripping kidnap-murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Voters and the Legislature passed "three strikes and you're out" — meaning you're "in" for life.

When Brown was governor the first time, there were 21,000 inmates in state custody. By the time he returned in 2011, the number had ballooned to 170,000 — packed like sardines into bunks and sleeping on cots in gymnasiums. At one point, taxpayers were spending more on prisoners than on college kids.

Prisoners-rights groups sued. A federal judicial panel ordered the state to knock it off. Voters and the governor got the message.

The California electorate softened three-strikes and other sentencing laws. Brown, through what he calls "realignment," began shifting control of low-level felons to the counties.

The state prison population is now down to 127,000.

Brown has wanted to eliminate determinate sentencing for years — calling it an "abysmal failure" in 2003 — but said he first needed to achieve realignment and form a political coalition.

"If I'd done it right out of the box, I might have made mistakes," he told me.

Brown added that he'd also been pretty busy.

"No one has done more than I have," he said, listing such things as pension reform, water programs and fighting climate change. "I haven't been sitting on my ass."

The governor's sentencing proposal is targeted for the November ballot as an initiative. It would affect only inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes. Murderers and rapists, forget it.

A nonviolent felon would need to complete his time for the basic crime. But he could earn credits for good behavior and rehab. And before serving added time for an enhancement — such as gang activity — he could seek parole for being a model prisoner

An "unintended consequence" of the law he signed 40 years ago, Brown told reporters, "was the removal of incentives for inmates to improve themselves, refrain from gang activity, using narcotics, otherwise misbehaving. Because they had a certain [release] date and there was nothing in their control that would give them a reward for turning their lives around."

Why the ballot and not the Legislature? It would require a two-thirds legislative vote, and that's a hassle. And he has $24 million in leftover campaign money begging to be spent.

This reform seems to make sense. The old one did, too — at the time. But this is another time.

The lingo also should change. Junk "determinate" and call it "fixed" or "flexible."

Via: http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-cap-20160201-column.html 

CA Rally and Press Conference

Join Us

Friday, January 8. 2016

11:00 AM

3737 Main Street

Riverside, CA 92501

Stand with us as we call on the governor and the Legislature to produce a state budget that lifts Californians out of poverty and invests in the future of our communities. 

New California laws 2016: What to expect in the new year

Like bubbles ascending a champagne flute, a bevy of recently passed California policies will float to the surface and take effect this Jan. 1. Here’s a review of some of the major items.

Vaccines
One of 2015’s fiercest fights was over SB 277, which was introduced in the wake of a measles outbreak at Disneyland and requires full vaccination for most children to enroll in school. Schools will begin vetting students to ensure they have their shots in July, before the 2016-2017 school year begins.

Search warrants

Arguing our privacy laws lag behind our technology, lawmakers passed SB 178 to require search warrants before law enforcement can obtain your emails, text messages, Internet search history and other digital data.

Ballot fees
Thinking of filing a ballot initiative? You’ll need more cash. AB 1100 hikes the cost of submitting a proposal from $200 to $2,000, which supporters called a needed screen to discourage frivolous or potentially unconstitutional proposals.

Grocery jobs
When grocery stores get new owners, AB 359 requires the stores to retain employees for at least 90 days and consider keeping them on after that period ends. While workers can still be dismissed in that window for performance-related reasons, the labor-backed bill seeks to protect workers from losing their jobs to buyouts or mergers.

Reproductive services
AB 775 requires any licensed facility offering pregnancy-related services to post a sign advertising the availability of public family planning programs, including abortions. It is aimed at so-called “crisis pregnancy centers,” which pro-abortion rights critics assail for pressuring women into carrying their pregnancies to term.

Cheerleaders
Cheerleaders who root on professional athletes will be treated as employees under California law, with the accompanying wage and hour protections, under AB 202. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, who carried the bill, was a Stanford cheerleader.

Testing
High school seniors will no longer need to take a long-standing exit exam to graduate, thanks to SB 172. The bill lifts the requirement through the 2017-2018 school year and also applies retroactively to 2004, meaning students who have completed all the other graduation requirements since then can apply for diplomas.

Guns on campus
Concealed firearms are barred from college campuses and K-12 school grounds under SB 707, which the California College and University Police Chiefs Association sponsored as a public safety corrective.

Equal pay
SB 358 seeks to close the stubborn gap between men and women’s wages by saying they must be paid the same for “substantially similar work,” an upgrade over the current standard, and allowing women to talk about their own pay and inquire about the pay of others without facing discipline. While California already requires equal pay for equal work, women still consistently make less.

Sex ed
Student participation in sexual education courses is currently voluntary. AB 329 would make the courses mandatory unless parents specifically seek an opt-out and would update curricula to include, for example, more information about HIV and the spectrum of gender identity.
Yes means yes

As long as their school districts require health classes to graduate, SB 695 will ensure high school students learn about the “yes means yes” standard of consent to sexual acts. In other words, students will learn they should be getting explicit approval from partners.

Toy guns
Realistic-looking airsoft guns will need to have more features that distinguish them as toys, like a fluorescent trigger guards, thanks to SB 199. Advocates said it would help law enforcement avoid tragic mistakes when making split-second decisions, pointing to the 2013 case of a Santa Rosa boy fatally shot by Sonoma County deputies who mistook his toy gun for the real thing.

Gun restraining orders
Passed last year in response to a troubled young man shooting and killing multiple people in Isla Vista, AB 1014 allows family members to obtain a restraining order temporarily barring gun ownership for a relative they believe to be at risk of committing an act of violence.

Rape kits
AB 1517 prods law enforcement to more quickly process so-called “rape kits,” the forensic evidence collected from sexual assault crime scenes. While the bill doesn’t mandate anything, it encourages law enforcement agencies to send evidence to crime labs sooner and urges crime labs to analyze the data and upload it into a DNA database in a shorter time frame.

Brew bikes
People rolling around midtown Sacramento on beer bikes could get a little tipsier under SB 530. The measure allows alcohol to be consumed on board the multi-person vehicles, which currently travel between different bars but don’t allow imbibing in between, as long as the city authorizes it. The city of Sacramento is working on updating its pedicab ordinance to reflect the new law.

Charity raffles
Professional sports fans could bring home big prizes thanks to SB 549, which authorizes in-game charity raffles allowing the winner to take home 50 percent of ticket sales. That’s a change from the current system, which permits charity raffles only if 90 percent of the proceeds go to the cause.

Pedestrian costs
AB 40 ensures pedestrians and cyclists won’t have to pay tolls on Bay Area bridges like the Golden Gate. While no such tolls yet exist, lawmakers were responding to a proposal to raise money with a Golden Gate Bridge fee.

Back wages
If an employee doesn’t get paid what they are owed, SB 588 allows the California Labor Commissioner to slap a lien on the boss’s property to try and recoup the value of the unpaid wages. This was a slimmed-down version of a prior, unsuccessful bill that was pushed by organized labor but repudiated by business interests – the key difference being that the commissioner, not workers, files the liens.

Franchises
Another bill whose earlier labor-backed, business-opposed version was softened in the name of compromise, AB 525 modifies the relationships between individual franchise business owners and the larger parent company by changing the rules for when the parent company can terminate or refuse to renew a franchise agreement and how the franchise owner can sell or transfer the store.

Transportation companies
The steady drip of new regulations on companies like Uber and Lyft continued with AB 1422, which requires such businesses to give the California Department of Motor Vehicles access to driver records by participating in the agency’s pull notice program.

Air regulations
After a sweeping climate bill spurred objections from lawmakers about the clout of the unelected California Air Resources Board, AB 1288 offered a concession by creating two new spots on the regulator’s board, to be appointed by the Legislature.

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article51702105.html#storylink=cpy

California's ballot could be a blockbuster next November

Call it a dream for California political consultants, a nightmare for voters or an electoral extravaganza: The November 2016 ballot could feature a bigger crop of statewide propositions than at any time in the past decade.

"The voters pamphlet is going to look like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica," said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic campaign strategist.

The list of measures is very much a work in progress. Most campaigns are still gathering voter signatures or waiting for their proposals to be vetted by state officials.

But political strategists have identified at least 15 -- perhaps as many as 19 --measures that all have a shot at going before voters next fall.

The last time California’s ballot was that long was in November 2004, when there were 16 propositions. The March 2000 ballot had 20.

Here are the expected 2016 ballot initiatives

A number of political forces help explain why so many are lined up now. For starters, there’s the 2011 law that moved everything but measures written by the Legislature to the general election ballot. As a result, June primary ballots are now almost barren of contentious campaigns.

There is also a lingering hangover from the state's record-low voter turnout in 2014: a new and extremely low number of voter signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot.

Sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter

"There’s no real obstacle this time," said Beth Miller, a Republican campaign consultant.

State law sets the signature threshold at a percentage of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. That has lowered the bar to a level not seen since 1975, opening the door of direct democracy more widely for activists with smaller wallets.

“It’s made it cheaper to qualify an initiative,” said Gale Kaufman, a longtime Democratic campaign consultant who is leading the charge on initiatives to legalize marijuana and prolong a temporary tax increase approved by voters in 2012.

Which of the likely propositions might become a centerpiece campaign next year remains unclear; only five have qualified for the ballot. But perhaps a dozen more are close to securing a spot or have substantial funding behind their signature-gathering efforts.

The effort to legalize recreational use of marijuana, boosted recently by former Facebook and Napster executive Sean Parker, will undoubtedly make national headlines. So, too, might the effort spearheaded by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to ban the possession and sale of large ammunition clips for guns and require background checks on those who buy ammunition.

Tax measures also typically have high profiles. Last week, an alliance of teachers, state and local employees, hospitals and doctors announced a new push to extend the 2012 tax hike. Healthcare groups are backing a proposal to raise California’s cigarette tax by $2 a pack.

Other proposals form a political potpourri of ideas and issues. School groups have qualified a $9-billion school construction and renovation bond measure; organized labor and several Democratic officeholders are backing a proposed increase in the state minimum wage; and two efforts would impose new rules of public disclosure on the legislative process and campaign contributions.

There is a also a closely watched effort to lower the cost of taxpayer-subsidized prescription drugs, with the pharmaceutical industry promising a well-funded campaign to defeat it.

Wild cards that could dramatically affect the state’s electoral landscape include a much-discussed move to substantially shrink the pensions of public employees.

All of this may be the equivalent of a full employment act for political professionals, but a lengthy and dense ballot can turn off voters.

"What ends up happening is voter fatigue," Kaufman said.

Political scientists say voters simply give up on trying to follow so many disparate propositions and skip many of them -- or simply vote no.

A plethora of ballot measures also could raise the costs of television and online advertising to record levels, leaving initiative backers scrambling to raise cash.

"There’s only so many places you can tap the well," said Fiona Hutton, a public affairs strategist in Los Angeles. "And if there are multiple measures, how far does that donor base get stretched?"

And more campaigns will be competing for a limited amount of television and radio ad time.

"Some campaigns are never going to get enough oxygen to be able to inform voters," said Rob Stutzman, a GOP consultant working on the school bond effort.

Perhaps the biggest unknown is whether a 2014 law designed to offer a release valve for the pressure of initiative campaigns will have any effect. It allows backers of an initiative to withdraw their measure if they strike a deal on similar legislation at the state Capitol.

"Are there things that there’s an appetite for the Legislature to deal with?" said strategist Miller. "It's a new wrinkle, and it’s not one that anyone’s ever dealt with before.

By John Myers, Los Angeles Times
Via http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-california-ballot-measures-2016-20151108-story.html

California Jolt: State Upends How It Funds and Runs Education

It's hard to find stories of "upheaval" in the way states structure the machinery of public schooling. Wrangling interests tend to allow only a little tinkering under the hood. But California right now is rewriting that script. And the sweeping changes occurring in the state's education system are so politically stunning that those inured to paralysis in Sacramento stand slack-jawed.

Not only is the nation's biggest state calmly implementing the Common Core State Standards that have roiled the waters in a number of other states. But to bolster the success of those higher academic expectations, the Golden State is revamping its entire education architecture, from how dollars flow to schools to how teachers and principals are supported and held accountable.

The changes take dead aim at reversing a longstanding lag in student achievement and, especially, narrowing the socio-economic achievement gap in a state whose schools were once the envy of the nation. The animating force is the new Local Control Funding Formula, the linchpin of 2013's authorizing legislation. Phased in over eight years, the LCFF obliterates the state's old finance system long denigrated as ineffective, dizzyingly complex and, above all, inequitable. In its place is a weighted approach that provides a basic level of funding for every student then targets additional funding to districts with large numbers of students who are more expensive to educate--those from poor families, English learners, and foster children.

While many state funding formulas use a weighted approach to try to account for the higher costs of educating different groups of students, California is taking an extra step. In a profound turnaround, and in keeping with Governor Jerry Brown's principle of "subsidiarity," decision-making responsibility for how to spend the money has been handed to local school districts.

This flips the norm established more than 35 years ago with Proposition 13, the landmark property tax limit, when the state became the school funding distributor as well as decider, largely dictating how locals could use the dollars. Over time, highly regulated "categorical" or specific-purpose programs proliferated.

The one-size-fits-all approach became increasingly counterproductive as the state's diversity exploded in the 1980s. And now, decades later, local educators are being given back the reins. Instead of compliance, their new mandate is to go forth and be creative. Innovate. Make the money matter. Work with your communities to dig into evidence about which kids are struggling with what, and why. Agree on top improvement goals and map out a plan that ties your budget to the actions you're going to take--actions that will help teachers and administrators know and continually get better at using the most effective practices.

Reaction in the state's 1,000 school districts is a stew of excitement, energy, and concern. You'd be hard pressed to find educators who don't applaud the aspiration to level the playing field for the least advantaged kids; more than half the state's six million public school students are low income. Beyond that is the new law's philosophic underpinning:

It's an implicit vote of confidence in California's educators, the opposite of the test-and-punish mode that prevailed nationally under the federal No Child Left Behind act.

At the same time, there's a near-audible gulp. Local school leaders who have complained for years about being hamstrung by Sacramento's restrictions now face, for starters, mindset change. But even exuberant local visionaries know that navigating conflicting parental and community interests can be daunting without the lever of "the state requires it" to push things forward.

The state, of course, still must hold schools accountable. Doing so will now occur by way of each district's annually updated plan that spells out its needs, priorities, and goals within eight statewide priority areas. The priorities start with student achievement but also include less tangibly documentable factors as school climate, student engagement, and parent involvement.

The local planning process has begun, even though details such as progress measures and a promised new system of improvement assistance are not yet fully in place. Watching intently are vocal advocacy groups who worry that too much local flexibility or insufficient transparency, especially for reporting on spending, may translate to diminished services for the very students the LCFF aims to accelerate.

Despite much optimism, no one sees this as a panacea in post-Proposition 13 California where investment in education has, for decades, languished below the national average and sank even lower during the recession. The new law's passage was made possible in part by good government victories--i.e., voter approved changes in legislative and election rules that finally broke legislative gridlock. But a pivotal other factor was the ballot success of Governor Brown's big 2012 gamble: Proposition 30, a temporary tax increase that averted further draconian cuts in recession-decimated school districts.

Since then, California's budget has massively rebounded. But even if activists manage to extend Proposition 30, which fully expires in 2018, and if projections of a long stretch of black ink are correct, it will take years to restore many school districts to pre-recession levels, nevermind to raise base funding from a level that's widely seen as inadequate.

The position of Brown and the state board of education is that the kids can't wait. By clearing away resource-sucking regulations and accreted categorical programs, instead unfettering education dollars to be directed to actual school and student needs, they're betting the state can turn the page on achievement mire.

Are their ambitions quixotic? Not according to years of research findings, notably from an unprecedented set of California school finance and governance studies prompted by the student outcome urgency. Anchored at Stanford and undertaken by national experts--including current State Board of Education president Mike Kirst--the studies culled from experiments in the U.S. and abroad. Findings explicitly called for replacing the "fundamentally flawed" status quo with a system that would "improve the alignment between the accountability system and the decision-making responsibilities, increasing flexibility at the local level."

Guided by these studies, the state is buttressing the LCFF with a pre-emptive system of educator support to be orchestrated by a new state agency, the California Collaborative for Education Excellence. With 10,000 schools and nearly 300,000 teachers, there is intense focus on the problem of uneven local capacity--for aligning classroom practices with the Common Core; for ensuring skilled principal leadership; for revamping district management and budgeting strategies. One favored capacity building approach is to support cross-district partnerships to fast-forward the spread of best practices, using a model pioneered in the state by a group of mostly big districts.

As implementation unfolds, developmental glitches are inevitable. With criticisms simmering among advocates of tighter control, there may not be much leeway for missteps. But the governor is adamant that the state should remain hands off, giving local flexibility time to find its footing before making dramatic adjustments. So far, with momentum stoked by the political miracle of getting this far, the odds for success appear to be on his--and the kids'--side.

Via Joan McRobbie, Huffington Post 12/18/2015

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-mcrobbie/california-jolt-state-upe_b_8833242.html

The California Endowment Divests from Private Prisons

Should any foundation concerned about community well-being be investing in huge corporations whose job it is to ensure as many Americans as possible are kept incarcerated?

The California Endowment evidently does not think so. Yesterday, it announced that that it is divesting from companies “that derive significant annual revenue from the operation of private prisons, jails, detention centers and correctional facilities.”

Rick Cohen wrote about a campaign to divest from private prisons in 2014 and particularly about the campaign’s efforts to try to get the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to divest. At that time, he wrote:

The Gates Foundation responded to a protest led by the Latino advocacy group Presente.org in support of prisoners engaged in a hunger strike at the GEO-operated Northwest Detention Center by saying that the positive value of its grantmaking far outweighs its investments in operators of private prisons. The foundation also contends that it somehow doesn’t actually control its own investments, which are directed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Asset Trust, which operates separately from the foundation.

The campaign to divest from private prisons is asking both public and private entities to dump their holdings in Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group, “America’s largest private prison corporations which have profited from billions in taxpayer money.” Both are publicly traded companies who spend millions on lobbying for policies that will keep our prisons full.

“Public resistance to privatization of correctional, detention, mental health and residential facilities could result in our inability to obtain new contracts or the loss of existing contracts, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.”—GEO Group, 2013 SEC Annual Report, “Risk Factors”

In announcing its divestment, the Endowment released a short statement.

“The California Endowment strongly supports community safety and stands with communities that experience serious disparities in incarceration rates for non-violent offenses that could be handled through drug treatment and other programs that help prevent non-violent crime,” said Robert K. Ross, MD, president and CEO of The California Endowment. “It is essential our investment strategies take into account the potential impacts they could have on the communities we serve.”

In June, Columbia University became the first university to divest, followed by Hampshire College in Massachusetts.

As Cohen wrote in 2014, “Divestment need not be an anti-corporate strategy at all. It is a pro-values strategy. But it demands that the institutions of our society that purport to be mission- and value-driven, such as private foundations, cannot stand on the sidelines with their billions in tax exempt assets and assume that their five percent devoted to philanthropic output automatically outweighs and camouflages the impacts of the investment of their 95 percent.”

By RUTH MCCAMBRIDGE

via https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/08/the-california-endowment-divests-from-private-prisons/