It is Time To End the Two-Thirds Rule

In theory the requirement in California to obtain the consent of two-thirds of the legislature to vote for a budget sounds like an idea that would promote consensus building and bipartisanship. I wish I could say that was in the intent, but it was more mundane. The intent was to prevent tax increases from being enacted. For many years it has accomplished exactly that; however as time has gone on, it has exacted a higher and higher price. It has prevented the type of wholesale structural changes that we need for reform to take place.

It has led to gridlock, forcing budget after budget to be adopted late. It has led to unnecessary delay, wasted time, and worse yet, in a crisis outright paralysis.

An early February Public Policy Institute of California survey showed that for the first time, a majority of Californians supported altering the two-thirds vote requirement to require a 55% vote. That was before our latest drama with the budget.

For years Democrats have wanted to take it on. Now for the first time they are serious about doing so. The only question is how soon they do it and whether or not there is finally the political will for it to succeed.

At the core, were Republicans who seemingly were willing to plunge California into fiscal crisis rather than vote for a tax increase that their own leadership said they had no choice but to support because it was the only way to balance the budget. At which point, at least in the Senate, they got rid of their leadership and elected a more intractable leader.

It was a process that saw one Senator exact a high price in order to finally secure his, the 27th vote in the Senate, and secure the passage of the budget. The price is a constitutional amendment to have an open primary.

Without the two-thirds vote requirement it is clear that the open primary issue would have never come forward. Speaker Karen Bass at the post-budget vote press conference early Thursday morning expressed regret that it came forward in the manner that it did without the kind of public process she would have preferred.

“I will tell you that none of us felt very comfortable with putting a bill forward like the open primary because it was never heard by a committee, there was no public process, that's not the way we like to do business. But the fact of the matter is that just represents one of the many many many difficult choices that we made over these last few weeks.”

She continued:

“If we didn't have the two-thirds requirement to pass the budget tonight's open primary issue would not have even been a concern. We would have passed a budget a long time ago. But you very well know that we needed one more Republican vote in order to pass this budget. And the requirement for that vote was to pass this bill.”

Indeed both Speaker Bass as well as Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg seem ready to lead the effort to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement.

As Pro Tem Steinberg said:

“The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress.... It doesn't really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis... We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1.”

Speaker Karen Bass was also ready for the two-thirds requirement to go.

“One of the things I want to be voting on, if not in 09, then 2010, and that's the removal of the 2/3rds vote requirement so that California can be like 47 other states in the union. So the next time when we have a deficit like this we won't go months and months for negotiations.”

The big problem is that two-thirds vote requirement does not produce consensus building, but rather political blackmail, horse trading, quid pro quo, and it often requires the passage of pork in order to secure votes.

To the hold outs get the spoils. Senator Lou Correa is getting an extra $140 million in property tax revenue for Orange County over the next two years and $50 million after that. You see, Orange County happens to have the second lowest per capita property tax revenue in the state. You know who has the lowest? YOLO COUNTY.

However Yolo County is not getting that help, despite a $22 million deficit for 2009-10 in a budget of $66 million. Why is Yolo County not getting that help? Because Senator Lois Wolk and Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada did not blackmail the Democratic leadership and holdout for pork or other promises.

Senator Correa was not alone. Senator Ashburn, one of three Republican votes got a $10,000 tax credit to people who buy new homes.

And of course it is well known about all the things that Senator Maldonado got in exchange for his vote. There is nothing new about this though.

There is concern that the deal cut with Senator Maldonado to enable the budget to be passed sets a bad precedent. That was downplayed to a large degree. Speaker Bass argued that these types of things always happen, although it is more likely to be a specific project or even policy.

“Every year the budget is debated and frankly at the end of every session there's last minute horse trading. Until we get rid of the two-thirds vote requirement we will be doing the same thing.”

Senator Steinberg:

“I don't like it and it was an unpleasant part of the process, but I'll tell you what the answer is. The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement.”

That movement is already underfoot.

The Courage Campaign has already launched a campaign to end the two-thids vote.

"The rule requiring a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to pass a budget allowed a small cabal of extremist Republicans led by Senator Abel Maldonado to hold the state hostage to their demands, as they have done year after year. As Rachel Maddow explained on her show, this is part of a pattern of Republican obstruction across America."

They are not alone. Word is the Democrats in the legislature have already hired consultants to spearhead the initiative drive.

The League of California Cities recently put out a publication where the focus was on the two-thirds vote requirements. The side in favor of retaining the two-thirds requirement is represented by Assemblyman Roger Niello. At least give him credit, he was one of the three in the Assembly to vote for the bill.

John Laird, an Assemblymember and former League of California Cities board member writes for the opposing side.

One of the problems hanging over the process is the fact that Republicans who vote for these budgets put themselves in electoral jeopardy:

"After a 2001 budget in which four Assembly Republicans joined all Democrats in approving a budget, for various reasons not one of those Republican legislators returned after the next election. That experience hangs over every budget."

Indeed this time we saw a conservative blogger put Republicans heads on the pike, threats from Rush Limbaugh, and the very real possibility of recall for Assemblyman Anthony Adams.

The Redlands Daily Facts reports:

Sen. Robert Dutton on Friday asked state Assemblyman Anthony Adams to resign as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party after Adams voted in favor of nearly $13 million in temporary tax hikes.

...

"Anthony Adams has called Senate Republicans `recalcitrant' because they won't support a budget proposal that raises taxes on hard-working California families by more than $13 billion," Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, said in a prepared statement Friday. "It's clear that Assemblyman Adams doesn't represent the core values of the Republican Party and I am calling on him to immediately resign as chair of the San Bernardino Republican Party."

As the Sacramento Bee reported in the Capitol Alerts, he knows this is probably the end of his political career :

Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams cast his "aye" budget vote at dawn today with full knowledge that, as he has said, "this will probably be the end of a political career for me."

...

"I think it's important that people know that my caucus is supportive -- that I'm not making any decision lightly," Adams said on his way into a GOP member's office Wednesday. "I'm also not making a decision outside the realm of our caucus. I'm not out there by myself or trying to engage in something that does not have the support of my caucus."

The Bee article continues:

A recall effort against him is already afoot.

The 38-year old lawmaker has been in anti-tax advocates' crosshairs ever since a Sacramento Bee story on Jan. 22 and an appearance later that day on the John and Ken radio show in Southern California. The shock jocks were blasting Republicans, including Adams, for telling The Bee that taxes were on the table in budget talks.

"I dare with the full knowledge that this will probably be the end of a political career for me," Adams told the radio duo. "But the fact of the matter is California is in a place where they need people who are willing to sacrifice their own personal agenda for what's right."

The radio hosts responded by posting an image of Adams' decapitated head on a stick on their Web site.

Truth be told, Anthony Adams is much closer to a hero in the budget battle than Abel Maldonado ever was. He never tried to hijack the process or hold the state for ransom. Instead, he did what he believed he needed to do to protect the state of California and exercise his constitutional duties as an elected official. For that he is probably looking at the end of his political career.

This weekend it is reported that at the Republican's state convention that the six Republican lawmakers will face the possibility of censure by their own political party.

Who would want to subject themselves to that? Who will do so in the future the next time a budget fight comes down and the legislators have to grapple with unpleasant choices? This is not done. There is a possibility that the May revise will be bring even worse news.

The movement is already afoot to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement. On February 18k, 2009, a ballot initiative was already circulating with the California Secretary of State's webpage to do exactly that.

In fact there are two of them.

The language of the first:

"STATE BUDGET. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, and spending bills related to the budget, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty five percent. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown changes in the content of the annual state budget. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0022.)"

The second one would retain the two-thirds vote requirement for raising property taxes but remove it for the budget.

STATE BUDGET. TAXES. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, spending bills related to the budget, and budget-related tax increases, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty-five percent. Retains sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) vote requirement for property tax increases. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown state fiscal impacts from lowering the legislative vote requirement for spending and tax increases related to the budget. In some cases, the content of the annual state budget could change and/or state tax revenues could increase. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0023.)

As this process shows us quite clearly, we need to change the system for so many ways. First, in an emergency we get a watered down budget that often does not fix the problems.

Second, it leads to delay. Had we passed this back in September of last year, the tax measures could have gone on the November ballot rather than this year's May ballot, and the state could have saved the multimillion dollar cost of a special election. Moreover, the delay cost the state billions of dollars, it costs people jobs, it delayed infrastructure projects that will cost money as well.

Third, it leads to political blackmail. It encouraged holdouts to extort prices for their votes. It gave them perks and rewards for holdout and but the people in districts where the legislators did not hold out often need the help just as badly. The process is inherently unfair.

Fourth, it leads to death threats to politicians, usually Republicans, whose career are now threatened for doing the responsible thing.

And just for good measure, Assemblyman Laird mentions another drawback to the two-thirds process.

"As I write this, the budget is almost two months late. The Democratic legislative committees and the governor have long since proposed balanced budgets with some new taxes, none of which include borrowing.

If by the time you read this, there is borrowing in the budget, it is not what the governor or a majority of the Legislature wanted. It will be the two-thirds requirement that will have leveraged it in so the budget process can conclude. To add insult to injury, often the very interests that leverage borrowing into the budget won’t actually vote for the budget — leaving it to the rest of us to approve a budget that includes things we find distasteful.

It’s said the two-thirds requirement protects fiscal responsibility. I think the opposite is true. We got where we are now with the two-thirds requirement. This is no way to run the government of the eighth largest economy in the world. This needs to be changed. There’s a reason 47 other states do not do this — and that their budgets are adopted on time."

Laird is exactly correct. We do not have fiscal responsibility. We did not pass a responsible budget in September of 2008 and we did not pass one now. We have more borrowing, added pork, we have not fixed the state's structural problems, we have special measures on the ballot, etc. Nothing even resembling fiscal responsibility occurred due to this process.

There is always talk of ending the two-thirds requirement, this time, it appears that there just might be the political will to do it.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

This is the Worst Possible Budget Deal But It Needs to Pass

Given the fact that this is the bicycle capital of the world, I risk a lot by saying this, but the priorities of people are a bit off in this country. Originally the state legislature was going to meet at 9 am this morning to vote on the budget agreement.

However there is one problem. Tomorrow in Davis there will be the Amgen Bike Tour. In Sacramento that will be today from 1 pm to 4 pm. There will be 100,000 people in downtown Sacramento today. Not of course to watch the budget vote, but to watch Lance Armstrong.

As a result, the State Legislature will be pushing off their vote on the budget to 5 pm on Valentine's Day Evening. If you're keeping score at home bike racing > Budget > Love and Marriage.

Now that we're clear on our priorities, let us lay out the stakes as if you do not know it. The most immediate stake is that there will be 20,000 state workers laid off their jobs if the budget does not pass. I am certain that some people reading this thinks this is a good thing, I would strongly suggest they put themselves in the shoes of those who make a modest income to begin with and will suddenly not know where their next paycheck is coming from.

That is just the immediate impact. The state is literally out of money. So right now, as we learned from Yolo County's Assistant Administrator Pat Leary on Wednesday, the County is not receiving its normally $5 million in monthly payments from the state in order to carry out its state mandated functions. Those are all of the social service functions the county provides. The county is still performing them, but they are taking the money from an emergency joint fund that is shared money from the cities and other jurisdictions in this county. They have to pay the money back with interest. They will get the money back probably but again, they will lose the interest. This is on top of the $22.5 million deficit the county is facing next fiscal year.

At some point, the state will not only be issuing IOUs to state employees, but to jurisdictions themselves. That means that at some point schools, counties, and municipal governments will have to operate without any state money. That will be an interesting challenge.

The bottom line, and I have spoken to a lot of people about this. There will come a point when the state starts defaulting on its obligations and those entities will basically have to shut down. If that happens, the entire state could come crashing down and then the state's economy will go from on the brink of disaster as it stands now to over the cliff. This is not an exaggeration.

Let's be honest up front--nobody is going to like this deal. No one. It's a bad deal. It's a horrible deal. And it is one that we have to sign because if we do not, things get so much worse. I cannot tell you how many different people have said this same thing in their own words.

On Wednesday, Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill called this deal the best they were going to get.

"My deal, one more time, has always been that I would try my best to get it to a position where I felt it was as good as I could get and I was willing to release my members. That's where I am. So I'm not guaranteeing any votes; it's up to them (his members) to make that decision… But I've negotiated it to the point where I think it doesn't get any better…"

He did say he was turning them loose to allow them to vote if that’s their decision.

In fact, the Senate leader himself would not commit to supporting the package saying:

"We're waiting to see all the language and all of that so I'm not ready to commit who the votes will be at this point."

The question is whether or not they have the votes and one-by-one Republicans announced that they were not voting for it. Until there were just three Republicans who had not announced that they were not voting for it, but they also hadn't announced that they were not voting for it.

This is what Shane Goldmacher from the Sacramento Bee said:

"The field of potential Republican votes for the budget compromise in the Senate -- widely viewed as the most challenging caucus to corral support -- has narrowed so significantly that only three members have yet to throw cold water on the tentative deal.

That happens to be the bare minimum of Republican votes needed to pass the $40 billion-plus budget plan.

Those three are Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill, Sen. Dave Cox of Fair Oaks and Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield."

Here's the Senate Republican Caucus' Morning release:

"What They Are Saying About the Bipartisan Budget Solution...

"...what lawmakers and voters must understand is that the choice is not between this budget and some theoretical better deal; it is between this budget and fiscal meltdown."

-- Los Angeles Times editorial, February 13, 2009

"... there is one overpowering, compelling reason that legislators should approve it: It is the best possible deal that we can imagine out of a dismal reality - economic and political - that has left California government at the brink of insolvency."

-- San Francisco Chronicle editorial, February 13, 2009

"...the tentative budget deal being worked out by the governor and legislative leaders is probably the best we can get. Perhaps the only positive thing about the proposed deal is that its spreads the pain fairly evenly."

-- Fresno Bee editorial, February, 13, 2009

"Given the scope of the state deficit, any budget compromise will contain ugly and unpopular components. But further delays are an even worse option."

-- Modesto Bee editorial, February 13, 2009)

"When Republicans unveiled their budget draft back in December, they put forward their wish list of government changes they wanted as part of any budget agreement. And though details are still coming into focus on the tentative budget deal, it looks as if Republicans made progress in nearly all of the areas they wanted changed."

-- Capitol Weekly article, "Republicans win concessions in budget plan," February 12, 2009)

"While this budget contains a painful mix of cuts and tax increases that nobody loves, the cost of inaction is much, much greater. Every day we wait to pass a budget means further economic devastation, the loss of thousands more jobs, and the shuttering of small businesses up and down the state."

-- Jim Earp, Executive Director of the California Alliance for Jobs, press release, February 12, 2009

"If we don't pass this budget now the pain will only get worse and the budget hole will only get deeper. It took courage for the Governor and our legislative leaders to make these hard decisions but they stepped up to the plate and addressed their responsibilities."

-- Danny Curtin, Director of the California Conference of Carpenters, press release, February 12, 2009"

So do we have the votes? Find out tonight.

What's in the bill?

A mix of spending cuts, tax increases, and borrowing. $15.8 billion in spending cuts, $14.3 billion in tax increases, and borrowing of $10.9 billion some of which will require voter approval.

How bad are the cuts? $5.646 billion from education this year. Another $2.955 billion next year. Higher education will get a 10% cut across the board. In other words, it's really bad. We do not know to what extent this includes budget flexibility. It looks like Class Size Reduction remains however.

The Los Angeles Times declared business the big winner in the budget plan. While we are having to pay more taxes, there is $1 billion in corporate tax breaks.

"About $1 billion in corporate tax breaks -- directed mostly at multi-state and multinational companies -- is tucked into the proposal. Opponents say the breaks will do nothing to create jobs, and the Legislature has rejected such moves repeatedly in the past. But now, to secure enough Republican votes to pass a budget that would raise taxes on everyone else, the Legislature is poised to write them into law with no public hearings at a time when the state treasury is almost out of cash."

Some of this was contingent upon the federal stimulus giving at least some money to California. Some of that borrowing is coming from stimulus money. We will have to see how that plays out.

The bottom line, this is again an awful budget. Horrible things will happen as the result of it. But if it does not pass, it is going to affect everyone's life in profound ways that you cannot imagine.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

And Still We Have No Budget

I rarely comment in this space about comments to other posts, but given that I am trying to bring together multiple threads into a single article, it actually works quite well.

The anonymous commenter said:

"I agree the State Legislature is bad and has been that way for more than a few years. The self serving Nunez and Perata are gone and that helps. I think Arnold has been trying to get everyone to see the light for a couple of years now. But they all have their special agenda's to follow."

Having covered the state government for over two months now as my "day job," I have to strongly disagree with the Mr. Anonymous here. The Governor is the problem--he does not lead, he issues fiats and then goes on extravagant trips.

Let us for a few moments throw out politics altogether and forget about whose side we agree with and whose side we disagree with. Let us also throw out the fact that California's two-thirds requirements are unworkable. On a side note, the Public Policy Institute of California's poll shows for the first time ever a majority (bare as it is) support for reducing the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget to 55%.

But back to the problem. Everyone talks about how they do not like politicians. Let's face it, they are unsavory. They are often cold, calculating, and bent on scoring political points over sound public policy. But there comes a time when you just need to get things done. And let's face it, we are long past that in California.

When there is a budget deal, and there will be at some point, no one is going to like it. The Republicans are going to have to accept the fact that taxes have to go up because you simply cannot make enough cuts to balance the budget without causing more problems than you solve. Democrats are going to have to accept the fact that we are spending too much money and have to cut and that unfortunately they are not going to be able to just cut programs that they don't like, they are going to have to cut into programs that they do like and from their perspective, do work.

Everyone is going to hate something about this budget.

So back to the Governor. The Governor cannot do this by fiat. The Governor cannot try to do this from afar. If he wants to portray the severity of the problem, then he needs to be traveling around explaining the problem to constituents. He needs to park himself in Sacramento and he needs to roll up his sleeves and work. Until he is willing to do that, this budget problem is not going to be solved.

Moreover, the Governor has one primary responsibility in this process, he must get enough of his own party on board with him to strike a deal. This is a complete and total failure on his part. If Arnold were merely having to work with the Democrats, there would have been a deal a long time ago. The Democrats for the most part have been willing to compromise far more than the Legislative Republicans. I am sorry, but in my book that is Arnold's failure. All he needs is three votes from the Republican party. He should be able to offer enough inducements to get three members of his party to sign on, but he has not been able to do this so far.

There is a ripple down effect here that is going to be tremendously devastating. First, the governor is trying to balance the budget on the backs of state workers right now. Folks, most of these guys aren't like the Davis Firefighters making $150K per year in total compensation. These are people who make maybe $30 to $40K. A ten percent cut in their salary means somewhere between $300 to $400 per month in cuts for people who are largely living paycheck to paycheck.

Budget cuts are preferred by many over tax increases. Sales tax may be regressive, but think about it this way, a 1% sales tax increase means, one additional cent per dollar, it means one dollar additional tax per $100, it means ten dollars additional tax per $1000. You are telling me that people who make a $1000 purchase are going to notice $10 additional in sales tax?

On the other hand, budget cuts mean people will get laid off. One proposal for example had Republicans suggesting $10 billion in education cuts. Let us not forget what that would actually do to education, probably the most important thing we spend our money on, that's probably 20,000 teachers laid off. What would that do to the economy. We've had to suspend construction projects to the tune of $660 million per month. For crying out loud, the stimulus plan that Obama is looking at is trying to create construction projects to stimulate the economy. And we are cutting those jobs?

A lot has been made about furloughing state workers. People seem anti-state worker until of course they can't get their unemployment check or go to the DMV, because it's closed on a Friday when they should be open to collected revenue for the state. Then suddenly they realize that they need state employees to run our state. They provide a service. They are "public servants." We actually need them. Of course you say, private sector is laying off their workers, local government is also furloughing their workers. But wait, there is one big difference, let's start at Yolo County by way of example.

Remember as I said earlier, Arnold likes to govern by fiat. There is a process by which furloughs should be considered. It is the collective bargaining process. If the County cuts employee work days and salaries it occurs in negotiation. If the school district cuts employee work days and salaries it occurs in negotiation. If the city of Davis cuts employee work days and salaries it will occur by negotiation. That is how the rights of workers are protected. Almost every agency has been willing to sacrifice so that employees are not laid off. For all the perception out there, that is an amazing thing.

However, Arnold wouldn't and won't do that. This despite public employees groups publicly suggesting that they would be willing to work with the state to make things work to avoid layoffs. This despite what Speaker Bass said on New Year's Eve that the Democrats would be fine with holidays and furloughs as long as it was part of the collective bargaining process.

Yolo County is in many ways in deep trouble. They will be $18 million in deficit. That is one-third of their operating budget. There was a good story Friday in the Sacramento Bee on the relative success of Yolo County in instituting voluntary furloughs since May. That's right, voluntary furloughs. That is how job losses have been avoided. But this occurred with the help and consent of the bargaining units as opposed to forcing furloughs upon them.

That, at least, has been the experience of Yolo County government workers – for whom unpaid time off has become the norm over the last seven months.

Beginning last spring, when county officials realized they had to cut costs, Yolo County employees either volunteered to take time off or eventually faced mandatory furloughs.

Many say their experience has been surprisingly positive, despite the pay cut.

The Governor does not operate that way. He issues demands and fiats and expects people to comply. What he discovered is that that type of approach produces resistance rather than cooperation.

Let us not kid ourselves, the situation would be dire no matter what given the nature of the economic crisis before us, but had Arnold agreed to a budget in December, California would be in far better shape.

For one thing, we would be working with real budget numbers rather than assumptions. People's lives have been torn apart based on these assumptions.

Look no further than the school district. They are going to have to put people on pink slip notice once again because they cannot assume budget flexibility. If we had a budget, they might not have to do this. They are going to have to ask teachers to take a 2.5% pay cut. This will be negotiated. It is not preferred, but it will be done if need be in order to prevent job losses right now.

I actually think Sheila Allen summed it up the best:

"It's just so frustrating that we have deadlines that we have to meet and other elected officials are not. So we're working with 'fiction' and we're messing with real people's lives when it's based on fiction, it's very frustrating."

I agree. I'm sorry anonymous, but from my standpoint, Arnold doesn't know how to negotiate. He doesn't know how to lead. The departed President found himself in a similar situation. Oh he had conviction to the point of stubbornness, but like George Bush, Arnold never learned the most valuable lesson of all, you aren't a leader if no one is following you. Until Arnold learns that lesson, these budgets will only get more difficult and more and more people's lives will be torn apart.

Come on Mr. Governor, it's time to step up and solve the budget crisis not by will, not by fiat, but by cooperation and in true spirit of negotiation.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Attorneys For Brenda Cedarblade File Letter of Complaint with District Attorney, Yolo County Sheriff, and Woodland Chief of Police

Complaint Alleges "Non-Responsiveness" to Series of Violent Threats, Acts of Violence and an Overall Pattern of Harassment

On December 17, 2008, attorney Matt Gonzalez from the San Francisco based law firm of Gonzalez and Leigh, fired off a complaint addressed to Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Sheriff Ed Prieto, and Woodland Police Chief Carey Sullivan.

The complaint "expresses concern" with:

"the Yolo County Sheriff Department's and the Woodland Police Department's seeming non-responsiveness to a series of violent threats, acts of violence, burglaries, criminal trespasses, and an overall pattern of harassment (some of which are described below) directed at my clients, and all of which were reported to both the Yolo Sheriff's Department and the Woodland Police Department."

The letter lays out four instances including shots fired onto property on May 25, 2008, multiple incidents of burglary and criminal trespass dating to April and May of 2008, threats, and the publication of private and confidential information on a web site.

Mr. Gonzalez writes:

On May 25, 2008 my clients reported three shots fired from a field North of their property at 41070 County Road 18C, Woodland, 95695. The shots were fired from a high powered rifle onto their property while Ted Wilson and several of his employees were working. Two of the bullets sailed over Mr. Wilson's head and hit the roof of the horse arena on my clients' property. After hearing the shots fired and the bullets land, Mr. Wilson located a white pick-up truck and four men in a field northwest of his property. Ms. Cedarblade immediately called the Yolo County Sheriff's Department for assistance.

Upon arriving, the Deputy Sheriff confronted four men in the same white pick-up truck located by Mr. Wilson. As relayed to my clients' from the deputy, the men possessed a high-powered long-range rifle, methamphetamine, and were all residing illegally in the United States. The men told the deputy they were using the gun to "shoot squirrels".

According to the complaint, the shooting constitutes several crimes including "assault with deadly weapon" and "discharge of firearm at occupied building."

However, authorities did not follow up on these complaints and made no arrest.

"Following the shooting Mr. Wilson and Ms. Cedarblade unequivocally told the deputy they wished to press all charges against the shooters. However, Mr. Wilson and Ms. Cedarblade understand that the Sheriff's Department made no arrest of the shooters, and conducted no further investigation..."

Mr. Gonzalez writes:

"Given the shooters' purported explanation, and the clear commission of several crimes, the failure to investigate or file charges raises serious questions about the Yolo County Sheriff Department's policies and procedures for investigating crimes, and their apparent disregard of serious violent conduct directed at my clients."

The next incident allegedly occurred in April of 2008.

"Ms. Cedarblade and Mr. Wilson arrived at home to find that unknown persons had entered their home, as well as the historic ranch on their property. The trespassers left green cards, $2000 in cash, drugs and drug paraphernalia. Ms. Cedarblade also discovered old family photos of her family scattered around her bedroom, as well as childhood drawings and report cards, all things that were not previously in her possession. They also found rat poison spread over their bed and kitchen counter. After notifying the Sheriff's Department, the deputy declined to conduct any investigation or collect any evidence, and told my clients to keep the green cards and the $2000 cash.

On May 22, 2208, my clients discovered photos and documents related to the former occupation of Ms. Cedarblade's father, a former navy defense contractor who worked on classified missile systems, inside their home. The photos and documents - which mayor may not be classified - were not previously in the possession of my clients, and appeared to be part of the personnel file of Ms. Cedarblade's father, including his security clearance."

According to Mr. Gonzalez, though this burglary was reported, no investigation was conducted by law enforcement.

The third incident involved a threatening phone call claiming that there was a hit out for Ms. Cedarblade who then reported this to the Sheriff's department.

"The Deputy told Ms. Cedarblade that a "hit" could mean a hit on a government records search, and did no further investigation - this despite providing the deputy with the name of the caller."

Furthermore private information was allegedly posted on a web site, however, there was never any investigation into this matter by the Woodland Police or the Sheriff's department.

Mr. Gonzalez concludes:

"My clients turned over all information concerning the above incidents, as well as other instances of harassment, to both the Yolo County Sheriff's Department and the Woodland Police Department. But, to their knowledge, neither Department conducted any serious investigation into any of the above incidents, or any other of the reported incidents, despite clear evidence of criminal activity. In fact, my clients expressly requested a criminal investigation to the Sheriff's Department and were told, through their previous attorney, that the District Attorney's office was too busy to do any investigation."

The Vanguard will be following up on this story in the coming days and will report upon any further development.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Obama's Call to Action: Why We Cannot Wait

A generation ago in 1961, President John F. Kennedy exhorted the country to take out a new spirit of public service as a new generation took the helm of the United States. Inspired by his call to action, many young Americans would span out across the globe in the Peace Corps and at home came calls for social justice, racial equality, and eventually peace.

In just a few hours today, a new President will take office with as much excitement if not more than that day in 1961. There will be other days to reflect on the pitfalls ahead. There will be other times to reflect on how Camelot and the "Best and the Brightest" to coin the phrase of David Halberstam would end up in the 1960s.

Today we enter a new era with hope and anticipation. We enter a new time where a black President is a reality just as Kennedy ushered in a time when a Catholic President was a reality.

However, there is so much more to the inspiration of President Barack Obama. One of the enduring moments this week, among many which including throngs of well-wishers and supporters gathering in Washington and as notably along his train route, was the image yesterday of the President taking off his coat and painting. Symbolic to be sure, but it was a sign that this President is going to roll up his sleeves and get into the dirty work.

In the midst of all of his excitement was his call to service. He called on people of all ages to give 50 hours to community service a year.

As much as we need a new era of sacrifice by Americans, as much as we need a new call to action, a new call for us to ask what we can do for our country, there is so much more that needs to be done.

For a moment though, contrast this picture with what we saw on September 11, 2001 and the coming days. The country was ready for action. The country was yearning to come together for a national purpose. The country would have heeded any call to sacrifice. One of the big failings of the past administration was the failure to take advantage of that collective moment of unity. Instead it dissolved into polarization. The world was behind us that day and instead we divided it with our ill-considered war against Iraq.

But today I want to talk about the future, not the past. Our communities need Obama's help. Our communities are struggling. We can start at the State level and work our way down. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

California faces a 40 billion dollar deficit in the coming year. It cannot go into debt. Its legislature is polarized by partisan differences and agendas. Its Governor gained not a single vote in support of his budget proposal from his own party. Workers are facing furloughs, pay cuts, and the very real prospect of the loss of jobs during the toughest economic crisis in recent memory.

We need to take back our state. We need the kind of change at the state level that we have at the federal level and the next election is a distant two years away. We cannot wait.

Banks are failing. Businesses that have long histories are filing for bankruptcy and many are closing their doors. We cannot wait.

Our cities are going bankrupt. Our schools are laying off teachers and cutting classes. Our universities are turning away students. Our counties that are relied on to provide for the least of us, are in the worst shape of all. We cannot wait.

Our local community is probably in better shape than most. Just this past weekend, I was down in San Luis Obispo and read about the schools there facing massive layoffs. Our own district is probably going to avoid that fate the next year and a half. But still we will have to find a way to absorb multimillion dollars of revenue cuts. The children are the future of this nation, they cannot afford to become a victim in the line of cuts. We cannot wait.

The city of Davis, long thought to be immune from economic downturn is facing over one million in deficits by next year and over three million the following year. We can always question decisions made and the reforms needed, but the fact remains, even the city of Davis needs help. Our roads will go unrepaired. Our infrustructure aging. And while a few are prospering, the citizens of this town are in need of help just like everyone else.

But worst of all is the County of Yolo. It is facing an $18 million deficit, that is one-third of its general fund operating budget. The County of Yolo is in charge of providing for the least of us. It is in charge of feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and giving medicine to the sick and the old. Our county as it stands right now will not be able to carry on its commitments to the needy in our population.

These are tough times indeed. It is great to serve food at a homeless shelter. It is great to volunteer at a hospital. It is wonderful to donate food for the soup kitchen and clothes to thrift shop. But we must do more. For if the county has to cut services, then there will be more hungry, more homeless, more needy, more sick, and less services to help these people. We cannot wait.

So today as Barack Obama gets sworn in let us celebrate, but tomorrow, we must work.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Looks At Increasing Election Costs

Tonight, the Davis School Board will most likely vote to pass an election consolidation measure which will move school board elections to the November General Elections as opposed to the current arrangement of the November Election in odd years.

The overriding factor here is cost and the rising cost imposed on the school district by the County has made this move necessary. Because the other districts in the county have already moved their elections to even years, the school district would have to bear full cost of running an election.



Last year that cost rose to $585,622 for the 2007 election county-wide. It is unlikely that the district would have to pay that full amount and estimate suggest closer to the $300,000, but part of that will depend on increasing costs from the county which if they continue at the current rate, could push the cost much higher.



DJUSD officials were stunned in February for instance when they got the bill for the November 2007 and found it to be $155,420, a more than three-fold increase over the 2005 election. Far more than they budgeted.

The Vanguard now takes a closer at these rising costs. The first graph and chart show the increasing costs for running elections since 2000.

In 2003, the total cost was $88,000 of which DJUSD bore $52,000. That cost rose to $319,000 in 2005, remember in 2005 was the Governor's initiatives and Measure X, as a result, even with the rising cost, DJUSD only paid $47,000. That changed in 2007 when the cost increased by a huge order of magnitude. County-wide it was just under $600,000 of which Davis paid over $150,000.

These increases were somewhat baffling since the cost of doing business may have gone up, but certainly not by half a million over four years.

When we examine the breakdown of the costs we get a far better picture of what is going on.



In 2003, the county only passed on a fraction of the costs to local jurisdictions. The biggest costs were all direct costs for running the election. The county charged $46,000 for its printing and $15,000 for its election night staff. A small portion of that cost was $10,000 to staff and salaries.

In order to highlight the changes, I have color coded the changes for 2005 and 2007. Coded in blue are huge increases in cost from 2003 to 2005 and coded in red are huge increases in cost from 2005 to 2007.

What we see in 2005 is largely what appears to be a fuller bearing of election night costs from the county to the jurisdictions holding election. So you have a huge increase in the cost of election night staff, printing, postage, and drayage (the cost of trucking the polling equipment around). One exception was a nearly seven-fold increase in the cost of staff salaries and wages.

In 2007, we see that trend continue, but now they are asking local jurisdiction to bear what appear to be fixed costs. There was an increase in drayage costs, but the other increases were mainly fixed costs with the exception of extra help salaries, wages, and overtime which the county charged for the first time.

But you see now $154,800 in staff salaries and $58,000 in benefits. Overtime appears to be an additional cost. But you have over $200,000 in costs passed on to the local jurisdictions for what appears to be normal operating costs to the election's office. It is hard to evaluate the line for indirect election costs, also a new line for 2007.

What appears to be happening is that with the county facing revenue problems, they have simply passed along the costs to other jurisdictions. That seems reasonable. But they are making those jurisdictions that utilize specific services that year bare the full costs of running the department, costs that would be incurred regardless of whether or not they held an election.

The consequence has been to force most jurisdictions into the general election where the costs are shared across jurisdictions, but for Davis this comes at a cost.

Board Member Richard Harris adamantly believes that it is wrong to vote to extend his term. I do not agree with him fully on this issue, but he clearly feels very strongly about it, strongly enough that it appears he will resign after his fourth year. The county's revenue crunch appears to be the culprit here, but the cost-bearing apparatus should be examined.

Perhaps a more equitable distribution of costs would be a more fair way to go. After all, the elections office will still operate in 2009 with its basic staffing level regardless of what DJUSD decides to do here. So the question as to why they should pass along fixed costs to DJUSD seems appropriate? Perhaps this is something that should be more closely evaluated.

Earlier this week, the County Clerk's Office announced the hiring a new chief deputy, Andrea Jones, who had previously worked as Supervisor Mariko Yamada's chief deputy. The position had been open it appears for at least six months, meaning that the election's office functioned through the highest turnout election in recent years without someone filling this position. Given the cost cutting mode of the county and given the new policies by the County Clerk's office, perhaps, this position would have been better off staying vacant. After all, is there not a basic hiring freeze in place in the county, and if there is not, shouldn't there be?

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Legislative Game of Chicken Imperils Local Governance

Friday the Vanguard primarily looked at the fiscal crisis the school district now faces which is due entirely to the state budget situation at this point. The school district is not alone in receiving bad news this week, the county faces an $18 million deficit next year which is something on order of one-third of their general fund budget. The city is actually off relatively light facing only a $1.2 million deficit this year, $3 million next year, and $5 million down the line. Did I say light? Well, at least I qualified it with relatively.

Time to be brutally honest here. The state is facing a problem of such severity that I do not believe most people grasp the magnitude of it. First it was $10 billion (that's with a "b"), then $28 billion, now the latest is perhaps $40 billion.

Speaker Karen Bass deserves credit because she seems to recognize the magnitude of the problem. She is afraid her colleagues do not.

She said on Monday:

"I think that some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are in denial, frankly. And feel that this problem is not as big as $11 billion right now or $28 billion over the next few months, or feel that we can solve this through cuts alone or that we can solve this through revenue alone."

She continued:

"I'm saying that on both sides of the aisle, in both houses, and I'm also saying that for the new members especially who come here with wonderful ideals that they need to hear the reality."

Since that point we have seen the GOP legislative leaders have it out with the Governor. The Governor clearly has no clout with his own party. He is a man without a base. Some people will hear that and say good for him. The fact of the matter is it is good for nobody. I prefer a moderate governor to a conservative governor on an ideological basis, but we need someone here who can be a deal broker, who can get the votes. The Governor has no ability to do that. At this point he might as well not exist.

Let me lay out the implications of what the Speaker is saying because from my perspective she is the only one making sense.

On Thursday she acknowledged that in order to stave off something far worse than we are already facing, that Democrats have to be prepared to cut programs that they do not want to cut.

"They said that they came up here because of what they believed in and they believed that there should never be a tax increase. All of us came up here for what we believed in. I came up here to make sure that I would protect programs that now I have to recognize have to be cut. We all have to do things that we never thought we would do because California is in a catastrophic situation."

The Speaker may see the reality here, it is questionable as to whether her colleagues recognize the truth with which she speaks. It is doubtful that the Republicans understand that they are going to have to do likewise.

The Sacramento Bee this morning has an article called "GOP hangs tight on taxes as red ink rises."

The Bee writes:

"California is hurtling toward a financial abyss, projecting a $40 billion shortfall by July 2010, and no deal can be struck without at least three Republican votes in both the Assembly and Senate.

GOP officials clutch that trump card with relish as the state braces to pull the plug on $5 billion in public works projects and warns it won't be able to pay all its bills by February or March.

Democrats and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger want to shrink the gap through a combination of program cuts and tax increases – but Republican lawmakers adamantly oppose raising taxes and nearly all have signed national pledges to hold firm.

Democrats say the GOP is holding California coffers hostage."

Republicans want to see structural changes as the Assembly Leader Mike Villines said:

"The point is, if you don't make structural reforms now, I don't know when we can ever do it in this state."

The Republicans are right in a sense, we do need to make structural reforms now. But what needs to happen and quickly is that both sides drop the posturing and put their cards on the table. Republicans are going to have to accept tax increases, there is no way to make this work without increasing revenue. Democrats are going to have to accept program cuts--figure out which programs can be cut (which is a problem onto itself) and then how much money can be saved from them.

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer is exactly right:

"State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, characterized the high-stakes showdown between legislative Democrats and Republicans as political "chicken," with each party expecting the other to blink.

"I think they're going to run off a cliff," Lockyer said."

The problem is that at this point both sides are pointing the finger at each other. Republicans see Democrats as the roadblock and Democrats believe that three Republicans are holding up what the majority of the legislature wants.

The Bee writes:

""What we see is a gun being put at the head of the California taxpayer, they're being told, 'All right, look, it's time for you to dig deeper, pony up more or you're going to suffer even more pain,' " said Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill.

Villines said the GOP is willing to discuss revenue increases – not specifically tax hikes – after a deal is struck on a state spending cap, permanent budget cuts, trimming waste, and amending some environmental regulations and labor laws to bolster business."

The problem here is that the Republicans are in fact making a demand--spending cuts be placed on the table first, they need to be willing to discuss both simultaneously. Until both sides recognize they have to work together, this stalemate is going to continue.

Ordinarily, I would say so be it, but these are not ordinary times, each day that there is a deal that is not struck to actually fix rather than bandage the problem, the problem will get worse.

This is not the time to play politics. They have two years until an election and the actual problem outweighs any political benefit that one side would receive by winning.

The Bee article sums it up by quoting Claremont McKenna Government Professor, John Pitney:

"Sometimes games of chicken end in a crash."

Unfortunately if they do, it is a crash that would harm the voters and taxpayers of all Californians, regardless of their party affiliation. Time for both sides of the aisle to step up, work together, and fix the problems. Then they can figure out who won.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

School District Latest to Feel the Heat Over Economy and State Budget Situation

This has been one of the roughest weeks in terms of the budget projections that one can imagine. This seems as good a time as any to let people that know that on Monday, I began a job as editor of the California Progress Report.

One of my first official duties in this capacity was to cover Speaker Karen Bass' press conference. Towards the end of her talk, she laid it on the line.

“I think that some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are in denial, frankly. And feel that this problem is not as big as $11 billion right now or $28 billion over the next few months, or feel that we can solve this through cuts alone or that we can solve this through revenue alone. The goal of today is to make sure that there is no excuse for the denial of moving forward. I'm saying that on both sides of the aisle, in both houses, and I'm also saying that for the new members especially who come here with wonderful ideals that they need to hear the reality. For returning members, they need to know how much more serious this crisis has gotten.”

Yolo County Budget Crisis

The local dominoes fell shortly after that. The county faces a $3.5 million budget shortfall this year and a stunning $18.6 million deficit next year. That represents almost one third of the general fund budget.

From Wednesday's Woodland Daily Democrat:

"The Board of Supervisors approved cost-saving measures Tuesday that would close at least $3.2 million of Yolo County's current $3.5 million budget shortfall.

The board also directed staff to return in early 2009 with recommendations for resolving next year's $18.6 million deficit, which represents 30 percent of the general fund. The 2009-10 budget covers the period beginning July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.

The shortfall is likely to increase as the national recession continues and with the state's ongoing financial challenges, county staff reported to the board. The state's current deficit is $28 billion over the next 18 months, with shortfalls projected for the next four years, according to staff.

To shrink the county's current $3.5 million deficit -- the result of a "carry-forward" shortfall from department budgets of the previous year -- the supervisors adopted staff recommended measures that includes the freezing of "unnecessary travel," elimination of non-essential contracts and services, and postponement of some equipment purchases.

The board also authorized staff to implement department-identified savings measures that amount to about $2.2 million; accept voluntary employee salary reductions at a savings of $210,280; and negotiate with labor representatives for mandatory 32-hour furloughs of each employee, saving $585,949 ($271,814 from the general fund)."

The city was the next to fall that evening.

The Vanguard reported:

"At last night's Davis City Council Meeting, the city of Davis was presented data by Finance Director Paul Navazio that paints an increasingly bleak face on the city's fiscal situation. Once thought to be relatively immune to the rise and fall of the economy, the current economic crisis goes deep enough that Davis faces a $1.2 million budget deficit for this year and a $3 million budget deficit for next year.

The culprit is lower-than-expected property and sales tax revenues. For instance, the city expected a 6.5 percent growth in property taxes but they have only seen a 3 percent growth. Moreover, and just as devastating is what happened on the sales tax side where the city typically assumes a 2 percent annual sales tax growth but instead is looking at a 5 percent decrease in revenue from sales tax primarily coming from auto sales, gas, and restaurants.

A few weeks ago we reported that the city of Davis was looking for immediate cost containment which included a five-fold strategy of a hiring freeze, closer scrutiny of overtime, travel and training control, tighter control of contracts, and a limitation of non-essential spending.

The budget forecast for the next five years looks bleak for the city. With the $1.2 million debt for 2008-09 increasing to $3 million next year, $3.8 million in 2010-11, $4.49 million in 2011-12 and $5 million for 2012-13. Part of the problem is that the structural deficit that some have claimed the city resolved, has asserted itself."

DJUSD Budget Crisis

The good news for the school district, if there is good news is that with the passage of Measure W, it looks like the school district will be alright, albeit eating into the reserves for this year. The bad news is that after that, the picture once again gets the bleak. The culprit is the devastating budget situation in the state.

The governor's proposal features roughly a $2.2 billion cut in K-12 funding. THe Democrats feature a $1.8 billion K-12 reduction.

The bad news is that the huge operating shortfalls right now are projected to continue for the next five years.







The key question is how does DJUSD look after the governor's proposal.

According to Budget Director Bruce Colby's presentation last night, the district faces a $1.8 million deficit for 2009-10. Because of some of the categorical fund flexibility in the governor's proposal, DJUSD might be able to shift some of that money around to trafer from state categorical revenues. The district receives about $4.8 million from this. Mr. Colby presents this as a two year option. The district can also reduce or eliminate mandatory class size reductions, this is also a two year option. Finally, as one-time relief, the district can reduce the required reserve level, which would be a 50% reduction or one million dollars.

However, the larger budget deficit challenge will be for 2010-2011. The good news (again if there is any) is that since the district is okay for now, they can focus on longer term strategies for reduction of spending. For those wondering, another parcel tax is not a possibility.

The slide below here is the comparison between the Governor's proposal and the Democratic proposal.



Bruce Colby argues that the final state budget reductions will have significant impacts on DJUSD programs for the next four years. They are going to look to ways to minimize future spending decision in order to maintain a fund balance. They will review and reduce site and district level spending including on categoricals. They will also evauate the need to backfill vacant positions.

One thing that was stressed was the need for community outreach and to discuss with the public and inform them about this process. They are proposing a board budget workshop in early 2009.

As I said at the onset of this article, this is one of the most bleak pictures I have seen in terms of the economy and honestly, I think Speaker Karen Bass had it right--not only are her colleagues in denial, but the public as a whole is really unaware at this point how bad things will get. The real bad news is that this is just the beginning, the country really has not felt the full impact of this economic collapse. Things are likely to get much worse before they get better.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Thanksgiving Eve: Woodburning, Child Abandoning, and a Legislative Surprise

Well Vanguardians, it is that time of year, Thanksgiving. As we have done the previous two years, for the only time during this year, the Vanguard will take a vacation. Today will be the last new entry, barring the biggest story of the year, until Monday morning. Everyone have a happy and safe Thanksgiving.

There are three briefer stories that will be covered in this article

WOOD BURNING RESTRICTIONS APPROVED

On Monday, the Natural Resources Commission drafted an ordinance on wood-burning stoves. It was not a complete ban that the city is moving towards. However, it would implement no-burn days when atmospheric conditions and the winds are insufficient to disperse the smoke. Even on those days when would could be burned, it would be limited to six hours per day.

The effects would take place on March 1, 2010. The city would study Davis' air quality to determine the impact of no-burn days and the impact a more stringent ban would take place.

The council will take up this issue on December 16, 2008.

I fully understand the reasoning of waiting on restrictions. I also understand why they did not want to undertake an outright ban. That said, I do not think a March 1 start date makes any sense. Why wait until the end of winter to start the ban? What practical sense does that make? What value is that for conducting a study. It essentially means that we are waiting for the 2010-11 winter to get real data on the impact. That is fine, but if that is the case, why not begin the ban on September 1, 2010?

Second point, and maybe someone knows who attended the meeting, but did they put an exemption in for lower income people? Especially if you are not banning wood burning, it makes sense to exempt low income people who use the fireplace as their primary means for heat.

At some point this is going to become like a smoking ban, incrementally it will get tougher and tougher and people realize exposure to even small amounts of particulate matter in the air is unhealthy, particularly for a broad range of sensitive people. (A number that likely exceeds the number of people who burn wood on a regular basis).

SAFE HARBOR LAW AND DAVIS TEEN

Good article in the Sacramento Bee this morning describing the incident and the conditions that led a Davis woman to leave her 14 year old son in a hospital in rural Nebraska.

I suppose not yet being a parent myself, I do not have standing to admonish this woman, since I do not know what she's been through. Taking that chance, I would offer that my first response to hearing this was this was a despicable act by an irresponsible person who should now lose custody of her other two children. Harsh? Perhaps. Let's take a look at what happened.

But on the other hand, it seems that authorities share some of the responsibility here for failing to assist her calls for help. Do we not have a system set up to help people such as her so that she does not have to take drastic steps such as drive 1600 to Nebraska. A few years ago, I did that drive, you can drive from Western Nebraska to Davis in about 18 or 19 hours of driving if you take minimal rest stops.

The Sacramento Bee article seems a bit less judgmental of her situation than I did, running through exactly what the problem was and how she tried to get help.

Fortunately, Nebraska wisely closed the loophole that was supposed to be for infants to prevent infanticide by desperate mothers who are overwhelmed by the prospect of suddenly having to care for a young baby.

As the Sacramento Bee describes, help is hard to find:

" For parents of such problem teens, there is a network of resources available through schools and mental health providers. But there are cracks in the system, and the frustrations of dealing with a patchwork of services.

When authorities declined to intervene after her son raised a knife against the family, she said, her only option was to abandon him in a state that would accept him.

Her son was the last of three dozen older children abandoned in Nebraska in recent months before the state's Legislature closed a loophole in its new safe haven law. Now, only newborns can be dropped off without legal liability there."

According to the article, start with the child's school and school psychologists. However, they warn that students who *only* have substance abuse problems may not qualify for special education.

"His mother, who works as a custodian, makes about $2,000 a month and lives in a modest house, said she was able to get him into a residential treatment program in Sonoma. He seemed to be improving, she said.

But then he started acting out and getting into trouble. It was the same behavior – defiance and aggression, drugs, drinking and smoking – that had caused such trouble at home, she said."

The woman told the Bee that she adopted the son when he was four and he was aggressive toward all his family members--verbally and physically abusive.

"After the latest knife-waving incident, the woman said, she called police, who did little to help.

Police in Davis and Sacramento said such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis, with the officer assessing the nature of the threat and the likelihood of violence.

"There's no formula," said Steve Pierce, assistant chief of Davis police. He said he did not know the details of the particular case, but confirmed police had gone to the house a number of times."

She also called Yolo County Child Welfare Services, according to the Bee, they could only protect abused children, not parents.

Nebraska has sent the child back to Yolo County, now he will be placed in foster care, and a court will decide his fate.

Okay, I still blame the mother after all of this, but I can partially understand her actions. But what really seems amiss is the system. And the worst part is that our social services simply do not have the resources to help in this matter. Nor do we have the systems and protocols laid out. So what does a working class woman who makes a fairly low salary and is apparently a single-mother with other children going to do when these problems arise? She went to the system multiple times and the system failed her?

So at the end of this analysis, I still do not agree with the safe harbor strategy and dumping him on someone else, which she has essentially and completely done, he is now going into a foster care system which is equally overwhelmed and unable to attend to his needs. This is an exceedingly sad case and this boy will likely live a very tough life unless he ends up in a home that will have the resources and patience to make a difference in his life.

DEMOCRAT WILL WIN AD 10 ELECTION

In an open race that featured Democrat Alyson Huber and Republican Jack Sieglock, for most of the post-election period Huber had been trailing her opponent by over 1000 votes. This was one of the very few competitive races.

While we have not discussed this race, it is race that I am familiar with and know quite a few people who spent hours working to get Alyson Huber elected to the Assembly.

Well the news came last night that based on the counting of several thousand ballots from Sacramento County, Alyson Huber has surged to a 531 vote lead. She had a net gain of over 900 votes when they completed counting Sacramento County.

There are a couple of hundred ballots outstanding in El Dorado County, and a few in Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties, but not enough to overturn the election. The counties must certify their results by December 2.

At this point barring an unexpected change it looks like Huber will win and bring the Democrats to 51 seats in the Assembly next session. It's not the two-thirds the Democrats were aiming for and not enough to forestall another budget lock-down; however, Democrats will be happy to have 51 seats in the Assembly.

The two sides could not even agree on a package of cuts and taxes to reduce the $17 billion budget deficit for the next two years. Republicans refused to budge apparently on new revenues. The Republicans argued that the plan lacked a spending cap, economic stimulus, and did not contain enough cuts.

At some point perhaps we will realize that we have enough checks and balances already in place that requiring a two-thirds vote makes it impossible to have real changes. Simple majority approval by the legislature and the governor's acceptance are all the checks and balances we really need to do something, but the current 2/3 system does not permit that.

Happy Thanksgiving all! Remember, December 2 is the Virtual Town hall Meeting. Big issues are coming up in Davis in December - that is for sure - and the Vanguard will be there to bring you the most up-to-date information and happenings in Davis. See you again on December 1st!

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Across the State Uncertainty Clouds Future for Re-entry Facilities

Budget Lacks Money and State Lacks Credibility in Their Promises

While the people of Madison mount a fight against locating the re-entry facility in their community, it seems more and more that they are not alone in that fight. Across the state, counties and communities are realizing that they have given up more than they bargained for.

Thanks to an anonymous tip, the Vanguard has discovered that the funding for the re-entry facility that was approved this week, may not exist. There are also additional problems that appear to exist with the system.

According to the Stockton Record on September 18, 2008, the state's budget if it passes (and it now appears it will) does not have money to fund AB 900.

"Missing from the budget compromise reached this week in Sacramento was legislation needed to fund landmark prison reform designed to relieve overcrowding in state prisons and local lockups, state prison and local law enforcement officials said."

This has left San Joaquin County in a bigger lurch than it possibly will Yolo County.

"The reform legislation includes $1.2 billion for local jail expansion, and San Joaquin County is slated to receive $80 million of that money to expand its overstuffed County Jail."

"Language to "clean up" AB900 is necessary to pay for jail expansions and re-entry facilities, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. State officials said the cleanup language is needed before California can issue bonds funding AB900.

And if the fix doesn't pass with the budget, it could be at least three months before lawmakers can pass a law to make the necessary changes, law enforcement officials said.

That's three more months that could see construction costs rise and three more months San Joaquin County will have to deal with increased crime rates caused by a jail so full that criminals who should be locked up are on the streets, San Joaquin County Sheriff-Coroner Steve Moore said.

"It's disappointing that this wasn't taken care of in the first round," Moore said.

In a Wednesday conference call, representatives from the governor's office assured law enforcement officials from across the state that fixing the law was a top priority.

"It's very difficult for me to share the same confidence," Calaveras County Sheriff Dennis Downum said. Calaveras County was picked to receive $10 million for its own overcrowding issues.

Concern about not having a funding mechanism in place has other county sheriffs unsure about their own projects, said Jim Denney, executive director of the California State Sheriffs' Association. "It's making it very rough for the local jurisdictions to proceed."

San Joaquin County is not the only county alarmed.

The Monterey Herald reports a similar problem in Monterey County:

"After months of working to find potential sites for a state prison inmate re-entry facility in exchange for $80 million in funding for an expansion of the county jail, county officials found out the money may not be available after all.

In a bombshell announcement to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Sheriff Mike Kanalakis said sources in Sacramento told him the Legislature's newly approved state budget would likely mean the demise of AB 900 funding that would have helped pay for the jail upgrade. The quest for the jail expansion money was the primary reason county leaders promised state prison officials a re-entry facility site in Monterey County.

Under the terms of the state budget compromise that was passed early Tuesday, AB 900 is "for all intents and purposes dead," Kanalakis said. "We're not sure where this leaves us."

Supervisors decided to go ahead with their original plan to ask state prison officials for a six-month extension to identify a site for the re-entry facility in rural Monterey County in case the state budget doesn't pass and the funding remains available. "

Here's perhaps a key point:

"Kanalakis' announcement left supervisors expressing relief they hadn't committed to a site in Monterey County for the re-entry facility, noting unsuccessful efforts to secure promises from the state linked to the site.

Last week, supervisors backed out of a plan to offer the state a specific site, voting to remove all proposed sites in Salinas from consideration and declaring their intention to find a site in the unincorporated part of the county.

They agreed to require the state to provide a series of promises before the county would commit to any site, including that the jail expansion money would be available, that the facility would never be converted to another use, and that the state would provide re-entry program funding.

Supervisor Lou Calcagno said he was always concerned that the state couldn't live up to its end of the bargain. "

Seems we haven't done any of that in Yolo County. Also, why are we only getting $30 million when Monterrey County is getting $80?

So what happened in Monterey County?

"The state has dropped plans to build a prison re-entry facility in Monterey County after local officials failed to meet Thursday's deadline to designate a specific site for the 500-bed lockup.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's decision could cost Monterey County $80 million in state funds that were earmarked to expand the overcrowded county jail.

"They took us off the list," county Supervisor Fernando Armenta said, minutes after a meeting with the CDCR board of directors. "It is very disappointing and frustrating."

Armenta, Sheriff Mike Kanalakis and several other officials traveled to Berkeley for Thursday's meeting of the prison board, where they requested the six month extension.

The county decided it needed more time after the Board of Supervisors last week ruled out building the facility anywhere within the city of Salinas.

Since only Salinas locations had been considered for several months, the county wanted more time to choose an appropriate location in its unincorporated areas. "

A similar problem occurred in Orange County this week, this time their Sheriff's Department dropped the bid.

"The Orange County Sheriff's Department dropped its bid Thursday to receive $100 million in state funds for expanding the James A. Musick jail because of a dispute over ownership of the facility at which a state inmate re-entry program would be housed.

In a letter to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the state agency overseeing the bid and award process, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens cited a requirement that the state own and operate the facility "something that will not work in our community."

This is the crux of the issue:

"That facility would potentially be a state prison and I do not support a state prison in the heart of Orange County," Campbell said. "The sheriff negotiated on a bunch of alternative ways to make sure it could never change, but they wouldn't agree to that."

Ryan Burris, a spokesman for the Sheriff's Department, said the loss of the bid means the county must find other ways to relieve the overcrowding in the county's jails. According to the sheriff's department, there are 1,256 beds at Musick, located on the outskirts of Lake Forest and Irvine. The city of Orange has an agreement with the county that Lacy hold no more than 2,986 inmates.

"We still know that we need to expand the jail facilities to meet demand," Burris said. "They're going to have to look at all of that to figure out the best way to do so."

The original proposal for the inmate re-entry program called for it to be located at Theo Lacy in Orange. In May the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation rejected that plan after city officials protested the move because the re-entry program entailed paroling 292 state inmates into the streets of the city.

Orange Mayor Carolyn Cavecche said she also protested the move because it would have violated an existing agreement with the county not to change the conditions of the jail without city approval.

The more one reads into this issue, the more it seems like the county has made a deal with, shall we say the devil? Other counties are foregoing far larger grants for their jails than Yolo County is. Perhaps the county can look at other ways to finance their jail expansion. I think a lot of people would be amenable to that in lieu of building the re-entry facility. The more I read on this issue, the less it seems to be a good idea.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Threats Punctuate Re-Entry Prison

On Tuesday, I detected a clear lack of interest in the topic of the re-entry facility on this board. The threat gone from Davis, the number of comments dwindled. Supervisor Matt Rexroad noticed it too. He called it proof of NIMBYism. I think a certain degree of that is understandable. I may dislike toxic waste sites, but I'm probably going to act more strongly and more passionately if it is a few miles from my home than if it's across the country. You can call that NIMBYism or you can call that acting locally.

Bottom line here is that I can sympathize with the plight of those from Madison. They felt disenfranchised by the process not only because they lacked the veto power that an incorporated city would have but because their own board member was partially conflicted out of the discussion. Despite what some have claimed, the fact that Duane Chamberlain farms land adjacent to the airport is a direct conflict of interest when weighing in on whether a prison should have been built there.

Supervisor Chamberlain was back on Tuesday to cast the lone 'no' vote. Supervisor Mariko Yamada abstained. The location was approved by a 3-1-1 vote.

The Woodland Daily Democrat described her decision to abstain:

"Yamada said she supported the idea of a re-entry facility for the county, but had heard nothing throughout the discussion to assure her of the "fairness" of placing the facility in Madison. In addition, she noted, she will not be present to see the facility plan implemented, as she is the heavy favorite in the race for the 8th Assembly District in November.

"I'm not doing this because I'm afraid to make either side mad," she told a packed crowd in the supervisors' chambers Tuesday. "By doing this, I'll likely make both sides mad."

The Davis Enterprise added:

"Yamada said while she supports the concept of a re-entry program, 'siting it in a rural area fails two tests - one of these is certainty, and the other is fairness.'"

I must admit, I do not exactly understand her rationale. Why not just vote no if she is uncomfortable with the location?

The Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians and their tribal leader Marshall McKay wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors urging them to reconsider the Madison site.

"We have serious concerns that the placement of a prison in Madison could thwart what the tribe and county are working to build here, which is a thriving community supported by needed infrastructure, planned growth and economic development."

This process is really somewhat backwards. The next step is a planning process whereby the state will analyze the cite and undergo CEQA process. Should the site not be feasible, the county would likely be granted additional time to find an alternative site.

Now the threats. The neighbors are threatening both a recall and lawsuit. I will deal with the recall first because that has to be dead on arrival. Who are they going to recall? The residents who are actually angry about this live in Chamberlain's district. They are going to recall him. So they are going to try to recall someone else's supervisor? That is not going to work to well. I do not get the sense that there is enough interest in the rest of the county to get enough signatures for recall let alone to enable them to remove and replace someone. Just is not a realistic possibility.

As far as a lawsuit goes it more likely will prolong the process.

I sympathize with the residents of Madison, they do not want this. There is not much solace I can give them, however, there is little evidence to support the notion that a prison would lower property values.

Additionally people fear that the prison could morph into something else. However, the board believes that the site lease agreement of 25 years will preclude that at least in the near future.

At some point, this process needs to move forward. It is unfortunate however that rural residents have found themselves so powerless in the face of such a proposal. That I think is the real tragedy of all this.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Yolo County Releases Draft of Updated General Plan

Draft General Plan Document Released

[FROM COUNTY PRESS RELEASE] (Woodland, CA) – Today, the Yolo County Draft General Plan was released to the public. On September 16, a joint meeting of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission will be held to receive a presentation on the Draft General Plan. The General Plan is the basic document used by local government in land use planning. It provides the comprehensive long-term plan for the physical development of the county, and is often referred to as “the constitution” of the county. All cities and counties are required, under state law, to have one.

The last update was in 1983, based on the county’s original General Plan from 1958. In May 2003, the Board of Supervisors gave direction to begin the current General Plan update process. This is only the third time in the county’s history that the General Plan has been comprehensively updated. While the fundamental land use goals of promoting agriculture and directing urban growth to the cities have not changed, circumstances facing the county have changed. Agriculture requires flexibility to allow it to branch out into processing and tourism related businesses. Similarly, several of the county’s small towns require new infrastructure, investment, and services that can accompany well-designed growth. There is also a greater need for economic development to provide growth and stability to the county revenues that pay for local services. This General Plan update allows the county to examine these issues and chart a course for the future that meets these challenges.



Yolo County is 653,549 acres in size, of which 32,325 acres (just under 5%) lies within the four incorporated cities. Currently, approximately 23,265 residents live in 7,263 homes within the remaining 95% of the county, along side 430 acres of job-producing commercial and industrial land. Under the existing 1983 General Plan, another 11,240 residents, 4,014 homes, and 1,440 acres of commercial and industrial land could be added. The Preferred Land Use Alternative, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 18, 2007, is the basis for creating the General Plan update. In addition to the 1983 General Plan, it would allow for another 26,600 residents, 9,500 homes, and 901 acres of economic development through the year 2030.

The four primary proposed land use changes that account for these increases include:

• Dunnigan community expansion (21,000 residents, 7,500 units, and 430 job-producing acres)
• Madison community expansion (3,655 residents, 1,305 units, and 116 job-producing acres)
• New commercial and industrial development in Elkhorn (320 job-producing acres)
• Conversion to industrial at Spreckels site (69 job-producing acres)

The growth in Dunnigan and Madison is reflective of a desire by the Board of Supervisors to ensure the future sustainability of these communities, including a minimum population to support basic community services as well as carefully structured land uses to ensure that the number and price of homes roughly match the number and wages of local jobs. The growth in Elkhorn and Spreckels is supportive of the Board of Supervisors’ economic development priorities and both highlight site-specific resource opportunities of the county. It should be noted that development in Knights Landing and Esparto is already planned under the 1983 General Plan.

New policy directions in the proposed Draft General Plan focus on the following primary themes:

• The continuing primacy of agriculture and related endeavors throughout the county, by allowing for more economic innovation and aggressively protecting the water and soil resources upon which farming depends.
• Modest managed growth within existing towns, accompanied by improvements to infrastructure and services to ensure community sustainability.
• Expanded protection of a network of connected open space and recreational areas, integrated with the Yolo Natural Heritage Program.
• Opportunities for revenue-producing and job-producing agricultural, industrial, and commercial growth in designated locations and along key transportation corridors.
• Manage the existing road network to make the most of existing capacity, while accommodating a diversity of users and alternative modes of transportation.
• Service levels that allow for the effective and efficient provision of services, consistent with rural values and expectations.
• A comprehensive approach to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and plan for the potential impacts of global climate change.
• New emphasis on community and neighborhood requirements that reflect “smart growth” and “healthy design” principles, which complement the unique character of existing developed areas.

All Yolo County residents are urged to follow this important process which will shape the future of Yolo County. Comments on the document will be accepted by the Planning and Public Works Department through November 20, 2008. To view the Draft General Plan, the schedule of upcoming public meetings, or to find additional general information on the General Plan update, visit: www.yolocountygeneralplan.org.

Hard copies of the Draft General Plan are available for viewing and check-out at all Yolo County library branches (visit: www.yolocountylibrary.org for branch locations) and the Yolo County Planning & Public Works (PPW) Department (292 West Beamer Street in Woodland). Hard copies of the Draft General Plan are available for purchase at PPW for $50.00 or on CD for $4.50.

Commentary

Last summer the city of Davis and Yolo County over the extent to which the city of Davis could control growth on its borders. The city at that point argued that the pass-through agreement gave the city primary land use authority in areas covered by the agreement and any attempt by the county to study the issue would be put the agreement in jeopardy and cause the city to withhold its roughly $2 million per year that it sends from its redevelopment agency to the county in exchange for the county ceding land use authority.

Under strong pressure from residents of Davis including a united from of the Davis City Council, the county almost at the last second reversed course and tabled further talk about creating special study areas on the border of Davis. What is interesting is that after that time, there was insistence by some that this issue was not over. That any tabling of discussion was merely temporary and that the county could reopen the issue at any point in time.

At least in the Davis form of the General Plan that is not the case. Residential growth for the most part appears to be limited to two primary locations--Dunnigan and Madison--ironically enough two areas that had re-entry facilities proposed. As I understand it, Dunnigan for instance has actually lobbied the board for more growth rather than less. I do not know if it is the same in Madison.

There is an interesting article in this morning's Sacramento Bee that Madison now seeks to fight against the re-entry facility. I mention this because while they are not talking about creating a new city in Madison as they are in Dunnigan, adding 3600 residents to the existing population will likely strongly change the current character of Madison. Arguments that there lacks sufficient instruction in Madison miss the point that the infrastructure is going to have to come anyway in order for it to add 3600 residents in the next general plan period.

That is really an aside in the issue of the re-entry facility, but it is interesting to note. As the release says, comments are due by November 20, 2008, so we will see between now and then if this plan stirs up much dissent in Madison and Dunnigan. In the meantime, it does appear that Davis has prevailed in its efforts to determine its own growth. I am certain some will have disparaging remarks to make about that. From my perspective all communities should determine how much they grow and how their character will change. People like to use the term NIMBY but then they forget that people sink their life savings into their homes and property, I guess it's easy to disparage someone else's efforts.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting