Home The Website    Corruption Updates    The Database    The Archives    Link Clusters    Why    How to Help     Contact
Fight Corporate Media Liars


California Page II

Posted: October 31, 2007, Draft edition

Previous Page: Page 127         All Archives               Next page: Page 129

Contact Us: Committeefordemocracy.org

1) The Articles linked below were Abstracted from the sources cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.


Nuñez travels the world like a high-roller


The leader of the Assembly spends tens of thousands of dollars in campaign funds but refuses to provide details on his trips. He says the trips are 'not only justified but necessary.'


By Nancy Vogel

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer


October 5, 2007




SACRAMENTO -- As leader of the California Assembly, Speaker Fabian Nuñez has traveled the world in luxury, paying with campaign funds for visits to some of the finest hotels and restaurants and for purchases at high-end retailers such as Louis Vuitton in Paris.

It is not clear how these activities have related to legislative business, as state law requires, because the Los Angeles Democrat refuses to provide details on tens of thousands of dollars in such expenditures.

The spending, listed in mandatory filings with the state, includes $47,412 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year; $8,745 at the exclusive Hotel Arts in Barcelona, Spain; $5,149 for a "meeting" at Cave L'Avant Garde, a wine seller in the Bordeaux region of France; a total of $2,562 for two "office expenses" at Vuitton, two years apart; and $1,795 for a "meeting" at Le Grand Colbert, a venerable Parisian restaurant.

Nuñez also spent $2,934 at Colosseum Travel in Rome, and paid $505 to the European airline Spanair.

Other expenses are closer to home: a $1,715 meeting at Asia de Cuba restaurant in West Hollywood; a $317 purchase at upscale Pavilion Salon Shoes in Sacramento; a $2,428 meeting at 58 Degrees and Holding, a Sacramento wine bar and bistro; and $800 spent at Dollar Rent a Car in Kihei, Hawaii.

Given a list of 99 entries culled from his campaign finance filings, however, Nuñez's staff refused to show how the expenditures were related to California government or politics. Spokeswoman Beth Willon would say only that the expenditures were "properly disclosed and described as required by law."

California law requires all campaign fund expenditures to be at least "reasonably" related to a political, legislative or governmental purpose. Expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be "directly" related to such purposes.

(A)...2006 Barcelona visit and a $3,199 stay at Hotel Parco in Rome this year, does not appear tied to any policy-related trips announced by Nuñez's office.

In the interview, Nuñez said he wouldn't need to use his $5.3-million "Friends of Fabian Nuñez" campaign account to offset travel costs if he were independently wealthy. The speaker's job pays $130,062 a year plus a tax-free $170 for expenses each day the Assembly is in session.

"There's not too big a difference," he said, "between how I live and how most middle-class people live."

A popular politician from a heavily Democratic district, Nuñez ran unopposed in his last election but, as speaker, is responsible for helping fund and manage other Democratic Assembly campaigns.

He received a total of $1.9 million in 2005 and 2006 from unions, corporations and others with a perennial stake in legislative business. They include $17,300 from AT&T and Verizon, phone companies that pushed Nuñez legislation allowing them to compete against cable television companies, and $2,500 from a group of pharmaceutical companies affected by a Nuñez bill to create a prescription drug discount program.

The State Building and Construction Trades Council of California donated $5,000 in February 2006, one day before a bill it sponsored was introduced in the Assembly.

The state Democratic Party, which unlike officeholders can raise unlimited sums, transferred $4 million to Nuñez's campaign account last November.

Nuñez occasionally looks beyond his campaign account to pay for travel. In 2006, he reported accepting $12,500 in airfare, meals and lodging from the tax-exempt California Foundation on the Environment and Economy, whose donors include utilities and oil companies with business before the Legislature.

The group helped pay for Nuñez and his wife, a nurse and consultant, to travel in Brazil, Argentina and Chile, where they and other lawmakers, lobbyists and the governor's chief of staff studied technologies to reduce global warming.

Similarly, the tax-exempt William C. Velasquez Institute, a policy think tank focused on Latino issues, paid $6,169 toward Nuñez's 2005 trip to France and Sweden to study universal preschool. The institute also helped finance Nuñez's trip to France in April to study high-speed rail, according to institute President Antonio Gonzalez.

Nuñez, a former union organizer, travels and dines much more comfortably with campaign funds than he could on the taxpayers' dime. The state limits employees to $6 for breakfast, $10 for lunch and $18 for dinner when they are traveling on business in California. Hotel reimbursement ranges from $84 to $140 per night plus tax, depending upon location.

Much of the spending from the "Taxpayers for Perata" fund are described as gifts for colleagues or constituents, including a $490 "gift for staff member" at the Claremont Resort and Spa in Berkeley.

Perata also reports spending $3,249 at an Apple store for "holiday gifts for colleagues," $799 at Montclair Village Wine shop for an office "election party" and $2,665 for a staff party at À Côté Restaurant in Oakland.

For decades in California, lawmakers were permitted to use campaign funds for personal benefit, said Robert Stern, president of the nonprofit Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and former general counsel for the Fair Political Practices Commission.

They could, for example, buy a car with political donations and pocket any remaining contributions when they left office. The Legislature, under pressure from the Fair Political Practices Commission, passed laws in 1982 barring those practices and further restricting the use of campaign funds, Stern said.

The commission is responsible for enforcing those laws and is assisted by the Franchise Tax Board, which audits 30 randomly chosen lawmakers every two years. Nuñez is among those being audited this year, and a report is due by February

The commission has taken action against fewer than a dozen politicians for misuse of campaign funds. Among them is Charles Calderon, a Montebello Democrat who served in the Assembly in the 1980s, the Senate in the 1990s and is now in his second Assembly stint.

Calderon has been fined by the Fair Political Practices Commission a total of $33,000 for numerous violations, including using campaign funds to pay for a Lake Tahoe family vacation, limousine rental, clothes for his wife, modeling photos, a costumed entertainer and a tennis outfit.

Top of Page


All Archives

Top of Page

2) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Does California Speaker Nuñez travel like the middle class?


If he crashes and burns in politics, California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez could have a great future as a travel agent.


By Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

October 7, 2007





As my colleague Nancy Vogel laid out in a jaw-dropping exposé Friday, L.A.'s man of the people has not missed a trick while traveling extensively and luxuriously about the world, throwing campaign funds around like confetti.

Italy. France. Spain.

Our very own rascal in paradise has been there, and he's tasted the world's finest offerings.

A $1,795 meal in Paris. An $8,745 hotel bill in Barcelona. A $5,149 meeting at a Bordeaux wine shop.

"There's not too big a difference," Nuñez told Vogel, "between how I live and how most middle-class people live."

Hands down, it's the quote of the year.

I'm not sure what middle-class people Nuñez is talking about, but I'm worried that he's spending entirely too much time with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Could the speaker be talking about Brentwood's middle-class?

We're talking lifestyles of the rich and famous here, not Applebee's and Ramada. Nuñez may even be trying to compete with Schwarzenegger, who's been using an obscure nonprofit group to finance lavish overseas travel involving private jets and exclusive hotels, as detailed recently by my colleague Paul Pringle.

And there's one more thing these two high rollers have in common:

They're both bending rules of ethics, if not snapping them in half.

Schwarzenegger's little nonprofit is well-fed with donations from people who don't have to disclose their identity. So not only is it unclear who's paying for the governor's travels, but the tax write-off for donors, and the use of a charitable organization to fund luxury travel, are arguably a corruption of the tax code.

I suppose it's possible that a Bordeaux wine shop hosted a symposium on California infrastructure bonds, but when I called Nuñez's office for more information I got a stock answer from a spokeswoman:

"The expenditures were properly disclosed and described as required by law."

It's the democracy we've all been waiting for in Sacramento. Gulfstreams, Louis Vuitton office supplies and nose-thumbing responses to inquiring constituents.

Carmen Balber of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Right...

"The first question that comes to mind is whether the health insurance industry was sponsoring the speaker's lavish trips, as he's now debating the future of the health market in California," Balber said.

She notes that Nuñez's travel fund has received $136,000 from health insurers and their lobbyists. And Nuñez is working with Schwarzenegger ($719,000 and counting from health insurers and their lobbies) on a health insurance reform bill that would require every Californian to buy coverage, but wouldn't require insurers to cap the cost.

Certainly the insurers would love to raise a fine bottle of red to the passage of such a bill, and Nuñez has been known to pop the cork on crushed grapes that run as high as $224 a bottle.

But do we really want Nuñez managing billions of our tax dollars if this is his idea of money management? Easy come, easy go, I suppose, when you've got campaign funds to burn, on top of $170-a-day in spending money along with a six-figure salary.

I checked one five-week stretch of Nuñez's expenses in 2006 and found that he'd dined at the likes of the Water Grill ($602.29), Pacific Dining Car ($1,003.37), and Asia de Cuba ($538.10), and, in Sacramento, Biba restaurant ($1,026.58).

Along with several other meal/meetings in that five-week stretch, his dining tab came to $7,764.94.

...the records reveal that Nuñez rang up unspecified office expenses at Nordstrom for $476.28.

As for the office expenses from Louis Vuitton, they ran $787.50 on one occasion and $1,775.36 on another, which is a lot of staples.

Based on a call to Louis Vuitton and a search of the website, I'm wondering if Nuñez bought the $650 Taiga binder as a travel calendar and, to enter his next dreamy destination, the Cargo pen with alligator skin, Rhodium finish and an 18-carat gold nib for $1,620.

If the speaker reveals nothing else, can he at least fill the rest of the middle class in on what a gold nib is?

Top of Page


All Archives

Top of Page

3) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Dan Walters: Politicians living large under fire

By Dan Walters - Bee Columnist

Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, October 9, 2007




When Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez launched their drive to change legislative term limits and thus extend their reigns in the Capitol, they made themselves and their conduct legitimate subjects for media scrutiny. So far they aren't faring very well.

Perata already had a somewhat tarnished image from a years-long federal investigation into his actions as an Alameda County supervisor and state legislator, which appeared to favor certain interests and his personal financial dealings with those interests. Then last May, the East Bay Express, a local newspaper, published a very lengthy series of articles about his finances, including details of how his campaign funds were spent on what the newspaper called a "lavish lifestyle" that included hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on high-dollar meals, liquor, hotels and other merchandise and services.

"An intensive analysis of campaign finance records ... shows that California's most powerful Democratic politician has a long history of living large on money raised for his various campaigns," the newspaper said in its article by Robert Gammon, adding that over the previous decade he had spent "more than $1 million on parties and high-end lifestyle expenditures."

Last Friday, Núñez's hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, weighed in with a remarkably similar account of how he, too, has been living large on his campaign funds.

"As leader of the California Assembly, Speaker Fabian Núñez has traveled the world in luxury, paying with campaign funds for visits to some of the finest hotels and restaurants and for purchases at high-end retailers such as Louis Vuitton in Paris," Times reporter Nancy Vogel wrote, adding that "the Los Angeles Democrat refuses to provide details on tens of thousands of dollars in such expenditures."

Perata has remained largely mum about his "campaign" spending. Núñez attempted to defend himself to Vogel and in the process inserted his well-shod foot into his well-fed mouth.

He claimed that his foreign travels widen his perspective about legislative issues, adding, "This is a big state to run. You've got to know what you're doing." But he really blew it by asserting to Vogel that "There's not too big a difference between how I live and how most middle-class people live."

Neither Lopez nor Vogel, however, picked up on another conspicuous example of high living by Núñez, who represents one of the state's poorest inner-city districts -- the $1.25 million home he purchased in an upscale Sacramento suburb which, property records indicate, must cost about $100,000 a year in mortgage payments and taxes.

Top of Page


All Archives

Top of Page

4) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Under fire for spending, Núñez says to 'move on'

By Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau

Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, October 13, 2007





Núñez was characterized as a high roller last week by the Los Angeles Times, which cited spending of $47,000 on airline flights this year and purchases ranging from $5,149 from a wine seller in France to $2,562 for two "office expenses" at Louis Vuitton.

Núñez noted Friday that his travel -- including trips to France, Germany, Denmark and Barcelona, Spain -- was for legitimate political or government purposes and was bankrolled by campaign funds, not tax dollars.

Kevin Spillane, leader of a campaign against Proposition 93, which would alter the state's term limits, said Núñez's spending is exorbitant, inappropriate and deserves scrutiny.

"He's not a high roller with his own money -- he's traveling internationally, buying goods, with campaign funds supplied by special interests that are seeking influence with him," Spillane said.


Top of Page


All Archives

Top of Page

5) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Assembly speaker lives with fundraiser in L.A. penthouse


By: MICHAEL R. BLOOD and AARON C. DAVIS - Associated Press




LOS ANGELES -- State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez shares a luxury downtown penthouse with a prominent fundraiser who has collected nearly $600,000 in fees and expenses from Nunez's political committees and the state Democratic Party since 2005.

Kathay Feng, executive director of the nonprofit watchdog group California Common Cause, said Nunez's living arrangement in Los Angeles is troubling because donors Weitzman solicits for money often seek an audience with Nunez because of his position as the second most powerful politician in California. A shared apartment could enable that access, she said.

Feng said the state Fair Political Practices Commission should expand its review of a complaint that was filed previously over Nunez's use of campaign funds and investigate his living arrangement with Weitzman.

"Whether that cozy relationship as roommates leads to inappropriate or even illegal campaign activities is what I think would merit additional investigation," she said.

Details of the speaker's Los Angeles lifestyle were gleaned from interviews and records reviewed by The Associated Press and emerge at a time when Nunez has been under scrutiny for spending thousands of campaign dollars on lavish overseas trips, expensive dinners and fancy gifts. He has said there is nothing improper about those expenditures.

Today, his mortgage, rent and property tax bills combined total more than $8,000 a month -- an amount about equal to his entire take-home pay as one of the state's highest-paid lawmakers.

Nunez makes $130,000 a year in the Legislature, plus $170 for expenses each day the Assembly is in session. His wife also brings in a six-figure income through her political consulting business.

His glass, steel and concrete penthouse is a short walk from the Los Angeles Lakers' home court, the Staples Center, in a trendy neighborhood that is in the midst of a housing boom.

Nunez expressed dismay that his lifestyle and living costs have been portrayed in the media as opulent and excessive. The remarks were his first since he walked away from a television reporter days ago while being questioned about the expensive meals and purchases he made with campaign money, disclosures first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

Jamie Court of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica-based advocacy group, said Nunez's independence could be jeopardized because of his roommate's ties to corporations, unions and other contributors that finance the speaker's political ventures.

"It's outrageous," Court said. "If you are living with the point person for every major donor in the state, your so-called residence really turns into a back-room meeting place."

The speaker's split residences also raise questions about whether Nunez lives in his district or merely visits there.


Nunez claims the Sacramento address as his primary residence for tax purposes but lists his L.A. penthouse as his address on voter registration rolls.

Top of Page


Nunez is a bribed, Paid Whore of the Special Interests and Corporations:

They are Enemies to Our Democracy, and a Threat to Our Rights

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., October 31, 2007

Nunez's World:

This is how politics work in California: The Corporations Bribe Nunez, Perata, and the rest of the Scum in our Legislature with campaign "contirbutions.". In return, Nunez, Perata, and the rest of the paid Scum in our Legislature use their power as lawmakers to serve the financial interests corporate masters.

Taxes, growth, water, communication, and every aspect of California policy has been sold by these dishonorable pimps. Our state government is little more than a crude tool of the rich and powerfull while In the meantime, these "Lawmakers" live like kings on their bribe money.

That's why California has fallen apart: Our politicians have sold our educational, medical, water, and electrical "systems," if they can even be called "systems" down the river to subsidize the profits of their bribers.

Nunez's image: Now and Then

Nunez likes to claim is is "one of us,"an average middle-class American. In the past, Nunez has claimed, during his life before the Assembly, that he is an enemy of America, and represents the vanguard of a Mexican Revolution-in the United States-that will destroy White America and reestablish "Atazlan."

Nunez's old rhetoric just drove the anti-Immigrant forces in California Completely Crazy.

Just who is Fabian Nunez?

He is not a man of the people, either of mexico or America. Nunez is a man who represents the marriage of corrutpions that typifies how the "New" Californians are just a whole lot more of the same old shit.

Fabian is one of the new "players," the seekers of exceptional wealth and power, who have crawled out of the mass of crimigrants, and they are reaching high office by combining the worse elements of crimigration with the most corrupted corporations in our state. Fabian is representative of politicians who exploit both crimigrants and corporate bribes to the great detriment to our state, and our country.

Nunez was a radical foreign activist when that led him to power. Nunez gave the crimigrants what they wanted to hear. I never understood how the millions of crimigrants helping our corporations rape our state can call themselves "Revolutionaries" without laughing out loud.

The Corporate-Foreigner Revolutionary Army? HA-HA.

Apparently it makes the foreign slaves who come here to serve the White Man for Dollars feel better if they tell themselves they came here to fight the Whit Man. Yeah, sure. If Fabian says so. But those days are over for Nunez.

Nunez is a corporate Bitch Now, now that he is able to sell his soul for a big share of the real power, wealth, and luxury that exploiting millions of crimigrants brings to our Corporate Masters.

Once in the Assembly, Fabian saw the Butter Was on the Other Side of the Bread. So Fabian instantly changed how he served the man. Instead of just fighting to keep cheap illegal labor flowing into our country, and keeping the impoverished masses of foreigners living in a false dream, Fabian became the man himself.

Now Fabian lives a life of wealth and power dependent on selling the government of our state to the highest bidder, while assuring the masters of labor in California have a massive state subsidized pool of impoverished foreign labor to profit from. Fabian has not changed. Fabian has just changed role he played in this standing comedy of lies and self-decptions we call our government.

It seems it's a lot easier for a slave like Nunez to become a master, than for a slave like Nunez to become free. Judging by Nunez's earlier rhetoric, and his present behavior, Nunez never has understood the principals this country is based on, only the sad practices that have betrayed our principals.

Rather than pretending to be a "Revolutionary" while maintaining floods of cheap state subsidized crimigrant laborers for the "Evil White Man," now Fabian has become the "Evil White Man," or at least his docile brown dog. Nunez is continuing the fight to flood the state with low cost subsidized labor, but now he is stuffing his pockets with cash, and his mouth with French food, while overstuffing our state with foreigners.

Fabian has settled the crimigrant identity contradiction; To fight the man you must be the man!  As we can see from Fabian's life before and after entering the Assembly, if you shove yourself up a mexican elephant's ass, or an American elephant's ass you still smell like a piece of shit.

Has Fabian Changed?

Fabian has managed to merge the worse elements of both worlds, becoming a living link between the massive crimigration that has trashed our social services, destroyed our environment, and fucked our democracy, with the corrupt politicians that have allowed the corporate interests to use foreigners to steal our wealth and rights.

The Crimigrants and the Corporations depend on each other. Fabian represents a new generation of Democrats, the Corporate Democrats, who have forged strong bonds between our criminal corporations and the crimigrants. Both groups depend on the same abuses to maintain their positions, and the Dems are, yet again, selling our country down the river to foreigners and corporations to satisify their lust for wealth and power.

Fabian sold everyone out, except for his own love of power, wealth, and luxury. So, independent of what Fabian actually thinks, which may be dependent on his immediate needs, he is a traitor to our democracy, and represents the worse elements of American society: Those who will do anything for wealth and power. This is the bond that ties the crimigrants and corporations together. This is Fabian.

I don't believe that Nunes is an American, and the radical right's internet ravings demonstrate that I am not alone. Not good company, but they are as right on this issue as they are wrong about drugs, gay marriage, foreign policy and religion. But they are right about Fabian.

The mexican radicals in LA who looked to Fabian to lead the revolution against the White Man must be really disappointed. The ones who haven't sold-out with him, or he hasn't paid off with the fruits of his political corrpution must think he is a traitor.

And I sure as hell can't see any REAL working-class Mexicans (the real Mexicans, the ones in Mexico) viewing him as anything but a traitor to their culture and country.

Nunez: The Triple-FacedTraitor: American traitor, mexican radical traitor, and Mexican traitor.

Top of Page

Also See:

Corruption Updates 7, 2nd article on the page, Another Example of Corruption: Nunez Follows Pattern of Rewarding Family

Corruption Updates 23, 10th article on the page, ASSEMBLY TRIES TO TRADE CORRUPTION REFORM FOR MORE CORRUPTION

Corruption Updates 29, 1st article on the page, Nunez, ASSEMBLY STEALS LIKE CORPORATIONS

Corruption Updates 24, 6th article on the page, POLITICIANS WHO BRIBE POLITICIANS ARE LEADERS

Corruption Updates 66, 1st article on the page, Nunez: Term-Limit Donations can't fail to catch Nuñez's eye


Search the Corruption Database under



Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)



All Archives

Top of Page

6) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Donors poured millions into state parties

Report shows effect of contribution cap that led to a shift in funds for advocacy ads.

By Kevin Yamamura - Bee Capitol Bureau

Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, October 3, 2007




Affirming California's reputation as the most expensive political battleground, seven of the nation's top 10 individual donors to state parties in 2005-06 gave to Democratic and Republican committees here, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

The donations largely helped finance party spending in last year's gubernatorial contest between Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrat Phil Angelides. Six of the seven top California contributors gave at least $1 million each to the state Republican Party, while only one -- Sacramento developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos -- gave to the California Democratic Party.

The report by the Montana-based group found the top five individual state donors gave to California committees, a shift from three previous election cycles in which no California donors topped the list and the state at most had three among the top 10.

Political consultants and watchdogs said the boom in California donors can be attributed to a change in the state's campaign finance law that limited 2006 gubernatorial candidates for the first time to receiving only $22,300 per donor for each race. To exceed restrictions, donors gave their money to state parties, which could accept funds in unlimited amounts.

"The parties have done very well under Proposition 34," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, referring to the 2000 initiative that imposed contribution limits. "No longer can you give unlimited amounts to the candidates, so the message is that the parties are the main way to support candidates."

Both parties spent millions of dollars in soft money last summer running ads for their respective candidates. Under state law, the party can raise unlimited contributions as long as they agree to use that money on "issue-based" advertisements that highlight a candidate's record without explicitly telling viewers to vote for or against that person.

Democratic consultant Garry South said the narrow definition of an inappropriate candidate ad "allows the parties to use a huge loophole that you can drive an 18-wheeler through."

"It's a little scam, there's no way around it," South said. "These ads are urging the election or defeat of a candidate without saying 'Vote for Smith' or 'Vote for Jones.'"

Top of Page


Outsiders fund both parties to empower the parties to impose Candidates who have no local voters funding or support

Also See:

Links: The Democrats are throughly bribed

Search the Corruption Database under



Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)



All Archives

Top of Page

7) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Analysis: Session ends with a thud

Lawmakers accomplished the routine but failed on the big-ticket items: Health, water.

By Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau

Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 13, 2007




While hundreds of bills were flying through the Legislature in the mad scramble that ended this year's session, Assembly members found time to play a floor game that called for oddball words like "Bullwinkle," "Woody Woodpecker" and "Pimp Daddy" to be slipped into legislative debate.

The lighthearted wordplay, known as legislative bingo, might be a fitting metaphor for lawmakers' performance: mostly talk.

Though more than 2,800 bills were proposed and about 960 were approved during the nine-month session, political analysts say the scorecard is dismal.

"If your expectations are low enough, it was a great success," John J. Pitney, government professor at Claremont-McKenna College, said of the Legislature's regular session that ended with a gavel's thud about 3:30 a.m. Wednesday.

"They took care of the ordinary business of government, but when it came to the large issues, it was a session of deferral rather than accomplishment," Pitney said.

Lawmakers were unable to solve two of California's thorniest priorities -- an overhaul of its health care system and a solution to water woes -- prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to call special sessions to focus exclusively on those two issues.

Months of promises and closed-door debate also failed to produce agreement on giving an independent commission, rather than the Legislature, authority to set boundaries for political districts.

...legislative bingo brought both sides together in the Assembly for several days of sporadic frivolity.

Dozens of lawmakers played the game, evoking laughs and occasional groans. Participants adjusted their floor speeches to insert an off-the-wall name or phrase that was dispensed by Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian from a pool created by lobbyists or staffers.

...Ted Costa, leader of People's Advocate, a political watchdog group, said such games diminish the Legislature's stature.

"It makes a mockery of the whole thing. ... Why don't they save that for the 20-30 Club or the Toastmasters?" he said. "That would be fine. But not in the halls of the Capitol."

Top of Page


Bribed Legislature Incompentent to Address State's Massive Probles:

Only compentent to Play Idiot Games on the Clock, Steal for their Corporate Sponsors, and subsidize crimigrants at the expence of our own citizens

Top of Page

Also See:

Corruption dogs both parties this year, AP, Aug 24, 2006: CU 3, #4

Money Wins in Almost every Political Race, LA Times, Nov 9, 2006: CU 22 #6

Nunez, Donations can't fail to catch Nuñez's eye, NY Times, June 4, 2007, CU 66 #1

Search the Corruption Database under


term limits


Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)



All Archives

Top of Page

8) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Ed. Note: DON'T BE FOOLED: This "Term Limits" measure does not impose term limits, it LOOSTENS TERM LIMITS.

The Plan is to Allow The Corporate Politicians to maintain their political monopoly by INCREASING the TIME THEY MAY SPEND in each BRANCH of the LEGISLATUE.

This is a cheap trick to make their power grab look like "reform."


Term limits drive is divided

By Jim Sanders

Bee, September 17, 2007




Fractures are developing in a campaign to alter legislative term limits that began with dreams of a Republican governor teaming with Democratic lawmakers, business with labor, and incumbent lawmakers with watchdog groups.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was stung last week when lawmakers ended this year's regular session without placing a separate redistricting measure on the Feb. 5 ballot, a condition he had set for possibly throwing his weight behind altering terms.

Schwarzenegger will not support the term limits initiative and might even oppose it unless the Legislature reconsiders redistricting -- and he's not alone, said Adam Mendelsohn, the governor's communications director.

Term limits and redistricting are not directly related, but both affect the composition of the 80-member Assembly and 40-member Senate.

The term limits initiative seeks to alter the number of years that legislators can serve, while backers of a redistricting measure want to strip the Legislature of authority to draw political districts and give it to an independent commission.

Richard Stapler, spokesman for backers of the term limits initiative, said..."We look at them as two completely separate issues that need to be debated in their own arenas," Stapler said.


More than $2.7 million has been collected by the term limits initiative campaign, which is backed strongly by labor unions, health care groups, Indian tribes and other interest groups that appear often before the Legislature.


California law currently allows legislators to serve no more than eight years in the Senate and six in the Assembly.

The new initiative would reduce legislative service to 12 years, rather than 14, and allow all to be served in one house or a combination of both.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata could remain in their leadership posts an extra six years and four years, respectively. Both are scheduled to be termed out next year.

Kathay Feng, director of California Common Cause,..."We have concerns about the term limits measure, and we've said that we would accept it only if it's paired with a good redistricting plan," she said.

Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said the group has not voted on whether to endorse changing term limits as a stand-alone issue.

Top of Page


NUNEZ-PERATA gather big bribes to gun up efforts to exten their monopoly over California legislatue

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., October , 2007

We passed term limits to end the reign of Willie Brown, and prevent any such dynasty from every being established in the heart of our democracy again. And along came Nunez.

Now the Dem leadership, Nunez, is trying to recreate the Wille era by foisting this misnamed "term limit" ballot measure onto the ballot. The Dems have been upset ever since term limits were imposed, as it ended lifetime tenure in the California legislatue by members of both parties, who have mutally crafted our legislative districts into the personal property of one or the other parties.

You are being decieved by the Democrats. This is not term limits, but rather, this is a power grab by the Dem leadership, funded by the some of the biggest special interests in the state, to reimpose the heart of dynasty politics in our legislature.

This is yet another attempt to undermine our democracy by the leaders of the democratic party. They should rename themselves the Undemocratic party.

Nunez and Perata are trying to turn California politics on its head to serve their personal ambitions.

Top of Page

Also See:

Term Limit Links


Search the Corruption Database under

Term Limits (6 Abstracts)


Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


All Archives

Top of Page

9) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Term-limits trickery?


GOP strategist says Feb. 5 initiative would actually keep many in office longer.


By Judy Lin - Bee Capitol Bureau

Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, September 12, 2007




A term limits measure awaiting voters on the Feb. 5 ballot represents "cynical and corrupt" politics, Republican strategist Kevin Spillane said Tuesday.

Spillane, who has been leading the charge against the legislator-backed initiative, said supporters are trying to trick voters into thinking it strengthens term limits.

"That's not what this initiative is," Spillane said at a meeting with The Bee Capitol Bureau. "It's an attempt to fool the voters using their support for term limits into actually trying to trick them into weakening term limits. It is politics at its most cynical and corrupt."

The initiative would reduce the total number of years that a lawmaker could serve in the Legislature from 14 to 12, but it would allow all of those years to be served in the Assembly, Senate or a combination of both.

California currently limits legislators to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate.

The initiative also would allow at least one extra term for current members, enabling Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata to retain their leadership posts. A recent Field Poll showed likely voters favor term limits and are increasingly dissatisfied with the Legislature, but still back the proposed initiative.

"In reality, over 80 percent of (current) legislators will have their terms significantly lengthened," Spillane said. "If it really was a toughening of term limits, would the politicians be supporting it and funding it? Of course not."

(Spillane Quotes from article:)

Q: What's the nexus between (term limits and redistricting)?

A: Basically what you've got is Perata and Núñez trying to leverage Republican desire for a redistricting plan to get Schwarzenegger support for the term limits proposal. So they see Schwarzenegger as key to winning over Republican votes. ...

Also, there are a number of Republicans who publicly are on my side but secretly would love to see redistricting as an excuse to support term limits so they can remain in office as well. ...


"Look, my view on term limits is that it is not going to miraculously make the political process populated by saints. There is a certain character or personality that runs for political office. It's been that way for thousands of years. It will be that way for thousands of years. ... My view is that the pigs are still sitting at the trough but you're rotating the pigs."

Top of Page

Also See:

Term Limit Links

Search the Corruption Database under

Term Limits (6 Abstracts)


Submit Your Comments Here

Please limit comments or essay to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number that you are referring to. Example: (82_1.)


All Archives

Top of Page

10) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

A ticket back for the termed-out?

Experts say term-limits measure could let former legislators seek old seats.

By Shane Goldmacher - sgoldmacher@sacbee.com

Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, October 30, 2007




A measure on the Feb. 5 ballot to alter term limits for California lawmakers may inadvertently open the door for dozens of termed-out Assembly members to return to their old seats in Sacramento, according to independent legal experts.

The 2008 ballot measure, known as Proposition 93, would reduce the number of years a lawmaker could serve in the Capitol from 14 to 12, while allowing incumbent lawmakers at least one extra term.

If the measure passes, all 12 years could be served in one house of the Legislature – rather than the current maximum of six in the Assembly and eight in the Senate.

The proponents, led by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, say the measure applies only to sitting and future lawmakers.

But several election-law specialists contacted by The Bee disagreed.

"I don't see any basis for saying a person who has previously served six years is precluded from serving another six years," said Daniel Lowenstein, an election law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who helped write the state's Political Reform Act in the 1970s. "It is quite clear."

Núñez, who could remain speaker up to another six years should the measure pass, has been actively raising money from Assembly Democrats, asking them each for $50,000 to support the measure.

Those same Democrats would not want to face primary challenges from termed-out legislators.

...the possibility that former Speaker Willie Brown would be eligible again for the Assembly.

Brown was the poster child for term-limit proponents in the 1990s, after spending a decade as power-wielding speaker.

But since term limits became the law of the land in 1990, he served only five years in the Assembly. He served some 30 years in all.

"There is nothing that says Willie Brown or me or anyone else that has been termed out of a house may not come back to serve,"

Top of Page


Nunez Using Fraudulent Reform to Advance Party and Personal Political Ambitions

The article below was written for CU 56_9 on May 17, 2007

(edited 1-1-08)

We need redistricting to restore any semblance of democracy in California. California's electorarl districts are no more than political feudal states, completely monopolized by one or the other party.

The fact is that assembly and senate seats had a lifetime tenure without term limits. Considering that the parties monopoly of electoral districts is funded by corporate and special interest bribes, it is vital that we maintain, and even stregthen term limits, to give the local voters the slightest chance of maintaining any influence on their politicians, and any semblance of democracy in California.

Term limits work. Without term limits our politicians could rely on their corporate financed political machines to deliver victory in their gerrymandered districts every election. These practices have become a systimized over the years into party machines that collect bribes, fund elections, and distribute payoffs throught legislation and policy designed to enrich the bribers with our rights, wealth, and resources.

Our system has not lost one iota of political "wisdom" in the legislature because of term limits, but has made it impossible for the parties to form and maintain the political dynasties that ran California before term limits.

Before term limits, California politicians either died in office, or got thrown in prison. Those were about the only ways to remove a sitting senator or assemblyman in California.

Here's the Nunez angle: Pass the term limits on the flood of special interest bribes he's collecting as I write, and kill the redistricting initiative. It would be a "win-win" situation for Nunez, who would consolide his power in the assembly, and preserve his place in the line of gubernutorial hopefuls.

Under the Perata Plan, there is no possibility of a "win-win," where the political monopolies benefit from weakening Term limits, and redistricting is kept in the grubby paws of the assembly. Under Perata's Plan, both term limits and taking redistricting out of the assmbly's hand both pass or both lose. Perata's plan avoids the possibility of a "Lose-Lose" situation, where term limits lose, and non-partisan redistricting is passed, that Nunez's plan risks.

Nunez has refused to link redistricting reform with weakening term limits, a bold mover to empower the democrats by tightening the grip of corruption on the throat of our democracy. Ironically, Nunez's "lose-lose" scenario is best for the health of our democracy, but not for Nunez's political aspirations or the Democrats monoply on elections, political office, and special interest bribes in California. The Democrats are seeking to expand their power at the expence of our democratic rights.

Nunez's plan could blow up in his face under the "lose-lose" scenario, so why is he risking it?

Nunez wants to split the issues of Term Limits and Redistricting to please Pelosi, and the Democrat Congressional Mafia. They would prefer that redistricting not be on the ballot at all.

But Nunez is sharp, maybe too sharp. By unwrapping Redistricting from Term Limits, Nunez can get it all, without trading Term Limit extensions for Redistricting, which is the heart of the Perata Plan.

Congressional Dems demand that nothing be done to alter the Democrat's monopoly on California's Congressional delegation, which is assured under the corrupt districting set up we suffer under.

The best thing we can do as citizens is to attack the problem at its source: The bribing and purchasing of our politicians by the special interests.

To end the special interest domination of our elections, our districts, our politicians, and our political offices, we must end all non-voter contributions to politicians and candidates. To restore the value of our franchise we must first take it off the auction block.

Removing individual bribery is not enought to restore our democracy. Our elections are now, and would continue to be funded by parties who funnel special interest bribes into every election in the country, effectively short-circuting the will and power of local voteres. Without dealing with the parties' role in elections, banning outside money would be in vain.

Both of our political parties are The great whores of the special interests, each acting as a gathering place for all sorts of unsavory characters and dirty money.

It would be unconstitutional to prevent even these wretched scumbags from assembling and joining their voices together to speak to the voters, and contribute to their candidates.

But It would not be unconstitutional to limit party contributions in every local and state campaign to no more than 30% of the sum of total contributions given by voters in the election, putting the local voter back in charge of their election, their candidates, and finally, their representatives while sitting in political office.

Our initiative preserves their right to assemble, speak, and contribute to their candidates, while restoring the voter as the selector of candidates, and the decider of elections.

It would be ironically dishonorable if we can not prevent the special interest parties from using assembly and free speech as cover for stealing our democracy.

We can take our democracy back, if we seek honor before wealth.


Top of Page

Also See:

Corruption Updates 23, 10th article on the page, ASSEMBLY TRIES TO TRADE CORRUPTION REFORM FOR MORE CORRUPTION

Corruption Updates 35, 4th article on the page, NUNEZ-ARNIE REDISTRICTING STALLED BY CONGRESS

Corruption Updates 56, 9th article on the page, Dems: Leaders split over plans to redistrict

Corruption Updates 66, 1st article on the page, Nunez: Term-Limit Donations can't fail to catch Nuñez's eye

Corruption Updates 89, 6 th article on the page, Term-limit supporters seek probe of Perata

Term Limit Links


Search the Corruption Database under

Term Limits (6 Abstracts)


Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

11) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Perennial proposal dies again

By Dan Walters - Bee Columnist

Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, September 12, 2007




Reforming the self-serving, extremely undemocratic process of redrawing legislative and congressional districts every 10 years is like the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.

On Tuesday, for the second straight year, redistricting reform died on the final day of the legislative session, once again bogged down in details on how the commission would be formed and which criteria it would use to create 120 legislative districts and 53 -- or more -- congressional districts after the 2010 census and every 10 years thereafter.

It's questionable whether the Legislature's dominant Democrats are genuinely interested in ceding power over what is arguably the single most important factor in determining the partisan and ideological makeup of the Legislature and the nation's largest congressional delegation.

Democratic leaders, it's evident, are mainly interested in persuading voters to modify term limits via a measure on the Feb. 5 primary election ballot and entertained redistricting reform only because Schwarzenegger, a longtime advocate of reform, indicated that he would not support, and perhaps oppose, the term limit measure were it not accompanied by a redistricting measure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted congressional redistricting to remain with the Legislature, apparently so she could siphon off a few seats in California if she needs them to retain the Democratic congressional majority in the 2012 elections, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata endorsed her position. But Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez included congressional seats in his bill.

Perata signaled the demise of redistricting reform after he and Núñez held a private meeting on the issue. It had been reported that Schwarzenegger would include redistricting in calling special legislative sessions on health care and water, but Perata flatly declared, "If they do redistricting in a special session, I am not going to take it up. There's an urgency in health care. There's an urgency in water. There is not an urgency in redistricting."

Schwarzenegger omitted redistricting, saying, "I don't think Senator Perata has much interest in that," and Núñez later said, "At this point we're going to miss the February election."

The decision to abandon reform may be good news for those who didn't want it, including Pelosi and most Democratic Party interest groups, but it may also make it more difficult for those same interests to persuade voters to change term limits because it raises the possibility of opposition from the popular governor.

That said, the biggest losers are the people of California, who are being largely deprived of any real say in who represents them in the Legislature and Congress due to the bipartisan gerrymander of districts in 2001. Without reform, the 2011 redistricting could be even worse.

Top of Page

Also See:

Corruption Updates 82_8, AP, 3-7-07: Scientists: Water Shortages and Drought: CLIMATE ALREADY CHANGED, NO ONE NOTICED

Corruption Updates 82_8, Bee, 6-21-07: Delta: We Don't have a Water Crisis, or an Energy Crisis, We Have Too Many People


Search the Corruption Database under

Water (33 Abstracts)


Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

12) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

He Who Smelt It Delta'd It

Judge issues ruling protecting delta smelt, restricting California water access

Posted at 3:13 PM on 04 Sep 2007

Grist, Environmental News and commentary





For years, environmentalists have blamed the rapidly dwindling smelt population in the San Joaquin-Sacramento River delta on huge pumps that dispense water throughout southern California, but also suck in and kill huge numbers of the endangered fish.

To protect the smelt, a species unique to the delta, a federal judge issued a far-reaching ruling Friday imposing limits on water diversion from the delta. State water officials say the ruling by Judge Oliver Wanger (heh heh) could cut the amount of withdrawn water by around one-third, restricting water access to 750,000 acres of cropland and a thirsty SoCal population 25 million strong.

In response, cities may have to institute mandatory H2O rationing or dip into reserves, and farmers may be forced to look into sustainable agriculture and more efficient irrigation (the horror!). The federal government is drafting rules to protect the delta smelt; Wanger's ruling will hold until that those guidelines are issued, probably in about a year.

Top of Page

Also See:

Corruption Updates 63, Bee, June 1, 2007; Delta pumps halted: Tiny Smelt Halts Mighty Pumps

Search the Corruption Database under





Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

13) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Judge to weigh water limits in Delta to protect salmon

By Mike Taugher


Article Launched: 10/02/2007 01:35:23 AM PDT




One month after a federal judge ordered sharp reductions in Delta water deliveries to protect a tiny fish, the same judge this week will consider further limits to aid salmon.

Taken together, the rulings affect two permits that are supposed to spell out how fish will be protected from being killed or disrupted by the state's major dams, pumps and aqueducts.

The permits, called biological opinions, were badly flawed when they were written in 2004 and 2005. Federal regulators have been revising them since last year and plan to have new ones written in another a year or so.

Environmentalists and others who said that was not good enough sued to get tighter controls on water deliveries immediately.

"They weren't doing their job when they put these together," said Tina Swanson, a fisheries biologist at the Bay Institute, one of the environmental groups behind both lawsuits.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger ordered restrictions on Delta pumps that water agencies say will cut farm water supplies and could force water rationing in some parts of the state. In May he struck down the biological opinion meant to protect Delta smelt.

Many observers expect Wanger to toss out the second opinion - which is supposed to protect winter- run salmon, spring-run salmon and steelhead. That could further restrict water use, especially in the San Joaquin Valley.

Unlike Delta smelt, however, none of the state's major salmon runs are near

extinction, so it is possible that the judge could toss out the permit but largely rely on federal regulators to come up with a better permit in the next year or so.

Top of Page

Search the Corruption Database under






Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

14) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Hope for Delta deal

Panel has a protection plan, but canal issue still divisive

By Matt Weiser - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDTTuesday, September 4, 2007


A surprising degree of consensus is emerging among longtime foes on a plan to protect the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, but battle lines remain visible on the most controversial puzzle piece: a peripheral canal.

Representatives of 41 groups, representing an array of interests, have unveiled a plan they believe will restore the health of the Delta, while maintaining the sensitive ecosystem as a major supplier of water for the south state, and a home to farming and recreation.

The group was appointed to advise a Delta Blue Ribbon Task Force named by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, which met in Sacramento last week. The task force liked what it saw.

The task force was created in response to deteriorating conditions in the Delta, which supplies water for 23 million Californians and millions of acres of farmland. The heavy demand for drinking water and irrigation has harmed habitat for six fish species and raised water reliability concerns.

In June, state water export pumps near Tracy were turned off for nine days to protect the Delta smelt, a tiny fish whose numbers have plunged over the past four years. On Friday, a federal judge weighed in, finding that the law requires that something be done to protect the threatened smelt. In a ruling expected to have massive repercussions on San Joaquin Valley farming operations, the judge imposed limits on how much water can be pumped south through the Delta from December, when the fish spawn, until June.

One version of the plan proposes studying a peripheral canal that would be operated in concert with the armored channel. Some advisory group members believe this "dual facility" approach offers more flexibility.

This is where alliances begin to fracture.

Also known as an isolated conveyance facility, a peripheral canal would divert Sacramento River water directly to the export pumps, bypassing the Delta. The idea was rejected by voters statewide in 1982 amid fears it would give Southern California an open tap to rob north-state water.

Schwarzenegger has put the idea back on the table amid concerns that a massive flood or earthquake could contaminate water exports that now move south through the Delta. A peripheral canal might protect that water in a disaster.

But some task force members -- including McPeak and chairman Phil Isenberg, a former Democratic assemblyman -- expressed doubt that the state is truly committed to restoring the Delta.

In a separate presentation by the Department of Water Resources, the task force saw lots of ideas to improve levees and water conveyance. But there was little offered that would boost natural river runoff through the Delta and out to sea.

The shortage of such flows -- due to reservoir operations and robust export pumping -- is one factor in the decline of native fish and the rise of invasive species.

"I'm just asking the state to make a commitment to estuary health that is comparable to the other values," McPeak said.

Top of Page

Also See:

water links


Search the Corruption Database under



Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

14b) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Governor unveils water plan

His $9 billion proposal runs counter to his blue ribbon panel's first draft.

By Matt Weiser - Bee Staff Writer

Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, September 19, 2007




Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday renewed his plan to build new dams and a Delta canal to solve California's water woes, even as his own blue ribbon water panel suggests a decidedly different approach.

The governor called a special session of the Legislature, now under way, to deal with California's water crisis. He hopes to reach a deal on a bond measure in time for the Feb. 5 ballot.

The crisis was prompted by declining fish species and the threat of a disaster in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. An Aug. 31 federal court ruling also may require water diversions from the Delta to be slashed up to 37 percent starting in December. This could mean rationing for 23 million Californians who get water from the Delta.

But the plan's primary focus is new hardware: $5.1 billion for new dams, and up to $1.9 billion for a canal to move Sacramento River water safely around or through the Delta.

It specifically names three dam projects: Sites Reservoir in Glenn and Colusa counties, Temperance Flat Reservoir on the San Joaquin River, and enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County.

Democrats in the Legislature aren't comfortable with any proposal that names specific dam projects. Some also doubt that a deal can be reached in time.

"It's premature to conclude that either a canal or any specific dam is the magic bullet," said Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis. "I suspect we're not going to be doing anything for the February ballot because of the enormity and complexity of the task."

A $5.4 billion bond proposal by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, allows spending on unspecified dams and canals, but only if they prove to be better than other projects, such as conservation and groundwater banking.

Both this proposal and the governor's would require a local agency to pay at least half the project costs, which could drive up local taxes or water rates.

Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, leader of a water working group in the Assembly, cautioned that a Delta canal doesn't have enough voter support.

"I think a Delta canal might risk an entire bond proposal," Laird said Tuesday.


California voters rejected a peripheral canal around the Delta in 1982.

But a Delta blue ribbon task force, appointed by Schwarzenegger this year, indicated in a first draft of its findings last week that building big things may not solve the Delta's troubles.

The draft report also takes on some taboos, stating flatly that it won't be possible to export more water from the Delta in the future, and that housing must be kept out of flood-prone areas.


15) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

2007 Legislative Session-Final Review

Lydia Bourne, Legislative Advocate, American Nurses Association

Full Doc at ANA website

Oct 12, 2007


The 2007 Legislative Session was one of surprise and disappointment – we still have not comprehensively addressed the key issues for this session – water and health care. Much of the reluctance to address these key issues can be attributed to the long budget delay and the rush to do “something” before the end of the session. As time ran out the governor called a special session -  one for each issue – Health Care Reform 1st Extraordinary Session and Water 2nd Extraordinary Session.

Water – is the issue that is being addressed in the 2nd Special Session. There is and continues to be a huge concern about a possible water crisis in California. The crisis is related to the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta which collects 40% of the runoff in the state and sends it to 20+ million people and to millions of acres of farm land in the state. As noted in an earlier correspondence, this issue rose to the fore when in late August a federal judge ruled that Delta pumping may have to be reduced by 37% to protect fish. Additionally, it was shown that the Delta levees could suffer catastrophic damage from earth quakes, floods or rising sea levels. Our increasing population also puts pressure on the water supply and it is predicted we can expect an increase of 25 million more people in 20 years.


The governor supports a total water package costing $9 billion; $5.9 billion of the bond will be for 3 new dams - the Sites Dam, near Maxwell in Colusa County, and Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin River near Fresno - and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County, along with new canals and conversation programs. Senator Perata’s, proposal is a $5.4 billion bond for water projects to include water storage, groundwater storage, cleanup/restoration of the Delta, conservation and desalination projects. His proposal also allows the locals to determine how this should occur. There were a number of Assembly committees appointed to address the issue:


Special Committee on Water

Assembly Working Group on Water

The Assembly Republican Working Group on Water Storage


The first two committees were controlled by the Democrats and their approach was different from the approaches raised by the Republicans. The Special Committee on Water held an informational hearing bringing in various state experts on the issue of water but ss of this writing no formal report of the findings or conclusions has been issued.

The Senate as far as I can tell had only one committee – Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee which met October 8th, heard the bills authored by Senator Cogdill  - SB 3b and

SB 4b which contain the governor’s proposals; both failed passage. Senator Perata’s bills – SB 1b, SB 2b were presented; the first bill was passed by the committee which contains the bond measure but the second bill failed passage. When questioned about his bill, Senator Perata stated he “doubted he could get the necessary 2 Republican votes for passage of SB 1b by the full Senate”. A two-thirds vote is necessary for any bond measure.

Not only are the Dems and Reps at odds over water issues but different regions within California are at odds – the Metropolitan district of Southern CA and environmentalists support Perata’s bill, while central valley officials support the governor’s plan. Because there is no current agreement on how to address the water issues, it is possible there will be competing ballot measures on this issue.

The deadline for an initiative on the February ballot is October 16th, was missed. It appears that these measures, if sufficient signatures are collected, may qualify for either the June or November 2008 ballots. However the governor is still trying to get the bond on the February 2008 ballot.

Top of Page


Also See:

nunez links

arnie links


Search the Corruption Database under



Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

15b) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Dueling, multibillion-dollar water bonds may hit ballot

Lawmakers falter in bid to strike deal -- one plan emphasizes dams; other doesn't

By E.J. Schultz - Bee Capitol Bureau

Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, October 9, 2007




With lawmakers unable to reach a compromise on a water bond, voters might be faced with two separate measures in November 2008 -- a Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger-backed plan that emphasizes dams and a Democratic plan that does not.

Authors of the competing water legislation raised the possibility of dueling initiatives Monday, acknowledging that the prospects of a bipartisan deal are fading.

Supporters of Schwarzenegger's plan are also considering launching a signature-gathering drive to get their plan on the ballot.

"It's been planned for a while -- the wheels are turning," said Mario Santoyo, assistant general manager of the Friant Water Users Authority, which is pushing for a dam at Temperance Flat east of Fresno.

The effort would likely be led by business groups, supporters said.

Schwarzenegger's plan earmarks $5.1 billion for two new dams -- including the one near Fresno -- and one expanded dam.


Perata's plan, which was recently increased to $6.8 billion, would allow local water agencies to bid on $2 billion of state money for water supply projects. Both plans include money to fix the deteriorating Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Environmentalists have long supported Perata's plan. He recently won the backing of the Metropolitan District of Southern California, which provides water to 18 million people in Southern California. Meanwhile, many Central Valley officials are pushing the governor's plan.

The three dams targeted by Cogdill's bill would cost a combined $10.3 billion, according to estimates. The proposal calls for the state to pay as much as half the costs of the dams with local users paying for the rest.

"Our water future is going to be less reliable and more risky than our water past," Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow said at Monday's hearing.


15c) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

California's real water war

SF Chronicle, August 27, 2007


Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, environmentalists and water districts have waded hip-deep into arguments over new dams, pricey canals and other ways to manage future water wars in California.

But the looming water crisis that the governor warns of is already here.

Hundreds of small, rural communities throughout California's agricultural heartland have no access to clean, safe drinking water. It's a public health crisis that threatens California families every day.

According to the state Department of Public Health, public drinking water systems deliver water with unsafe levels of contaminants to approximately 1 million people. The vast majority of this tainted water flows to the Central Valley - to little-known towns such as Monterey Park Tract, Mendota, Parlier, East Orosi, Cutler and Alpaugh - where residents can't fill a glass of tap water without fear of cancer, kidney disease and other health problems. These are some of our state's poorest towns, where median household incomes hover around $18,000. But they pay some of the highest water rates in California - 2 to 6 percent of their household income - for undrinkable water.

In 2004 alone, tens of thousands of Central Valley residents received bright orange notices from their public drinking water systems saying their water was not safe to drink and exceeded legal contaminant levels. Many Central Valley residents drive 30 to 50 miles each week just to buy bottled water, effectively doubling the price for this basic need.

More than 90 percent of Central Valley communities depend on water stored underground for their drinking water. Unfortunately, years of intensive farming with uncontrolled chemical use has heavily poisoned that source. Recent groundwater sampling in Tulare County found that 3 out of 4 homes with private wells have contaminated water that is unsafe to drink.

These contamination and infrastructure problems have grown unchecked since development in the Central Valley began. Virtually every water agency ignores California's massive groundwater contamination problem. Regulatory agencies such as the state and regional Water Quality Control boards have given a green light to rampant agricultural pollution. California and Texas remain the only states in the country without a groundwater management program.

Meanwhile, the state has developed an elaborate and expensive system to pipe crystal-clear Northern California river water to Central Valley farms, at taxpayer expense. The vast webs of canals and aqueducts, subsidized by public dollars, bring water to Central Valley farms. Fresh, clean water flows right by the homes of men and women who harvest the irrigated fields, but have no access to safe drinking water.

The state could play a lead role in developing innovative solutions and projects to address the problem. Right now, regulatory and water resource agencies acknowledge the level of contamination but have refused to take action.

Many organizations have developed projects and proposals that would take important steps to relieving the drinking water crisis, such as requiring groundwater management plans of industries and agencies, setting aside state funds to address the contamination and requiring water districts to work with communities that do not have clean drinking water in their area to develop alternative water sources. Unfortunately, most of these programs fall apart as soon as industry objects and then the state shirks its duty, saying the problem is too big, unwieldy or out of its jurisdiction. Time and again, we have seen agencies, legislators, and policymakers fail to take meaningful action on groundwater protection and management, because it is a tough issue.

15d) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Growth battle rejoined

Steinberg's land-use proposal seeks to avoid previous mistake

By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDTSunday, September 9, 2007


State Sen. Darrell Steinberg, who launched and lost a bruising political battle over California land-use law earlier this decade, is once again picking his way through the mine-strewn terrain of growth politics.

Despite the difficulty of changing development laws in California, Steinberg said it's imperative that land-use patterns be addressed if the state is going to meet the goals of AB 32, the new state law that calls for a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

"It's the big elephant in the room; nobody wants to tackle it," he said.

"But if we don't address land use, we're going to fall short by 40 percent."

If an analysis by the California Air Resources Board showed that following the blueprint would meet pollution cutting goals, then any project consistent with that plan would require only a limited environmental review.

"Our state's premier environmental law should recognize that there's a difference between growth that's going to promote air quality, climate policy and energy conservation, and growth that hurts those goals," Adams said.


16) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Nonprofit subsidizes Schwarzenegger travel frills

The group that funds Schwarzenegger's jets and luxury suites writes off the cost. Its donors can get tax breaks.


By Paul Pringle
Times Staff Writer

July 5, 2007


From the Los Angeles Times


SACRAMENTOCalifornia's larger-than-life governor is unabashed about living large, but keeping him in luxury sometimes depends on the same taxpayer subsidies granted to hand-to-mouth charities.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, a millionaire many times over, bills much of his overseas travel to an obscure nonprofit group that can qualify its secret donors for full tax deductions, just as if they were giving to skid row shelters or the
United Way.

Whether journeying to
China, Japan or last week's destinations — Austria, England and France — Schwarzenegger typically flies on top-of-the-line private jets like the plush Gulfstream models and has booked hotel suites that can run thousands of dollars a night.

"Wow, that's a problem," said Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy. "Why should our tax dollars subsidize his lavish lifestyle?"

Making matters worse, Borochoff and others say, is that the nonprofit that finances Schwarzenegger's globe-trotting, the California State Protocol Foundation, could be a vehicle for interests that hope to curry favor with the governor.

By giving to the foundation, donors avoid having their identities made public, because charities are not governed by the disclosure rules that apply to campaign contributions. And they can donate unlimited amounts to the nonprofit, which is not subject to contribution ceilings the way campaign accounts are.

California State Protocol Foundation...is closely associated with the California Chamber of Commerce.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, celebrated for its Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles and far-flung Nazi-hunting efforts, paid more than $51,000 to help send the governor to Israel in 2004, a year when the charity ran a deficit, records show.

The trip carried a steep tab because of the private jet, said people familiar with Schwarzenegger's travel.

A Wiesenthal spokesman said that the center had invited the governor to
Israel for a museum groundbreaking and that the $51,000 paid for part of the jet costs.

costs for flying on a Gulfstream or similar aircraft often are many times greater than the price of a first-class ticket on a commercial airline.

On that basis alone, well-run charities generally bar or strictly limit private flying, the watchdogs say.

Allan Zaremberg, the Chamber of Commerce president and a foundation board member, said the protocol group pays whatever bills the governor's office submits. "How they allocate that money is up to them," he said.

But charity watchdogs and others say taxpayers should foot the bill for a governor's official travel. They also say Schwarzenegger would face a storm of rebuke if he tried to charge the state for private jets and posh hotel suites.

The number of charities tied to elected officials has grown in recent years, even as they have figured in a spate of corruption scandals, including those centered on jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff. What sets Schwarzenegger apart in the nonprofit arena are his vast personal fortune and his repeated pledge to shun special-interest dollars.

The protocol foundation's expenditures have exploded since Schwarzenegger began relying on it — from $55,000 in 2003 to $1.8 million in 2005 and $1.3 million last year, its tax returns show.

Nonprofit monitors say it is almost impossible to justify routine spending of charitable dollars on aircraft that can cost $6,000 to $10,000 an hour to lease.

The protocol organization is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, occupying the highest rung of tax-exempt groups as a public charity. The Governor's Residence Foundation, the nonprofit that pays for Schwarzenegger's home away from home at the Hyatt, is also a 501(c)(3).

The category includes basic-needs charities like soup kitchens and the Red Cross as well as nonprofit hospitals, schools and museums. All must provide a public benefit, are barred from engaging in elective politics and cannot take part in legislative or lobbying activity to a substantial degree.

Contributions to many other types of nonprofits, including chambers of commerce, are not tax deductible unless they can be claimed as legitimate business expenses or are directed to a charitable purpose. (Campaign contributions are not deductible.)

Most of Schwarzenegger's foreign sojourns have been trade missions, though his critics say the trips really are little more than junkets designed to boost his international profile.

State disclosure forms that Schwarzenegger filed for 2004 showed that the foundation spent about $27,000 and $18,000 for his trips to Austria and Japan, respectively. McLear said most of the money paid for the governor's hotel suites.

Schwarzenegger declines to take his state salary, and he does give to charities. From 2002 through 2004, for example, he reported $2.5 million in charitable donations and about $55 million in total income.

Top of Page


Secret Bribes by Unknown Interests Funding Arnie's Lavish Lifestyle

My Favorite Charity: ARNIE

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., October , 2007

Also See:

nunez links

arnie links


Search the Corruption Database under



Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

17) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Special sessions ordered

Governor wants health care, water storage plans passed; as first step. working groups of lawmakers will seek consensus

By Kevin Yamamura - Bee Capitol Bureau

Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, September 12, 2007




Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday officially called special sessions on health care and water storage but acknowledged that his long-desired changes on how California draws legislative districts are dead for this year.

The Republican governor and Democratic lawmakers remain at odds over how to pay for a health care solution for the 6.7 million uninsured Californians.

Schwarzenegger reiterated that he wants the Legislature to approve everything but the funding for a health care agreement and ask voters next year to approve various funding sources to pay for the plan. To be approved in the Legislature alone, most fees would require support from Republican legislators, who have opposed any such new charges on businesses, hospitals or doctors.

The governor has promised to veto Assembly Bill 8 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, which would pay for health coverage by requiring that employers spend 7.5 percent of payroll on care for their workers.

He said that other funding sources, such as a hospital tax or sales tax, should be on the ballot, but not an employer fee. That way, he suggested, even if voters reject the initiative, California can still pay for improvements to its health care system.

Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said they intend to reach agreement by Sept. 27 to approve a new multibillion-dollar bond to pay for water storage and a solution to environmental problems in the Delta, such as a canal that Schwarzenegger has backed. That time frame would allow the bond to go on the Feb. 5 ballot.

17b) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

2007 Legislative Session-Final Review

Lydia Bourne, Legislative Advocate, American Nurses Association

Full Doc at ANA website

Oct 12, 2007



The 2007 Legislative Session was one of surprise and disappointment – we still have not comprehensively addressed the key issues for this session – water and health care. Much of the reluctance to address these key issues can be attributed to the long budget delay and the rush to do “something” before the end of the session. As time ran out the governor called a special session -  one for each issue – Health Care Reform 1st Extraordinary Session and Water 2nd Extraordinary Session.


Health Care Reform, topic for the 1st Extraordinary Session - five weeks into the special session, neither house has met on this issue. AB 8 (Nunez) the Democratic plan for health care reform was sent to the governor on September 10th.

The governor has modified his plan again; the new version was released on October 9th. It is now called the “Health Care Security and Reduction Act”; the newly revised language contains the following changes:

Maintains individual mandate and offers subsidies:

Families not over 150%Federal Poverty Level (FPL) receive full subsidy

Families 151-200% FPL will pay no more than 4% of income on premiums                               

  Families with incomes between 201-250% will pay maximum of 5% Premiums

Families 250-300% of FPL get a tax credit if insurance costs exceed 5% of adjusted gross income

Governor wants to “lease” the state lottery to pay for the health care expansion

Maintains guarantee issue which ensures that all Californians will be able to buy health insurance regardless of their medical history or age; requires insurers to spend 85 % of premiums on medical care.

Mandates employers offer Section 125 Plans –allows employees the opportunity to pay for benefits on a pretax basis, also called “flexible spending accounts”; also allows for personal tax deductions of costs

Employer payments are now on a sliding scale: No contributions by employers if payrolls don’t exceed $100,000.

If payrolls range from $101,000 - $200,000, employers pay 2% of payroll

If payroll exceeds $200,000, employers pay 4%

Physicians are no longer part of “shared responsibility”, they do not have to pay the 2% in the original plan

The Secretary of Health & Human Services now can establish the minimum benefit level via the regulatory process; the minimum benefit must cover medical, hospital, preventive and prescription drugs, promote access to care and must be set at a level where premiums are affordable

It is predicted the moneys received from leasing the lottery can be annuitized to create $2 billion to defray costs of health care expansion. In my discussions with staff it appears that a constitutional amendment is need to allow the leasing of the state lottery, which means this may be another initiative as a 2/3 vote is needed in the legislature for this to occur. One of the “selling points” for the establishment of the lottery was a percentage of money would go to the schools; however, the amount of funding to schools varies and the governor has promised more consistent funding from the general fund. 

As far as I can determine, the one cent sales tax increase (proposed by the California Restaurant Association) is still viable as well as the agreement with the governor and the 4% payment by the hospitals; both will be part of the funding initiative planned for the November 2008 ballot. I think we are aware that sales taxes are regressive and it is rather ironic that those that are least likely to have health coverage will be called upon to pay the most for any new reforms.  

Finally, on October 12th AB 8 (Nunez) was vetoed by the governor as promised. The governor’s veto message stated that “this plan doesn’t address necessary cost controls, doesn’t cover all Californians and places the entire burden of funding on employers”.

Top of Page

Also See:

nunez links

arnie links

Search the Corruption Database under





Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

18) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

'Will of people' likely Schwarzenegger mantra on same-sex marriage


Haley Davies,John Wildermuth

SF Chronicle, September 17, 2007




(09-17) 04:00 PDT Sacramento --


If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger goes through with his expected veto of San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno's measure to allow same-sex marriage in California, it's almost guaranteed the governor will say he's following "the will of the people."

That's the argument the Republican governor made two years ago when he rejected a similar measure. Although Schwarzenegger hasn't taken an official position on the new bill, he made clear in February that he did not intend to sign it.

"I don't want, as the governor, to go against the will of the people," Schwarzenegger said at an event put on by the YMCA, but added: "If it goes back on the ballot, the people can make the decision."

The Legislature approved the bill Sept. 7, and the governor has until Oct. 14 to sign or veto the measure.

18b) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill as promised

Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Thursday, September 29, 2005

(09-29) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today delivered on his promise to veto legislation that would have given same-sex partners the right to marry, but said he would not support any rollback of the state's current domestic partner benefits.

That stance would put him at odds with two initiatives being pursued by conservative groups for the ballot next year. Those measures would not only prevent gay marriage, but also eliminate rights domestic partners currently enjoy.

"I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners," Schwarzenegger said in his veto message. "I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback."

But that position did not placate the author of the same-sex marriage bill, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.

"The governor has failed his test of leadership and missed a historic opportunity to stand up for the basic civil rights of all Californians," Leno said. "He cannot claim to support fair and equal treatment for same-sex couples and veto the very bill that would have provided it to them."

Schwarzenegger's strong stance in favor of domestic partner rights, along with his signature today on four bills strengthening protections for gays and lesbians was clearly meant to temper the outpouring of criticism he had received for saying he would veto the bill.

In 2000, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, an initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California. Several court cases on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage are making their way through the court system.

Schwarzenegger said the ultimate decision will be made by a court.

Top of Page



Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., October , 2007

If Arnie granted rights to gays, as I'm sure he would like, it would end his support in the Repuglacan Party. Hopes for Senate seat: Nill.

If Arnie refused to support domestic rights for gays, it would seriously diminish his chances of replacing our current conservative republican senator, feindstien. Hopes for Senate seat: Nill.

So Arnie has taken the middle-ground: Gays get some rights, but not equal rights. He's hoping that his half-way measures will bring enough suport from each side to put him into the senate. Arnie's position on gay rights are much superior than Fiendstien's ultra-conservative position.

The fiend has taken a "state's-rights" view of gay rights. Apparently the states get to determine who has, and does not have the liberties of, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if it conflicts with political or religious correctness.

This "states rights" position the fiend has marked out is exactly the same one used by the apologists for slavery, and the slave-owners. They too claimed that the fundamental rights named in the constitution did not apply to individuals in states who had been stripped of their fundamental rights as Americans.

The fiend's earlier vote for a rascist, homophobic federal judge, and her constant votes in defense of this administation's illegal war, illegal police powers, and torture, make Arnie a far preferable corporate whore than the fiend to reperesent the corporate interests of our state in the Senate.

If we eliminate outside money in our elections, we will not have to put up with either of these corporate whores disgracing our polity.

Top of Page

Also See:

Sf Chron, june 13, 2006; Feinstein say Gay Rights are State Issue

Corruption Updates 100, August 4th '07, Feinstein draws fire over vote for rascist, homophobic judge

Washington Post, Nov 4, 2007; Is Feinstein the Democrats' Next Lieberman?

Arnie links

Search the Corruption Database under



Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

19) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

State civil rights panel facing cuts

Dems, others fight plan to rid group of its staff lawyers


Bob Egelko, Chronicle, September 17, 2007




Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is moving to strip California's civil rights commission of its staff of lawyers who hear discrimination cases, a move that has stirred opposition among civil rights groups, Democrats in the Legislature and an advocate for employers.

On Tuesday, the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission will vote in San Francisco on the administration's proposal to relinquish its lawyers and rely on attorneys from a central state office to hear its cases.

The commission now has four attorneys, including one who serves as executive officer and would retain her job. Commission members, appointed by the governor, serve part time without a salary.

opponents say the administration is out to dismantle the commission, with potentially dire consequences.

The proposal would be "a significant setback to civil rights enforcement" by removing a group of experienced hearing officers who understand the fine points of discrimination law, Democratic leaders of both houses said in a Sept. 11 letter to Schwarzenegger. In interviews, two lawmakers said they would take action if the administration persists.

The California Coalition for Civil Rights, representing numerous advocacy organizations, has drafted a letter to commission members urging them to resist pressure from the governor's office. Although the commission is independent of the governor, five of its six members were appointed by Schwarzenegger, and two whose terms expire Wednesday are seeking reappointment.

"We condemn the apparently calculated timing of this proposal," the coalition said.

The commission was created by a 1980 law as part of a system that allows Californians who allege discrimination in jobs, housing or public accommodations to seek redress without hiring a lawyer or going to court.

The first step is a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, an arm of the administration. The department weeds out claims it considers baseless and refers other cases to the commission, where a department lawyer represents the plaintiff.

A trial-type hearing is held before a commission lawyer, known as an administrative law judge, whose decision is reviewed by the full panel. The losing side can ask the courts to review the decision.

Over the years, the commission has affirmed the rights of transgender people, established the right of a condominium-complex resident to own a doctor-approved "companion animal" to ward off depression, and asserted its authority to grant damages without a jury trial. It has also issued regulations implementing state laws on disability, family leave, hate-crime violence and sexual harassment.

San Francisco attorney Garry Mathiason, whose Littler Mendelsohn firm represents 30,000 California employers, said he was also mystified by the proposal.

The commission's hearing officers understand the law and are "absolutely objective," said Mathiason, who feared that switching to nonspecialized judges would lead to "a huge loss in the learning curve."

He said the commission had provided crucial assistance for employers by enacting recent regulations clearing up questions in the state's sexual harassment law.

"This is a little tiny agency that does a phenomenal job with virtually no budget," Mathiason said. "Of all the places one could look for improvement in state government, this is probably the last place to look."

Whom to call

To give your opinion on the proposed changes to the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission, call:

Rosario Marin (above), secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency, (916) 653-4090.

George Woolverton, chairman of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, (323) 935-6669.

The commission is scheduled to take up the issue at 1:15 p.m. Tuesday at its meeting at the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom 12 on the 19th floor.

The Resolution:

Statement by Office of State Sen. Sheila Kuehl, in California Progress Report, Sept. 20,2007

"As of this writing, the proposal to dismantle the panel of Administrative Law Judges has been removed from the Commission’s agenda with no word on how the matter will, ultimately, be resolved."

Top of Page

Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

20) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.

California: Veto of 3 Criminal Justice Bills



October 16, 2007




Bucking a national trend toward stronger safeguards against wrongful convictions, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed bills that would have explored new eyewitness identification guidelines, required electronic recordings of police interrogations and mandated corroboration of jailhouse informant testimony.

Mr. Schwarzenegger cited his concern that the three bills would hamper local law enforcement authorities, a contention shared by several state police and prosecutor associations.

The proposals had been recommended by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, a bipartisan body of police officials, prosecutors and defense lawyers charged by the State Senate to address the most common causes of wrongful convictions and recommend changes in criminal justice procedures.

Top of Page


Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., October , 2007


Top of Page

Also See:

Arnie links

Search the Corruption Database under


civil rights



Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


Previous Corruption Updates: Page 127

Next Corruption Updates: Page 129

Contact Us: Committeefordemocracy.org


All Archives

Top of Page

Today's Headlines

Nunez lives like a king on Special Interest Bribes:

1) Nunez Lives Like a King on Corporate Bribes

2) Nunez Pretends to be "Middle-Class" while living in luxury at public and private troughs

3) Nunez and Perata Living Large on the Massive Bribes of the Special Interests

4) Nunez Brags that his Bribes Pay his for Luxury rather than the State: but he still collects his per diem while whoring for the corporations

Great News Clip of Nunez running away from the truth, and his own "Blackwater" security detail

5) Nunez lives with Political Fundraiser: Is there and separation between Nunez and his Corporate Bribers?

6) Donors pour Millions into State Parties: And the Politicians Party around the world

7) Worthless Assembly does Nothing but Play Games and Rob the People Blind

The "Terms Limits" Lie

A Plan to Maintain Nunez-Perata Dem Monopoly of Political Corrpution

8) Arnie rejects Nunez's Fake Term Limit measure

9) Term Limit measure is a FAKE, a Deception by the Democrats to damage our democracy

10) Will "Term Limit" Measure return Willie Brown to Sacramento? scumbag nunez screwing calif for personal/party ambitions

11) Good analysis of Term Limit/Redisticting proposals

We Have No Water...

12) Fed Judge severly restricts use of Delta Water

13) Fed Judge widens scope of Delta Water Restrictions

14) Delta Deal? Task force forms to confront Water Crisis

14b) Arnie's Plans to steal N. Cal water to continue irresponsible growth in LA

15) Legislative Advocate's anaylsis of competing Water Plans

15b) Arnie and Perata prepare competing water plan initiatives

15c) The Water Crisis is here

15d) Weak Attempt to Control, but not Limit, California's Massive Growth Rate

It's Arnie Time

16) Arnie is the Gold Standard for Living Large on Bribes

17) Arnie calls Special Legislative Session: Water and Health Crisis Looms: Idiots do Nothing

17b) Analysis of incompentence, cupidity, and the Whorishness of Our Bribed Legislature-Governor: Health Care Health Care that only serves the Health of corporate profits

18) Arnie defends Tyranny if it is the "Will of the People:" Welcome to the dictatorship of the majority. Hell of a lot better than Fiendstien

18b) Arnie's ambigious gay rights position reflects his desire to become Senator of California, rather than defend American Liberty

19) Arnie attempts to Strip Civil Rights Commish of Lawyers

20) Arnie Vetoes Rational, Bipartisan reforms of Police Practices: What an idiot


    ...Sorry, the remaining articles will be carried forward...


Ca Prisons are as bad as our Schools