A sad comment on California governance, this actually isn’t an anomaly. Katy Grimes at CalWatchdog reports that:

The empty budget trailer bills, called “spot bills,” usually sit on a shelf until the last minute they are needed, and usually on the day the budget is due, June 15. They are not vetted and don’t go through the usual public legislative committee process. Legislators are asked to vote on these bills, often having just seen them for the first time.

But this describes a process back in the day when there was a two party system in California and making a “deal” was necessary. It was distasteful in process and product.

Today, California is a one-party system. A Democrat holds every state-wide elected office and Democrats have a 2/3 majority in the Legislature. Democrats don’t need a single GOP vote even to raise taxes! It is just a matter of divvying up the $96.4 billion budget bounty amongst themselves.

The Legislature convened on January 7. FOUR MONTHS later, they don’t feel it necessary to put together even a draft budget for public debate. They know they can make whatever deals they like at the last possible hour and “amend” the now-empty spot bills.

A Constitutional Amendment to end “Gut and Amend” was before the Assembly Committee on Budget, Subcommittee on Budget Process, Oversight and Program Evaluation (summary and staff report here) but was moved “to suspense” before the hearing even started. In theory it went to suspense as a matter of procedure. In practicality, “suspense” is considered where many bills go to die.

According to the staff report, “Bills considered by the Legislature that are in print in final form for less than 72 hours are usually due to one of three scenarios… the bill is part of the budget package” and “California has a relatively transparent legislative process and a long history of important agreements that were quickly passed.”

The “bill is part of the budget package” is PRECISELY why it requires transparency! “Relatively transparent” doesn’t merit comment. And thanks to a “long history of important agreements” California, to offer just one dismal measurement, has the second to the worst bond rating of any state– second to Illinois. ‘Nuff said.

ACA4 and its companion legislation SCA10 can still move forward.

In a lawsuit filed against groups such as the California Teacher’s Association and the National Education Association, the teachers, represented by the Center for Individual Rights, claim that union dues are being used for political purposes that are “contrary to their personal interests and political beliefs.”

The lawsuit is attempting to capitalize on a 2012 Supreme Court ruling (Knox v. SEIU) that says non-union members should be given the option to opt-in for mandatory union fees used for political purposes rather than only having the option to opt-out.

According to the Center for Individual Rights, the Knox ruling called into question the constitutionality of “agency shop” laws that exist in states like California:

What makes the California “agency shop” law particularly egregious for public school teachers is that the subjects of collective bargaining — ranging from teacher pay to class size to methods of teacher evaluation — inherently involve controversial and important political and ideological issues. Thus, non-union teachers who disagree with the unions on issues of fiscal prudence and educational policy are nonetheless forced to pay compulsory fees that help fund the unions’ political agenda, as pursued through the collective-bargaining process and elsewhere.

When dues are more than $1000 a person, with at least $400 being used for political purposes, the likelihood of the claim being true doesn’t seem that far fetched.

This case is an intriguing first shot fired at agency shop laws following the Knox ruling, and in a liberal-dominated state like California it provides a new opportunity to discover how Knox will affect future union policy.

While mandatory union dues have been the subject of controversy for some time, recent years debate has been centered around the actions of Governors and state legislatures reforming their collective bargaining laws and the subsequent freak outs by the unions and legislators who represent their interests.

One can only imagine how unions and their friends might react if they lose a significant source of funding. Getting the ball rolling in California makes it an even juicier prospect.

If you answered yes, you should consider applying to be a State Editor for Watchdog Wire California. This is a part-time, paid position, perfect for anyone who is highly motivated, willing to work an hour or two each day, and looking to make money for doing something they enjoy!

Here’s how the job works:

• The editor is responsible for populating Watchdog Wire California with content, from citizen contributors and credible blogs and news sources. These stories should be relevant to California citizens and the Citizen Watchdog mission. There should be 3-4 new stories each weekday, and 2 or more videos each week.
• The editor will review, edit, and publish contributions from citizen contributors, ensure that all material follows the Watchdog Wire Style Guide, reach out to contributors who need coaching, and contribute 1-2 stories of his or her own each week.
• The editor will also identify and recruit local bloggers to write or cross-post on Watchdog Wire California, and attend at least one Citizen Watchdog training in California.

Applicants should have strong copy-editing and writing skills, a proficiency in sound journalism and media practices, as well as a keen sense of newsworthiness.  Strong interpersonal and communication skills are needed to effectively recruit local bloggers as contributors to Watchdog Wire and mentor contributors with their writing.

It is preferred that the editor is native to California or has strong personal and professional connections to the state.  Applicants should have a knowledge and passion for the economic and policy issues affecting California.  Editors will be temporarily contracted to dedicate 1.5-2 hours a day to this role and will receive a stipend for their efforts on a month-to-month contract basis.

If interested, please send your resume and writing samples to Jackie.Moreau@franklincenterhq.org!

But we also cited that:

“bills requiring all legislation to be in print and online 72 hours before they come to vote (thereby ending egregious “gut and amend”), have been submitted by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) and Asm. Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto). Both bills would be constitutional amendments and would have to be approved by the voters. To get on the ballot, SCA10 or ACA4 need a two-thirds vote in the Legislature.”

ACA4 is on the Assembly Committee on Budget subcommittee agenda for today (Tuesday, April 30, 2013) at 1:30PM in State Capitol Room 447. I will link to the Committee Staff report next, but I must warn you to read it at your own risk. You can read the Committee Staff report here.

There are policy points in the report that can be debated by reasonable people. But I found this paragraph particularly egregious:

“California’s legislative work is more transparent now than at any point in history. This year marks the twentieth anniversary of AB 1624 (Bowen), which required any legislative bill, analysis, history, and voters to be made available via the internet…  Today anyone with access to the internet can see the latest version of a bill, for free, at any time in a system that is updated daily.”

“More transparent now than at any point in history”? I am taller now that I have been at any point in history. But I’m still only 5’ 2” ½. And the rest of the paragraph must have been written by someone who had never heard of “gut and amend.”

Then there is:

“California’s most significant compromises have been forged in a crucible of pressure and heat from all sides that creates the resolve for action. Often in such circumstances, powerful special interests may not be satisfied with the final agreement. However, requiring a 72-hour in-print rule essentially creates a three-day“ time out period” on all legislation. This time can allow the resolve for action to dissipate, and special interests can exert pressure and work to block carefully-crafted agreements.”

Those “powerful special interests” mentioned include YOU, a watchful, informed citizenry. Upon learning what the “powerful special interests” who are the dominant majority of the day in the insular circles of Sacramento think is a good idea, you can mobilize to “block carefully-crafted agreements.” This is cited as a bad thing. Please take a note of that.

We asked Michelle Steel, Vice Chair of the BOE, a few questions about their role in the California State tax system. Did you know that “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t count in tax law? That it takes THREE separate agencies to collect taxes in California? For that and more valuable information, read below:

1. What role do BOE members play in shaping or implementing CA tax policy?

“Established in 1879 by a constitutional amendment, the BOE was initially charged with responsibility for ensuring that county property tax assessment practices were equal and uniform throughout the state. Currently, the Board administers over 30 tax and fee programs, including sales and use taxes, property taxes, and special taxes and fees. Board members are also the appellate body for most of the state’s tax disputes including income and corporate taxes.

The BOE is the only elected tax board in the nation, and as such, members are directly accountable to their constituents for the way they administer state taxes.  Although the Board has no authority to create or eliminate taxes or fees, it is the Board’s job to interpret the laws passed by the Legislature and create regulations that govern the tax programs under our authority.  The Board also sponsors legislation each year to improve tax administration. Members also sponsor legislation individually.”

2. What are some of the most common misconceptions citizens have about state taxes?

“The most common reporting errors BOE sees on tax returns are mistakes with the use tax, which is charged on untaxed purchases from out of state, and reporting issues with items that businesses take out of their inventory for their own use.

Another common error related to the Board’s appellate function, is that many taxpayers believe tax law works like criminal law, where you are always innocent until proven guilty. In tax law, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer. This unjust system means that taxpayers must take the time and spend the money to disprove charges leveled against them by the tax agency, often with little knowledge of tax law.”

3.  How do incentives work? Credits?  Sales tax holidays? 

“The goal of sales tax holidays is to promote shopping and boost business activity. However, studies by the Tax Foundation and others have shown that sales tax holidays do not have the desired effect. Instead of increasing sales, sales tax  holidays tend to shift the timing of sales so consumers end up buying products they would have purchased anyway, except they’re doing it tax free.  I believe that a more efficient method of boosting economic activity through the tax code would be to lower taxes year round to a level low enough that it won’t stop shoppers from buying the products they want.

California does not have a statewide sales tax holiday, but they have been implemented by some local governments.

The state does have other credits and exemptions for different products. Some exemptions, such as those for off-road diesel and certain machinery exist to protect farmers and manufacturers from paying increased taxes on the tools they use to run their businesses. Others, such as exemptions on natural gas and film production are used to promote those economic activities in the state.”

4.  How can we make our tax code simpler and more citizen-friendly?

“I believe that the first step to recognize when talking about making the tax code simpler and more citizen-friendly, is that taxpayers don’t exist as ATM machines for the state. Each Californian is an individual – often with a family to support – that works hard every day to earn his or her own success. Too often, the state treats taxpayers not as individuals but as cash machines who it burdens with rules, regulations, publications, forms and tax returns, in order to take as much as it can to fund state programs.

From an administrative perspective, the first step then is to simplify tax collections. California currently has three main tax collection agencies, the Franchise Tax Board, the Employment Development Department and the BOE. Only one of those, the BOE, is elected and therefore directly accountable to Californians.  These agencies should be consolidated.

Second, the state should use available technology to make filing tax returns and dealing with tax agencies as easy as possible.  This is something we are working hard on at the BOE. Today Californians can register with the board, file and pay their taxes, and seek refunds with just a few clicks online. Through consolidation of functions and the use of newly available technology, we can continue to increase efficiencies and decrease costs for taxpayers.

Finally, legislators and other policymakers should go through the tax code and recognize that so many of the various fees and taxes imposed by the state create disincentives for economic growth and hurt Californians working hard to make a living. Tax rates should be reduced so that Californians have more in their pockets with which to boost our economy and help their neighbors.”

Conclusion

A frequent theme of my posts is that I am not against paying taxes per se. I am against paying taxes that fund waste, fraud, and abuse. And the only way to avoid the later is for an informed citizenry to remain watchful! Do you know who your BOE is? Had an issue with unfair tax assessment? According to VC Steel, “taxpayers can also meet directly with their elected Board member by calling their offices and scheduling an appointment.” Remain watchful.

And whenever you work to uncover backdoor deals and government corruption, someone will try to silence you - such is the calling of an investigative news organization committed to the TRUTH.   

Last week a lawsuit was filed against The Franklin Center’s professional reporting team at Watchdog.org for stories pursued in Virginia that exposed potential problems and questionable business dealings with a green energy company called GreenTech. 

What makes this story important is the close ties this company has with “former” chairman and Democratic Gubernatorial Nominee Terry McAuliffe and the fact that Hillary Clinton’s brother is also involved with this company.

The investigation obviously struck a nerve.  So much so, that attorneys for the Clinton/McAuliffe tied company are suing us for $85 Million. Yes you are reading that correctly …. $85 million.

They want to shut us up. But we will not be silenced. We will continue to report on this and any story that is important to the public.

Here’s how YOU can Stand With the Franklin Center and defend the freedom of the press:

1.    Sign the Stand With Franklin Center pledge and defend the freedom of the press. If they can silence us they can silence anyone who dares to oppose bigger government and crony capitalism and those who work to expose waste and corruption.

2.    Help keep our investigative efforts alive by giving $15, $20 or whatever you can afford. Because we are a non-profit, we depend upon generous donations from the public who share our core mission.

3.    Help us spread the word. We need to send the message that we will NOT be intimidated. We have the TRUTH on our side and facts to back up our story. For more information, see what Michelle Malkin is saying here. Also, please consider sharing this story with your friends.

Thanks for standing with the Franklin Center as we continue to write the tough stories that hold go untold. As citizen journalists, YOU are on the front lines of your community to help hold government accountable.

Here’s to being watchful.

Judging by Gov. Jerry Brown’s latest plan to “save” the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, he appears to suffer from a variant of the same condition. California’s Green Governor loves the Earth in general but he doesn’t seem to care about particular earthly environments.

Throughout his political career, Brown has championed grand Earth-saving projects such as AB 32, the state’s first-in-the nation cap-and-trade system designed to prod the world into cutting the carbon dioxide emissions that supposedly lead to global warming. He is pushing a high-speed-rail system that is designed to lure people out of their automobiles. He speaks often about his commitment to the environment.

A lack of appreciation for the Delta

Yet I wonder whether the governor has ever taken the short trip from the Capitol to one of California’s ecological treasures. As it comes down from the mountains and heads toward the San Francisco Bay, the bulk of the state’s water passes through the Delta. It is a land of marshes, islands, charming small towns, Victorian mansions, and orchards interspersed between 1,000 miles of waterways.

The Delta also is Ground Zero for ongoing fights over the state’s water supplies. Judges have routinely stopped the water flows out of the Delta, toward the dry but agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley and toward Southern California’s massive metropolises, to help a tiny endangered baitfish known as the Delta Smelt. The smelt is viewed as the canary in a coal mine — a bellwether for the ecological health of the waterways.

Millions of smelt are killed each year as they get caught in the giant pumps near Tracy, near the south end of the Delta. Environmentalists also express concerns about the level of saltwater that moves inland from the Pacific Ocean.

This tiny, tranquil region is about to undergo dramatic, government-imposed changes that threaten its beauty and way of life. The governor’s plan is touted by Southern California water agencies and farmers alike who view it as a means to assure more consistent water supplies.

Gigantic project — but not necessarily more water flow

I’m a believer in providing water to thirsty farmers and thirsty cities. But the Bay Delta Conservation Plan won’t necessarily increase the flow of water, according to the first parts of the plan, which recently has been released to the public.

The plan would start a decade-long construction project to build two massive tunnels to bypass the current river system. At a cost estimated as high as $39 billion before the usual government-project overruns, the tunnels would move water supplies under the Delta and thereby decrease the current reliance on the aging, earthquake-prone levees.

The plan has two equal goals: restore the Delta ecosystem and improve water reliability. It won’t increase water flows, but by resolving the Delta Smelt issue it will end the court-ordered water stoppages — at least in theory. Here, the administration proposes the use of tax dollars and massive engineering feats to solve a legal and regulatory problem. This is a poor use of resources, especially in a state that still is largely broke and that already faces some of the biggest debt and tax burdens in the nation.

What are the chances that once the smelt issue is fixed that environmentalists won’t find another reason to sue to stop the water flows given that the water flows are the source of the real dispute?

The administration’s plan will tear up the Delta for at least 10 years. We know how government infrastructure projects are always delayed, so it’s anyone’s guess how long it actually will take. Even its advocates admit that they aren’t sure about the unintended consequences of the project.

Destroying the Delta in order to save it?

As part of its ecosystem restoration program, this boondoggle will flood a large portion of the Delta’s land, destroying vineyards, farmland, orchards, and marshes. It will submerge islands. There will be land confiscations.

Environmental groups believe the re-engineering of the ecosystem will destroy salmon and other fish habitats. No one in their right mind would hand over a precious region such as this to bureaucrats, but in Sacramento these days the Brown administration is trying to relive the glory days of the New Deal where central planning and big spending are the in thing.

Here’s a case where free-market advocates such as myself and true environmentalists should make common cause — to stop a misguided project that will raise water rates and increase the state’s debt load to provide limited and questionable gains. There are better, cheaper, more reasonable ways to increase water supplies, tend to a damaged ecosystem and shore up the levees.

I don’t expect this governor to worry much about debt spending, tax burdens and that sort of thing. But perhaps his might take a trip through the meandering waterways and charming small towns of the Delta where he can learn that one shouldn’t save the environment in general by sacrificing an environment in the process.

This article was originally posted at CalWatchdog and can be viewed here. 

Of course not. And you will be SHOCKED to read that the aforementioned alarming statistic wasn’t the headline on the release from the Field Poll, with the unabashedly liberal The California Endowment sponsor noted as press contact.

Actual headlines from statistically insignificant poll

The screaming headline to this Field Poll survey actually reads: MOST CALIFORNIANS SEE A DIRECT LINKAGE BETWEEN OBESITY AND SUGARY SODAS.

The headline appears to be missing the words “regularly drinking” included later in the suvey to develop said linkage. And “regularly” is not defined. Several times an hour? Day? Week?

The still screaming headline continues: TWO IN THREE VOTERS SUPPORT TAXING SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGES IF PROCEEDS ARE TIED TO IMPROVING SCHOOL NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PROGRAMS.

Please see my post on “how government is like a teenager” principle of government spending. In short, if you ask me, theoretically, if I would support a 5% tax on my morning bagel to support local education, would I support it? Of course! But it won’t, so I won’t.

When you dig through it, the survey doesn’t actually prove much of anything.

Why a statistically insignificant poll matters

State Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) has introduced SB 622 that would levy a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages, including sodas, as “part of an effort to fight obesity amongst young people.” The tax would be levied on beverage distributors, apparently in an effort to hide the fee-for-beverage from consumers, much like the gas taxes we pay at the pump. (For the record: California pays the second highest gas tax in the nation: $.671/gallon)

The California Endowment is a $3 BILLION endowment that must, legally, draw 5% a year against the endowment towards its stated priorities. That is $150 MILLION a year just in California and it has declared soda and snack taxes a public policy priority.

Remain watchful!

It takes some effort to spend $150 million a year, every year, just in California, against any one public policy issue. Endowment efforts to challenge your beverage, snacking, and dining choices via taxation and regulation will come to your cities and counties. See article here for plans already in motion.

The only defense against such a massive spending campaign designed to limit your choices is an educated and informed citizenry! Join us as a contributor at watchdogwire.com or email us your tips at California@watchdogwire.com

Disclosure: I worked for the PepsiCo Restaurant Group from 1993 – 1996. I have not owned individual PepsiCo stock in over a decade.

To understand politics it’s said you should “follow the money.” Nanny-state bureaucrats always keep the bottom line in mind, growing their prerogative to control how citizens live. State and federal regulators n recent years have sought ways to regulate the growing e-cig industry. The current push to regulate (and ultimately tax) e-cigs is in direct response to their commercial success. Ever the vanguard of political correctness, Contra Costa County Supervisors are going with the flow – all in the name of “saving the children” — with hopes that e-cigs someday will provide a source of new tax revenue.

Tobacco-free electronic cigarettes – or “e-cigs” — have become increasingly popular for smokers trying to quit and those trying to escape public-use tobacco laws. E-cigs are about one-third cheaper and far healthier than tobacco cigarettes. User testimonials suggest that e-cigs succeed in helping smokers quit when other cessation methods fail (to the chagrin of pharmaceutical companies that seek to maintain the industry’s monopoly on the smoking cessation drug business).

E-cigs work by turning nicotine — a legal drug — and harmless chemicals (propylene glycol, glycerol, water and flavoring) into water vapor that is inhaled by the user.  The user benefits by using a tobacco-free nicotine delivery system with few health risks. And because the device produces harmless water vapor rather than secondhand smoke, it is better for everyone. There is no evidence that “second-hand” e-cig water vapor is harmful — after all, it’s just steam.

Because the FDA has not approved e-cigs as a smoking reduction or cessation device, e-cig companies market their products as “alternatives” to cigarettes. Ironically, this broad marketing approach appeals to non-smokers – including youth – the very groups federal regulators supposedly work most diligently to protect.

During the past five years, e-cig use – known as “vaping” – has grown in popularity. The Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association estimates current U.S. users (aka “vapers”) at 3.5 million, up from 50,000 in 2008. Rising cigarette prices – driven by endlessly increasing tobacco taxes – may be helping to fuel e-cig popularity.

So it naturally follows that government must find a way to regulate and tax the successful e-cig industry. Consider:

• Unlike cigarettes, currently e-cigs are not federally-taxed, although some states are moving to impose their own taxes.
• California State Senate Bill 648, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary and Health Committees, would ban the use of vapor products wherever smoking is banned, permit landlords to ban e-cigarette use in private homes and declares use of electronic cigarettes “a hazard to the health of the general public.”  The Senate Committee on Health has scheduled a hearing on this bill for April 17.  Passage of SB 648 or similar e-cig legislation would surely result in extension of state tobacco taxes to e-cigs.
• The State of Utah estimates it would reap an additional $1.6 million a year if its proposed e-cigarette tax becomes law.
• In 2010 the Federal Drug Administration failed in its attempt to regulate e-cigs as drug-delivery devices, but is now moving to regulate these tobacco-free devices as tobacco products.
• Should the FDA’s efforts to regulate e-cigs as tobacco products succeed, extension of federal tobacco taxes to e-cigs would certainly follow.
• In the 2010 FDA case, the court addressed the “second-hand harm” of e-cigs, as follows:  “Regarding harm to third parties and to the public interest, the district court observed that the FDA had cited no evidence to show that electronic cigarettes harmed anyone.”
• Contra Costa County is not alone in seeking to ban public use of e-cigs.  The City of Concord has adopted a similar ban, as has Amtrak.  Last fall the U.S. Department of Transportation proposed a ban aboard airplanes because of “concerns” about health risks from the vapors.
• E-cig industry representatives say pharmaceutical companies will lose millions if e-cigs gain popularity as a smoking cessation device, as evidenced by some pharmaceutical companies’ financial and political support of e-cig opponents.
• Nicotine dependency has a genetic basis.  This finding has been the subject of much research into personalized smoking cessation therapies that continue long-term, to avoid relapse, and adjust medication dosage to individual patient metabolism.  E-cigs appear to economically meet needs unmet by conventional low-dose nicotine gum and patch therapies.
• Long-term nicotine drug use poses far fewer health risks than long-term tobacco use.

You can’t help but wonder:  Seriously, don’t county supervisors have anything better to do?

A version of this article is crossposted at HalfwaytoConcord.com.

Right of a citizen vs. practice of a government

We cited Katie Grimes’ amusing-if-it-wasn’t-true coverage of a Senate hearing where Sen. Jim Beall (D- San Jose), with decades of experience at the local and state level, and Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, (D-Santa Barbara)– both with the rights and responsibilities of legislative oversight– had such a tough time getting information from State Parks and Recreation staff that Jackson “clearly frustrated” finally admitted “I guess that’s as good as I’m going to get today.”

As has been proven time and again over history, simply because it is a stated right of a citizen does not mean that it is an actual and regular practice of a government.

The reviews are in – and they aren’t good.

The Sunlight Foundation graded the states based on six of their Ten Principles for Opening Up Government Information: completeness, timeliness, ease of access, machine readability, use of commonly owned standards and permanence. California earned a “D” grade on its Legislative Data Report Card. And they don’t grade on a curve! Thirty-nine States scored higher than California.

A review by California Forward graciously doesn’t offer a letter grade, but is scathing and worth a quick read. The organization’s State of Transparency in California, includes the findings that “whether limited by outmoded reporting systems or intentionally withheld or obscured, as in the State Parks Department of the City of Bell, financial data on state and local government can be difficult to obtain, interpret, and evaluate.”

The fact that the transparency of the California’s state and local government– a state who is home to Silicon Valley and many of the communication innovations that have changed the country and the world– is so hindered by unbelievably archaic technology is an extraordinary embarrassment.

The review calls Sacramento’s “gut and amend” process of legislation “more or less a punch line in Sacramento. But it is a pox on our democracy.” In short, a legislator can submit a bill on a topic by the legislative deadline providing ample time for public and legislative review. The language of that bill can, in the final frenzy of passing legislation, be deleted entirely and replaced by legislative language that can have nothing to do with the original topic, thus making a joke of the deadlines in place to ensure said ample time for public and legislative review.

“Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle.” Benjamin Franklin

There are watchdogs everywhere! And many are working hard to “light a candle” and ensure that the people’s business, your business, is done in a way that ensures transparency and accountability.

For example, did you know that as a matter of practice, many local government agencies have resisted public requests for recording and publishing individual member votes? Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) has proposed SB 751 which would require that all votes be individually recorded and published for public review so that voting members of a legislative body can be held accountable.

And bills requiring all legislation to be in print and online 72 hours before they come to vote (thereby ending egregious “gut and amend”), have been submitted by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) and Asm. Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto). Both bills would be constitutional amendments and would have to be approved by the voters. To get on the ballot, SCA10 or ACA4 need a two-thirds vote in the Legislature.

And the California Forward report does conclude with several examples of City Hall success stories in California. It can be done. For tips on how to be a transparency watchdog, click here.

Have any ideas for improved transparency and accountability in your community? Need a platform to amplify your call to action? If you’d like to start reporting for Watchdog Wire – California, you can sign up here! For story ideas and more information on becoming  a California watchdog, contact me at California@Watchdogwire.com.

Remain watchful, MJ