CAPITOL BEAT
“Special Session Number Eight”
By Aaron Read & Assoc.
It is a sad state of affairs when respected
columnists writing about the future of California state the following,
"Beginning today, the effects of California's fiscal meltdown will become even
uglier, with hefty new cuts likely in education, health, welfare and almost
every other state program. As always, the biggest victims will be the children,
the poor, the old, the sick and the future."
Because of loopholes and other tax breaks enacted in the past three decades,
California corporations are paying a smaller share of their profits and
corporate taxes now then they did 29 years ago. All told, tax cuts enacted even
in the last 16 years cost the state an estimated $11 billion in 2008-2009.
Last year was difficult. This year will be more of the same. We are working
diligently to ensure that public safety remains one of the Legislature's top
priorities.
BUDGET
The Governor made his annual State of the State Address to a joint session of
the Legislature, as he is required to do in the first ten days of January. The
Constitution also requires the Governor to submit his "proposed" 2010-11 state
budget. It is effective July 1, 2010, and goes through June 30, 2011. That
proposal was to be submitted no later than January 10, 2010. At that time, the
Legislative Analyst's Office had predicted that we would have over a $7.5
billion shortfall in the current fiscal year and perhaps another $13 billion
shortfall in the next budget year, for a total of almost $21 billion.
Just to recap, in February of 2009, the Legislature adopted an 18-month budget
proposal and the solution totaled approximately $42 billion. Most of the
solutions were solved with cuts, but some of them were based on "temporary"
revenues, such as the sales tax increase of 1%. However, that was only set to
last two years and is due to expire next year. In addition, we had another $20
plus billion problem in the summer of 2009. Therefore, over $60 billion in cuts
and revenue was dealt with in 2009.
As we face yet another budget shortfall, more cuts will be made. We are at the
point now where new revenue sources will have to be entertained.
Automated Speed Enforcement
One point of contention in the Governor's proposed budget is the plan for an
automated speed enforcement program throughout California. The program would
"allow cities and counties to institute automated speed enforcement systems,
through the use of devices similar to red light cameras at intersections." There
would be a penalty structure based on how much over the speed limit the driver
was going at the time they were ticketed. The fees would range from
approximately $225 to $325 per violation. The funds from these tickets would be
distributed to the State Trial Court Trust Fund (85%) and local governments
(15%).
There have been many concerns raised about these automated cameras. Programs
like this one have been implemented in many cities throughout the U.S.,
including parts of Arizona, Colorado and Oregon, much to the chagrin of drivers
in those states. Many citizens in these cities are outraged with the program and
one camera technician was actually shot and killed while performing maintenance
on an automated speed camera. Arizona and some of the other states are currently
working on legislation to remove these cameras. A similar issue, red light
cameras, has also seen much controversy recently, with seven states completely
banning their use.
PORAC has taken a position of active opposition on this proposal. First of all,
the cost to upgrade the cameras to do this task would be substantial, at a time
when cities and counties are struggling to keep officers and firefighters on the
street. Also, based on the figures from Arizona's use of the program, revenue
estimates Governor Schwarzenegger has put forth may be quite overstated.
Finally, while we appreciate the Governor's attempt to "creatively" find funding
for local government and court security, we believe that this proposal will
further anger the public and would likely add to the disapproval ratings of the
Governor and Legislature.
ELECTIONS
2010 is an election year for all statewide officers, from the Governor on down.
The campaigning will get very spirited as the June Primary approaches,
particularly in the Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General's Races. PORAC
has interviewed almost every statewide candidate and has made most of the
endorsements already.
We also have a record number of open races in the State Legislature due to term
limits, which means there will be a lot of new candidates vying for these open
seats. PORAC has been working diligently to interview all local candidates that
have asked for our endorsement. There will be many hotly contested races this
year and we look forward to doing all we can to ensure that candidates who put
public safety first are the candidates we support.
Initiatives
There are a record number of initiatives that have been submitted to the
Attorney General for Title and Summary. Initially, the process is fairly easy:
it only costs $200 to submit and propose an idea. The hard part is gaining the
necessary qualified signatures (Initiative Statute requires 433, 971 and a
Constitutional Amendment requires 694,354). In order to ensure that you have
enough qualified signatures, you have to get several hundred thousand signatures
more than what is required because so many of them are invalid.
Although there are many initiatives in circulation, there are only a few that
will be voted on in the June Primary. As we near the election we will be sharing
our in depth analyses of those initiatives.
LEGISLATION
The Legislature has now begun the second half of a two-year session. All
legislation from last year that has not passed its house of origin by January
31st is automatically dead. The Legislature may also introduce new legislation
for 2010, and we expect several measures to be introduced throughout the month
of February. We will keep you up to date as these new bills are brought forth.
In addition to PORAC's sponsored bills (see adjoining bill chart), here are a
couple updates on other bills we have been tracking recently:
AB 312 by Assemblymember Ammiano (D-San Francisco) San Francisco Bay Area Rapid
Transit District Office of Citizen Complaints: PORAC was actively opposed to
this bill. It mandated a civilian oversight program onto the San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District, a program similar to the San Francisco model
currently in place. This measure would have given the commission final say over
peace officer discipline. PORAC opposed the state mandate and the language
giving the BART Board the final authority, which were included in this bill.
PORAC successfully defeated this measure in the Assembly Appropriation
Committee.
AB 1586 by Assemblymember Swanson (D- Oakland) San Francisco Bay Area Rapid
Transit District: This bill was introduced with the assistance of PORAC as a
result of the tragic shooting by a BART police officer of Oscar Grant last New
Year's Eve on a BART platform. This bill will enable the BART board of directors
to establish an independent police auditor that would report directly to the
board and investigate complaints filed by members of the public against district
police officers relating to on duty misconduct. PORAC worked extensively with
the author to find a solution that works for the BART POA and BART PMA, as well
as the BART Board. This bill is also supported by the family of Oscar Grant.
SB 408 by Senator Padilla (D-Pacoima) Body armor: This bill was drafted in
response to the Second District Court of Appeals decision in People v. Saleem,
which overturned Penal Code Section 12370, a 1998 California law that banned
possession of body armor by anyone with a violent felony conviction. The Court
of Appeal found Penal Code Section 12370 to be unconstitutionally void for
vagueness because it failed to provide fair notice of which protective body
vests were made illegal to possess.
This bill will reinstate California law making it illegal for violent felons to
possess body armor by providing a straightforward, common sense definition of
body armor as "any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and
trauma protection for the person wearing the body armor." This removes any
ambiguity in the law by making it clear to any lay person that violent felons
are prohibited from possessing any body armor whatsoever. PORAC believes this
bill is necessary and critically important, as violent criminals possessing body
armor are extremely dangerous to law enforcement and we are actively supporting
this legislation.
SB 839 by Senator Runner (R- Antelope Valley) Emergency Alert System for law
enforcement: This bill will create a "Blue Alert" system, similar to the Amber
Alert system, whereby an alert will be activated if a law enforcement officer
has been killed, suffers serious bodily injury or is assaulted with a deadly
weapon and the suspect has fled the scene of the offense. In light of the recent
tragedies in Washington State, instituting a system to alert the public when a
suspect is on the loose would enable word to spread quickly and gives
authorities the best chance of catching the perpetrator before he or she can
commit another dangerous crime. PORAC is proud to co-sponsor of this
legislation.