The Role of Leadership Staff (transcript)

Today’s post is on the role of leadership staff in the lawmaking process.

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/the-role-of-leadership-staff

As you probably are familiar, there are four legislative leaders representing the two political parties in the two houses of the California Legislature. These four individuals are elected by their respective members.

In addition, for the Assembly Speaker and the Senate President Pro Tempore their elections are confirmed by a majority of their respective houses after their caucus members have nominated them for that office.

The two minority leaders of the Assembly and Senate are elected to their respective positions by their caucus members, rather than the entire legislative house.

Staff for these four legislative leaders play a critical role in ensuring that the legislative process goes smoothly during the entire legislative session. As you know, the Legislature considers and votes upon thousands of bills as well as the state budget and a number of corresponding trailer bills to that budget. These staff members, like their four bosses, must balance competing interests all the while keeping their respective caucus members happy and supportive. Many have described this process as akin to herding cats.

Both leaders have large policy staff who are assigned several policy committees to keep tabs on. These individuals must monitor the activities of the policy and fiscal committees for which they have jurisdiction, become involved in the major bills as they make their way through the legislative process, certainly ensure that the caucus priorities are being attained, and apprise the house’s leader regarding any problematic issues or measures. These policy consultants for the Assembly Speaker and the Senate President Pro Tem report to their respective Policy Director that’s housed in the Speaker’s Office or the Pro Tem’s office.

The Policy Director in each house is an individual who oversees the policy consultants and is the main liaison between the caucus members and the house leader on pending legislation. The Policy Director is an experienced individual with years of service in the Legislature who has been exposed to numerous policy issues and fully appreciates the political and policy implications of pending legislation in the major public policy issues facing the state of California.

Also serving the two house leaders are Budget Directors, found in the Assembly Speaker’s office and the Senate President Pro Tem’s office. The Budget Directors ensure that the caucus priorities are reflected in the budget bill and corresponding trailer bills that follow them. These individual staffers know the ins and outs of the state budget, the legislative and budget processes themselves, and they’ve usually served on the Budget Committee staff for years prior to being named to be the Budget Director.

These individuals help negotiate the budget’s provisions, certainly when they require the involvement of the leaders – the Speaker and the Pro Tem. These individuals naturally work very closely with the Governor’s staff and the senior leadership of the Department of Finance.

Both of the legislative leaders have Press Secretaries and communications individuals. These persons serve as a liaison with the Capitol Press Corps, and they certainly work to ensure that the media cover the top issues and legislation in the best light for the majority and minority parties.

These individuals have often been journalists themselves. Sometimes they’ve worked on campaign press operations. But they most certainly have an appreciation for the role the media play in the legislative process.

Three Readings (transcript)

Today’s post is about the three readings of a bill that are required by the California Constitution.

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/three-readings

The California Constitution requires a bill to be read three times before it can be debated and voted upon by either house. A reading of a bill in the state Assembly or the state Senate is defined as being, “The presentation of the bill before the entire house by reading the bill’s number, the author, and the title.”

Each time the bill is read, those three provisions are read aloud on the floor by the reading clerk in either the Senate or the Assembly. There’s a misconception that the three constitutionally required readings of a bill are all the same. In fact, each is for a different specified purpose.

The first reading of a bill occurs upon introduction of the bill. The second reading occurs after a bill has been reported to the floor from committee, with or without amendments. The third reading occurs when the measure is about to be taken up on the floor of either house for final debate and passage.

Note that the three readings requirement under the Constitution can be suspended by a two‑thirds vote in either house. Let’s cover the three readings.

The first reading of a bill takes place when it is actually introduced in either house. The bill is placed across the desk of the Assembly or Senate, which is the official act of introducing a bill in the Legislature.

The second reading of the bill takes place after the bill has been reported out of committee, either the policy or the fiscal committee, to the floor of either the Assembly or the Senate.

The third reading of the bill takes place when the bill is about to be taken up for consideration ‑‑ that is, its presentation debate and vote on either the Assembly floor or the Senate floor.

Those are the three readings of a bill. Hope you enjoyed today’s post.

Here’s what the people at the Capital Center for Law & Policy have been reading and thinking about this week, aside from the obvious major headlines about Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort that broke on Tuesday.

 

 

 

Leslie Gielow Jacobs

New York Times

It’s Not Technology That’s Disrupting Our Jobs by Louis Hyman

This opinion pieces reminds us that “technological advances” may facilitate the gig economy, but they do not cause it.  Rather, the lack of job security, benefits, and minimum daily wages are the result of decisions made by corporate managers and government policymakers over the last number of decades.  So, the consequences many lament are the results of deliberate choices, and particular views of corporate and government responsibilities.  They are not inevitable results of the forward march of technology.

 

 

 

Jon Wainwright

San Francisco Gate

Safe Injection Sites In SF Closer To Fruition After State Senate Vote by Bay City News Service

AB 186 bill piqued my interest last year when it was initially introduced by Asm. Susan Talamantes-Eggman. The bill in its original form “would have authorized eight counties with heavy intravenous drug use to create pilot “safe injection sites.”” It immediately reminded me of Hamsterdam from Season 3 of The Wire. The updated bill would allow for three-year pilot program in just San Francisco. AB 186 still needs to be signed by the Governor if it is going to have any impact, but given the need to address the drug addiction problem in San Francisco, I am very interested in seeing the kind of impact legislation like this could have for the city.

Erin O’Neal Muilenburg – Career Advisor

Law.com

New Case at US Supreme Court Tests Gender Pay Disparities by Erin Mulvaney

“Salaries speak louder than words.”  Judge Reinhardt’s words jumped off the page and caught my attention when I read the news of the recent decision in the pay equity case Rizo v. Yovino, in which the Ninth Circuit held that an employee’s salary history cannot be used to justify paying men and women differently for comparable jobs.  This issue may well be making its way to the Supreme Court.  In addition to the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling, the federal appellate courts are currently split, with the Tenth and Eleventh Circuit holding that salary history alone cannot be used as an exemption to equal pay laws, and the Seventh Circuit ruling that previous salary can be considered.  Particularly in light of Justice Kennedy’s recent departure, and the effect on the Court’s jurisprudence that is likely to result from a newly appointed Justice, it will be important for both employees and employers to watch these issues closely.

 

 

 

The Suspense File (transcript)

Today’s post is on the suspense file and the process used to consider fiscal legislation in the California Legislature.

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/the-suspense-file

The two appropriations committees in the California Legislature have a unique procedure and each of them terms it the “Suspense File.” In California, as opposed to the US Congress where the appropriations committees actually appropriate money, the two appropriations committees in the Senate and the Assembly are the ones charged with considering the fiscal effects of legislation.

A measure that is keyed, or tagged, fiscal by the Legislative Counsel generally means that the bill will be referred to the fiscal committee in each house after the appropriate policy committee(s) has/have actually heard and considered the bill, and passed it out.

Under the Joint Rules of the Senate and the Assembly, a bill is re-referred to the fiscal committee when the bill does one of four things:

  1. It appropriates money;
  2. It will result in a substantial expenditure of state money;
  3. It will result in a substantial loss of revenue for the state (one of the most common examples of this is a tax credit or tax exemption the reduces money to the state); or:
  4. It results in a substantial reduction of expenditures of state money by reducing, transferring, or eliminating any existing responsibilities of any state agency, program, or function.

The fourth one is a little more ambiguous and I would note that while the last three all talk about substantial, nothing in the Joint Rules – specifically Joint Rule 10.5 – defines the word substantial.

Under the rules of both houses, as opposed to the joint rules, the respective committees on appropriations may maintain a suspense file. Basically, that’s a file to which bills are referred by a majority vote of the members of the committee to allow further consideration and ultimate vote by the fiscal committee. A bill can be taken off the suspense file and heard with a two-day notice that is published in the Assembly Daily File or the Senate Daily File. Taking a bill off the suspense file requires a vote of the majority of the members of the committee.

There’s more on the suspense file process in the audio portion of today’s post. Thanks for listening.

 

 

 

 

Concurrence in Bill Amendments (transcript)

Today’s post is on concurrence in bill amendments.

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/concurrence-in-bill-amendments/s-hF3PK

The California Legislature is a bicameral body with two houses in the legislature. After a bill has been passed by the house of origin, it is then transmitted to the other house for further consideration. If the second house makes amendments to the bill, then the bill must return to the house of origin for a final vote called a “concurrence vote” prior to being submitted to the Governor for his or her signature or veto.

When the Senate amends and passes an Assembly Bill or the Assembly amends and passes a Senate Bill, then the Senate, if it’s an SB, or the Assembly, if it’s an AB, has one of two choices- it must either concur or non-concur in the amendments made to that bill by the other house. If the Senate concurs, if it’s an SB, or if the Assembly concurs, if it’s an AB, then the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Clerk of the Assembly notifies the house making those amendments that the house of origin concurred in the amendments and the bill is ordered to enrollment before being sent to the Governor’s desk.

If the amendments are more technical in nature, then they can be considered on the floor without a re-referral to a policy committee in the house of origin. In such a case, the bill must be on file at least one day, although this rule is waived during the final days of the legislative session. However, if substantive changes were made to the bill in the other house, then a policy committee in the house of origin will need to consider the bill as amended by the other house. The house of origin must concur in the other house’s amendments in order for the bill to be sent to the Governor for his final action.

In most instances, the concurrence vote is relatively straight forward because the bill has already passed its house of origin once, and so it is anticipated that the measure will pass again after the other house has also passed the bill. On occasion, however, a bill that has been amended in a manner that’s objectionable to the house of origin, which creates a lack of support for the bill, can occur.

I’m trying out something new for CAP·impact. If you like – or don’t like – this kind of post let me know in the comments, or on Twitter or Facebook.

We’re going to let you all know what news has been capturing our attention over the past week. This week, we’ll start with the news I’ve been chewing on for the past week, and in the coming weeks, I’ll add some other familiar CAP·impact contributors. The news stories may or may not be political in nature. With no further ado, here are my top stories from the past week.

Former lawmaker under sexual misconduct investigation sues accuser for defamation

Earlier this week, Melanie Mason of the Los Angeles Times reported that former Assemblymember Matt Dababneh – who resigned eight months ago after allegations of serious sexual misconduct – filed a defamation lawsuit against his accuser, Pamela Lopez. Mason’s report came one day after Scott Lay discussed some positive things Dababneh could do with leftover campaign money that was transferred from Dababneh’s Assembly account to an account for a run at Lt. Governor in 2022 in his daily newsletter, The Nooner (start about halfway down the page, after the wildfire coverage for his thoughts on Dababneh). Lay discussed the defamation suit that Dababneh filed in Wednesday’s edition of The Nooner.

I remember a certain somebody else threatening to sue women who accused him of sexual assault, but never making good on that threat. Personally, I don’t like the look or smell of all of this lawsuit one bit, and I completely agree with Scott Lay’s assessment that we are “going to be deep in the gutter here.”

Capitol Weekly’s 10th Top 100 List features three McGeorge alumni

Earlier this week, Capitol Weekly announced their annual Top 100 list. It’s their “annual look at people who aren’t elected to office but who wield decisive influence on California politics or policy – or both.” This year was the 10th anniversary of the Top 100 and we were happy to be at the party announcing the honorees.

We were also very happy to see three McGeorge alumni make the list this year. Coming in at number 8 this year was Alan Zaremberg, President and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. At 38th is Rex Frazier, President of PIFC – short for Personal Insurance Federation of California. And coming in at 57th is Mike Belote, who is President of the contract lobbying firm California Advocates and a noted philanthropist.

Congratulations to the McGeorge alumni on the list, as well as all the honorees on this year’s Top 100 list!

If you’ve ever wondered about why some states have legalized marijuana and some haven’t, or why even though marijuana is legal in it’s still illegal to posses or use it, then today’s episode is for you.

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/episode-18-a-brief-history-of-the-legalization-of-cannabis

McGeorge Professor of Law Mike Vitiello gives a brief history of the legalization of cannabis in today’s episode. It’s from a previous one of the Capital Center’s Executive Trainings – of which there a couple every year. This piece is the first of a few that we’ll be putting out in the next few weeks.

As always, if you enjoyed today’s episode, please take the time to leave us a five-star rating on iTunes or Apple Podcasts and subscribe to our show wherever you listen to podcasts. All of that helps other people find the show.

You can stay in touch with us and let us know what you think about the show on Facebook and Twitter. Just like CAP impact on Facebook or follow @CAPimpactCA on Twitter.

And last but not least, you can learn more about the Capital Center for Law and Policy at McGeorge School of Law here.

Today’s post is on securing gubernatorial appointments.

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/securing-gubernatorial-appointments

The Governor has the authority to appoint several thousand individuals to serve in his or her administration during his or her four-year term of office. Some of these positions require the advice and consent of the Senate. There are two aspects to these types of gubernatorial appointments. First, securing the appointment from the Governor and then secondly, getting the appointee confirmed by the Senate.

The likely more difficult aspect of gubernatorial appointments is not confirmation but actually securing the appointment in the first place. While there are many appointed positions across California state government, the Governor usually makes only a handful of appointments that are either controversial or are such an important post that they generate interest. A lobbyist usually comes into play more during the Senate confirmation process.

The first step in securing a gubernatorial appointment is applying for a position. There are documents that can be found on the Governor’s website including the statutory index on all available appointments. Then, there’s information on the boards and commissions including descriptions, salaries, stipends, how often they meet, etc., which is under a separate tab. And then there’s the actual appointment application, which involves an online application that allows an individual to apply for up to ten positions for consideration by the Governor and his staff.

All of these are found on the Governor’s official website.

After an individual has been notified of receiving an appointment, it must be determined whether he or she needs to be confirmed by the California State Senate. If there is no confirmation, then the individual assumes the position once he or she has been officially appointed by the Governor.

For those that require confirmation, there will be Senate Rules Committee review of that gubernatorial appointee. Now, there are two types of individuals that receive Senate Rules Committee review. There are those that are required to appear before the committee in an open hearing and then there are others who are quote: “subject to confirmation but not required to appear before the Senate Rules Committee.” These individuals submit written responses to Committee Members’ questions, but they don’t have to testify or appear in an open hearing. And of course, interest groups can submit written comments to the Rules Committee members if so desired.

On today’s episode of The CAP·impact Podcast we talk with Erin Evans-Fudem – a Legislative Representative at the League of California Cities, and McGeorge class of 2012 – about the wildfires across California, some of the factors that have led to the surge in wildfires recently, and the issue of liability – specifically as it pertains to shareholder owned utilities like PG&E.

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/episode-17-wildfire-legislation-and-utility-liability-issues-explained

On that liability front, we walk through the legal doctrine called “inverse condemnation” – which is the current standard used in California when it comes to liability – some of the proposals the Legislature is working on to address the issue, and what cities are particularly concerned about on this issue.

As always, if you enjoyed today’s episode, please take the time to leave us a five-star rating on iTunes or Apple Podcasts and subscribe to our show wherever you listen to podcasts. All of that helps other people find the show.

You can stay in touch with us and let us know what you think about the show on Facebook and Twitter. Just like CAP impact on Facebook or follow @CAPimpactCA on Twitter.

And last but not least, you can learn more about the Capital Center for Law and Policy at McGeorge School of Law here.

Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, a California Supreme Court Case, dramatically shifts the standard for employees and independent contractors in California. Before Dynamex, courts determined worker classification on the multi-factor test from the S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v Dept. of Industrial Relations decision, a balancing test of multiple factors such as the method of payment, length of service, required skills, etc. This new standard, called the “ABC” Test, is a stricter standard that drastically narrows the options for when a worker can be called an independent contractor.

This “ABC Test” requires that a worker can be called an independent contractor if:

“(A) [] the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and

(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.”

McGeorge alum Chris Micheli suggests that what makes this new paradigm so problematic is that it was “created by the Court with a limited set of facts before it and not by the Legislature and Governor who would utilize a public process of enacting legislation.”

With the amount of uncertainty surrounding the implications of the Dynamex decision, Micheli suggests a solution:

“The Legislature should adopt a bill in August …in order to “suspend” the Court’s decision for at least a year to allow the Legislature, our elected branch of government, to consider the implications of this case. This will allow the Legislature and Governor, after hearings and due consideration of the implications of such a drastic change in the law, to determine what is the best approach for all Californians.”

Business groups are intensely lobbying the Governor and Legislature to suspend the decision like Micheli suggests. However, labor unions and organizations are also lobbying the Legislature and Governor to leave the ruling be, stating that the decision will benefit employees by preventing companies from taking advantage of the independent contractor loophole.

Whether the decision is suspended or not, everyone is on unsteady ground. The full impacts of the decision are yet to be seen.