In preparation for California’s upcoming Primary election, we are releasing a quick background on each of the Constitutional Officers and what they actually do in the California government.

Today, we are comparing and contrasting the powers of the two fiscally-oriented Constitutional Officers – California’s State Treasurer and State Controller.

The current State Treasurer is John Chiang (D), who was first elected to the position on November 4, 2014.

The Treasurer acts as the chief investment officer, banker and financier of the state government and is responsible for managing the state’s pooled money investment account (PMIA). He also sits on the boards of the state’s employee pension funds, such as CalPERS and CalSTRS.

The Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) are significant investors/stockholders in the U.S. and global economies. The pension funds provide for the retirement of their members – state and local government employees and teachers, respectively – and also perform a variety of other services for them.

California’s PMIA is an investment account where the State Treasurer and the Pooled Money Investment Board, which the Treasurer chairs, invests California taxpayer money to fund the State budget cash flow.  At the end of April 2018, the PMIA portfolio totaled approximately $85.9 billion.

Similar to the Treasurer, the State Controller is also a fiscal officer for the California Government.

The State Controller acts as the state’s accountant, bookkeeper and auditor, tracking and controlling disbursement of state funds from the treasury. The areas of government audited and reviewed by the controller include school districts, the California State Lottery, oil and gas lease royalties, state agencies, and a multitude of local governments.

Similar to the Treasurer, the State Controller sits on the boards of both CalPERS and CalSTRS. However, unlike the State Treasurer and as mentioned in our first iteration of What Do the California Constitutional Officers Do, the State Controller is a member of the Board of Equalization.

The current State Controller is Betty Yee. She manages the outgoing money from the state funds and treasury. A common example of the Controller’s job is releasing money funds to workers employed by the State. As a matter of fact, Betty Yee’s name may be the most familiar for state employees because her name is on the checks issued to them in payroll.

It may seem at first that the differences between the Treasurer and the Controller are minimal. However, both have distinct roles in the State Government. The Treasurer is responsible for incoming and invested funds. The Controller manages the money leaving the treasury.

Molly Alcorn contributed to this post.

 

 

 

McGeorge’s Lawmaking in California course – Part 2 (transcript)

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/mcgeorges-lawmaking-in-california-course-part-2

Today’s post is Part 2 of my posts on the Lawmaking in California course that I teach alongside Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine at McGeorge School of Law as part of the school’s Capital Lawyering program. You can find Part 1 of this series, which I posted last week, here.

As I mentioned in last week’s podcast, the objective of the course is for students to walk away with an of understanding the fundamental components of the legislative process as well as the rulemaking process and avenues of direct democracy in California.

The Lawmaking in California course has multiple class sessions that focus on the legislative process, starting as early as the second class session. The first class on legislative process is on the California Legislature’s legislative calendar and committee system. The second class on the legislative process looks at floor sessions and legislative publications. The course also features classes examining the role of lobbyists, ethics, the media, and the Governor in California’s legislative process.

While the legislative process in the California Legislature is the focus of the bulk of the class sessions, the legislative process alone doesn’t give the holistic view of lawmaking in California that students need to be effective Capital Lawyers. The course also looks at the Constitutional provisions and case law concerning the powers of the Legislature, and the limits of those powers. There is also a class session on statutory research and understanding legislative intent. Additionally, the course examines the state budget process, the rulemaking process at the intersection of statutory enactments and the rules promulgated to implement those statutes, and forms of direct democracy.

There are also class sessions dedicated to the practical skills students will need to be effective Capital Lawyers. Those classes are spent on drafting bills and bill amendments, and then on drafting bill analyses.

That concludes the overview of the Lawmaking in California course taught at McGeorge. Next week’s post will be my last one in this series on the coursework offered to students in the Capital Lawyering program at McGeorge School of Law.

In preparation for California’s upcoming Primary election, we are releasing a quick background on each of the Constitutional Officers and what they actually do in the California government.

Today, we are reviewing California’s Insurance Commissioner.

The Insurance Commissioner’s office was created by California Statute in 1868 during the creation of the Insurance Department. However, in 1988, voters approved Proposition 103, now Insurance Code Section 12906, which changed the position of Insurance Commissioner from an official appointed by the Governor to an official elected by California’s voters.

Dave Jones is California’s current Insurance Commissioner. He was first elected to the position on November 2, 2010 and subsequently re-elected November 4, 2014. Having served two terms in the office, he will be termed out at the end of this year.

The Insurance Commissioner, and his or her department, oversees several insurance industries  ranging from health insurance to property insurance and workers compensation. It is the responsibility of the Insurance Commission and his or her office to enforce the insurance laws of California. Further, the Insurance Commissioner’s office has authority over how insurers and licensees conduct their business in California. Some examples of these powers are that the Commissioner, and his or her office, licenses insurance providers, approves all rate or premium increases, investigates consumer complaints and allegations of fraud, analyzes insurance policy issues, and supervises the financial well-being of insurance companies.  The department also publishes a variety of information for consumers, including insurance news, guides and legal information.

The Insurance Commissioner has influence within the current policy debates in California, especially in healthcare, however said influence is not limited to the healthcare industry. In the beginning of May 2018, Commissioner Jones approved the first coverage to protect property owners leasing to the recently legalized recreational cannabis industry.

Molly Alcorn contributed to this post.

On this week’s episode of The CAP⋅impact Podcast, we revisit our conversation with Assembly Member JAmes Gallagher (R – Yuba City) on the Oroville Dam crisis, the series of events that led up to it, it’s impacts, and what is being done now that the crisis is over.

You might be wondering why we’re going back to this conversation, it’s because Assembly Member Gallagher put out a statement along with his counterpart in the California State Senate, Senator Jim Nielsen, in response to Governor Jerry Brown’s May revision to the state budget. Their statement reads:

We thank the Governor for heeding our and our constituents’ call to fund the repairs of the damaged levees. The increased funding of $125 million for levee repair and maintenance is welcome news to our communities. Last year alone, high water events resulted in significant damage to the levees that protect our homes and communities with an estimated $800 million in needed repairs. Maintaining and repairing these levees will require an ongoing funding commitment. While more is needed, we are pleased to see the Governor’s revised budget includes funding for this purpose.”

Given how hyper-partisan political discourse has become, the statement stood out to me because we see two Republican members of the California Legislature offering praise for a Democratic governor. But it’s also not hard to make the connection between the crisis with the Oroville Dam and “high water events” last year.

Since this is a policy podcast, obviously we talked about some legislation. One of the bill’s referenced was still pending a vote in the Senate when we recorded. That bill, AB 1270, is one of thirteen new laws already enacted by the California Legislature and Governor Brown. The other bill, AB 3045, which was recently written about in Capitol Weekly by Tess Townsend, would move oversight of the State Water Project from the Department of Water Resources – which we regularly refer to as DWR in the podcast – to “a new State Water Project Commission under the state’s Natural Resources Agency” to run the State Water Project, of which the Oroville Dam is the centerpiece.

As always, thank you for listening to this week’s podcast. If you enjoyed the show, please subscribe to it on iTunes, Apple Podcasts, or whichever podcast client you prefer. And while you’re there, please leave us a 5-star rating and a review.

 

In preparation for the upcoming Primary Election on June 5, we are releasing a quick background of each of the Constitutional Officers and what they actually do in the California government.

Today, we are reviewing the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).

The SPI oversees the California Department of Education (CDE) and, by extension, all of the state of California’s public schools. The superintendent also manages the operational side of the school system such as overseeing the licensing of teachers, maintaining school property, and fulfilling other administrative duties. This authority is given by the California Constitution as well as the California Education Code.

The current State Superintendent is Tom Torlakson who was elected in 2010, and is termed out this year. SPI is the only non-partisan Constitutional Officer. She or he is also the executive officer and Secretary for the State Board of Education. The SPI’s position requires that they execute, under direction of the State Board of Education, the policies which have been decided upon by the board. The SPI also prescribes regulations under which arrangements with federal government for funds made available to schools. The SPI is the only officer with the authority to direct those regulations.

 

The SPI’s other duties include:

  • Prepare and furnish to teachers and to all officers charged with the administration of the laws relating to the public schools the blank forms and books necessary to the discharge of their duties.
  • Authenticate with his or her official seal all drafts or orders and all papers and writings issued from his or her office.
  • Bind all valuable school reports, journals, and documents in his or her office, or received by him or her.
  • Designate and appoint, or terminate the designation and appointment of, any officer or employee of the department to have the powers and liabilities of a deputy.
  • Annually inform the governing boards of school districts of the provisions of Section 60510.5 regulating donation of obsolete materials.

While the Superintendent has many duties, the State Board of Education directs the implementation of policies that directly affect the education system within California.

The State Board of Education’s (SBE) President is Dr. Michael Kirst, who was appointed in 2011 by Governor Brown. By statute, the SBE is the governing and policy-making body of the CDE. Under the California Education Code, the SBE adopts rules and regulations in regards to primary and secondary schools as well as Universities and Colleges within the state. The Board also determines various needs within the education system and suggests resolutions in regards to those needs. As stated earlier, the Superintendent must execute these policies and regulations to the Department of Education and the California Public School system.

The Superintendent has the implied power of the bully pulpit. So while the official duties of the SPI are limited to executing policies set by the SBE, the SPI can use their position as a statewide elected official to argue for their preferred education policies. For example, Torlakson pushed for Common Core standards across California, resulting in its implementation. Another example is Torlakson’s predecessor, Jack O’Connell, who focused on closing the achievement gap in California’s public schools.

Molly Alcorn contributed to this post.

There are eight statewide Constitutional Officers: the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Controller, State Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. These officers are all elected at the same time in a General Election and may be re-elected to a maximum of two four-year terms.

In preparation for the upcoming election, we are releasing a quick background of each of the Constitutional Officers and what they actually do in the California government.

To begin, we start with the California Board of Equalization (BOE).

The State BOE was created in 1879 under the California Constitution in Article V, Section 14 (f) and Article XIII Section 17. To equalize, in the legal definition, means to balance. Hence, the BOE was charged with responsibility for ensuring that county property tax assessment practices were equal, balanced, and uniform throughout the state. The Board does not have power or the responsibility to adjust taxes directly, just to assess their practices. The Board consists of five members, four of whom represent districts, and the State Controller. The four districts are subject to redistricting every ten years under the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.  

The current members of the State BOE, and their districts, are:

  • Betty Yee (D) – State Controller
  • George Runner (R), First District – Counties of Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tuolumne, Tulare, Yuba, and portions of Los Angeles.
  • Fiona Ma (D), Second District – Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Tehama, Trinity, and Yolo.
  • Jerome Horton (D), Third District – Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura and a portion of San Bernardino County.
  • Diane Harkey (R), Fourth District – Counties of Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and a portion of San Bernardino County.

The BOE was responsible for administering various state and county taxes, hearing tax appeals, and overseeing county property tax assessments. However, in 2017, the Board was stripped of its powers under AB 131, now California Government Code 15600(d)(2). The provision strips powers in regards to:

  • Conducting a tax practices appeals hearing
  • Making a determination or publishing a decision on an appeal
  • Taking any other action with respect to an appeal heard after January 1, 2018

Those powers were redirected to the Office of Tax Appeals.

The BOE now has following responsibilities under California Gov Code Sec. 15600(b):

  • The review, equalization, or adjustment of a property tax assessment
  • The review or measurement of county assessment levels
  • The tax practices assessment of water storage transportation lying within two or more counties and property
  • The assessment of taxes on insurers
  • The assessment and collection of taxes on the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages
  • The duty to adjust the rate of the motor vehicle fuel tax through the 2018–19 fiscal year

The BOE made waves over the new fuel tax by openly opposing the increase in tax earlier this year. While they do not have a direct power to deny the tax, the BOE turned down the recommendation to increase taxes, which raised controversy over the validity of the necessity to increase those taxes.

Molly Alcorn also contributed to this post.

McGeorge Capital Center for Law & Policy Director, Professor Leslie Gielow Jacobs, appeared yesterday on KCRA in Sacramento to talk about allegations made yesterday by California Insurance Commissioner, and candidate for Attorney General,  Dave Jones against current California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. You can catch her comments in the video below.

Jones’ campaign released a statement following Attorney General Becerra’s from attorney Amber Maltbie (McGeorge, 2009) which read, “First, the Government Code Section 8314 prohibition on state officials filming campaign commercials in a state building supersedes any permit or permission that Becerra was able to obtain from the Film Commission or Highway Patrol using his influence as Attorney General. Second, the California Film Commission website states explicitly that there is no process to film inside an Appellate Court of the State of California. ‘Filming requests for appellate courtrooms located within state office buildings will not be considered.'”

 

 

 

McGeorge’s Lawmaking in California course – Part 1 (transcript)

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/mcgeorges-lawmaking-in-california-course-part-1

In today’s post I continue my series looking at the courses offered by the Capital Center for Law & Policy at McGeorge School of Law to train aspiring Capital Lawyers who plan to work in and around California state government. Today’s post is one of two on McGeorge’s Lawmaking in California class.

McGeorge’s Lawmaking in California course is only one of a handful of law school courses that is dedicated specifically to forms of lawmaking in the state of California. It covers the fundamental components of the legislative process as well as discussions of the rulemaking process and avenues of direct democracy.

The topics covered in the course include legislative procedure, bill drafting and analysis, legislative history and intent, advocacy, relationships with the Executive Branch, and the powers and limits of the Legislative Branch of California state government.

The course is taught in downtown Sacramento at the State Capitol, rather than on the law school campus, as this provides students with the feel of the practice of Capital Lawyering. Instead of having a textbook, the course uses a close to six hundred page reader that’s full of substantive information that be readily used as a reference guide for anyone working in or around the legislative and/or regulatory processes. The reader is compiled by the course’s two professors, Diane Boyer-Vine and me.

In addition to a midterm and final – each worth 20% of a student’s grade – the course features practical writing assignments – a bill and amendment drafting project and a bill analysis drafting project. The bill drafting project not only requires that students draft a bill, but also draft a substantive amendment to address one or more opposition concerns that could be raised with the original bill and drafting an urgency clause for the bill as well as a justification for that urgency clause.

That’s the 30,000 foot overview of McGeorge’s Lawmaking in California course. Next week we’ll discuss more of the particulars of the class.

 

 

 

On Wednesday May 9th, the California Energy Commission approved a set of standards that will require most new homes built in the state after 2020 to include solar panels on their roofs. This standard was introduced to move California closer to a long-held goal of creating “zero net-energy” buildings, which generate as much electricity as they use over the course of a year.

The standards (PDF) apply only to single-family homes and certain low-rise condos, townhomes, and apartments. To environmentalists, the move is an important step to curbing greenhouse gas emissions. California law calls for cutting the state’s total carbon emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Of course, adding a solar requirement to new homes will increase the upfront cost of a new home in a state where cost of purchasing a house is already too high for many potential homebuyers. The California Energy Commission has estimated that the increased cost will average to over $10,500 per home. The extra expense would hit at a time when California is suffering a severe and deepening housing affordability crisis. Proponents of the new regulation say that the reduced utility costs generated by the solar power will lead to the panels paying for themselves over the course of a mortgage. However it’s the high upfront cost of building or buying the home that deters buyers and this new requirement does not improve that situation.

Obviously, not everyone is pleased with this mandate. Bill Watt, a homebuilder and design consultant, said those added costs – on top of other building mandates like fire sprinklers – are pushing home prices further out of reach for many buyers.

“We’re not building enough housing already,” said Watt, “Why not just pause for a little while, focus on the affordability and housing issues, then circle back?”

The California housing crisis is nothing new and legislators have been grappling with the issue for years. In fact, the upcoming ballot in November may have as many has five additional ballot measures in regards to affordable housing including rent control and low income subsidies.

On today’s episode of The CAP⋅impact Podcast we’ll be exploring a bill that’s been mentioned in a few previous episodes and still working it’s way through the California Legislature, AB 931. The bill would change the use of force standard in California from reasonable to necessary. To help explain the bill itself and what that change would mean in practical terms, we talked to the bill’s author, Assembly Member Shirley Weber.

This is the conclusion of a trio of podcasts we’ve done in response to the shooting of Stephon Clark here in Sacramento. Those episodes were “Protests and the Push for Independent Investigations” with Assembly Member Kevin McCarty talking about his push in the California Legislature for indpendent investigations of instances of use of deadly force, and “Moving The Needle on Police On Black Violence” which featured four lawyers who are members of the Wiley Manuel Bar Association talking about how the shooting of Stephon Clark has affected them and their thoughts on what the community can do going forward to heal the wounds and find solutions.

On legislation like AB 931, that is, legislation that would make a noticeable impact on how folks go about doing their job on a day to day basis, it’s to be expected that the affected groups – both directly affected and indirectly affected – are going to try to influence the shape and outcome of that legislation. That is certainly the case here with AB 931 with the law enforcement community and community groups both showing up to have their voices heard. And to explain how groups influence legislation, and which pressure points they consider to influence legislation, we talk to veteran lobbyist and adjunct professor in McGeorge School of Law’s Capital Lawyering program, Chris Micheli.

As always, if you like the show, please click “SUBSCRIBE” on iTunes or Apple Podcasts, and while you’re there, please leave the show a 5 star rating. You can also let us know what you think of the show on Facebook or Twitter. And feel free to like and/or follow us while you’re there as well.