Goldilocks Testimony

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/the-clinic-episode-6-goldilocks-testimony

AB 1784, having cleared it’s first hurdle – policy committee – moved on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Keri and Michelle had been told that their bill was destined for the Suspense File and that they wouldn’t need to testify. That all changed the day before, and after a flurry of text messages Keri and Michelle found themselves pulling together testimony for Appropriations.

The tricky part of testifying in Appropriations is finding the right balance. Appropriations is a fiscal committee. You need to talk about the fiscal impact of your bill. But you also need to talk about the policy in the bill, just don’t talk about policy too much – just enough to provide proper context. And you need to do that in two minutes or less. You have to find that Goldilocks balance with your testimony.

Their testimony went as well as it could go. AB 1784 is still on Suspense, but that’s the nature of having a bill that costs over $150,000. And because they have a bill that costs a decent chunk of change – $4.75 million to be precise – Keri and Michelle launched a parallel effort to line up the funding for their bill through the budget process.

Fun fact about that – when you’re going through the budget process to get funding for a bill you cannot talk about the bill you’re trying to get funding for. You can essentially copy/paste your bill language into the budget request, you just can’t name the bill. So AB 1774 becomes foster care pilot program.

That request has led to two more hearings that Michelle and Keri have had to navigate, Budget Subcommittee hearings in both houses of the Legislature. They’ve completed both of those hearings and we’ll pick back up next week with the latest developments surrounding AB 1784.

On this week’s episode of The CAP·impact Podcast we talk with four legal experts about the shooting of Stephon Clark and the issues that have risen to the surface since that fateful night. Our experts are: former Deputy District Attorney – and McGeorge alumna – Alana Mathews; criminal defense attorney – and McGeorge alumnus – Keith Staten; civil right and criminal defense attorney Justin Ward; and Dr. Obed Magny, and founding member of the American Society of Evidence Based Policing (ASEBP) and an officer with Sacramento PD in the Professional Standards Unit, Dr. Obed Magny. NOTE: Dr. Magny is only speaking in his capacity as a member of ASEBP.

The impact of Stephon Clark’s death on the community is not to be understated. Sacramento made national news with the response of the police force during and after the shooting. It’s an issue that strikes very close to home for the panelists – both on emotional and geographic levels. We talked through various conflicting views about the videos released by the police, the possible future actions through legislation, and if awareness and activism surrounding police shootings can lead to future change in the relationship between law enforcement officials and the communities that they are sworn to protect.

If you want to learn more about the work that our panelists are currently engaged in, you can visit the following pages for:

I hope you enjoy today’s podcast. As always, you can find the show on iTunes, Apple Podcasts, and Stitcher Radio. If you enjoyed today’s show, please leave us a 5-star review on iTunes and Apple Podcasts while you’re there. Doing so will help other people find The CAP·impact Podcast more easily.

The Sacramento Bee on Tuesday announced another round of layoffs in its newsroom. 15 more journalists are being cut, including Ed Fletcher who announced his layoff on a Facebook Live Feed.

“It’s a big hit. It’s a sad day for the news industry,” Fletcher said. “If you haven’t been paying attention, it’s a bad time for the news industry.”

The Sacramento Bee states “[t]he object of this newspaper is not only independence, but permanence.” With the changing times, local newspapers such as The Bee have been struggling against the alleged fake news circling the internet. Mistrust directed towards journalists is a fatal flaw that leaves news companies struggling to maintain readers and support.

Having journalists is key to promoting independent reporting of national and international news. It is even encoded into our 1st Amendment rights to have freedom of the press to report.

The Annual Mike Belote Endowed Capital Lecture held earlier this year addressed these struggles and the importance of independent journalists in our current political atmosphere. If you haven’t already seen it, please enjoy the timely expert panel.

 

 

 

Possible Reforms to California’s Legislative Process

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/possible-reforms-to-californias-legislative-process

Today’s podcast is looking at some possible reforms to California’s legislative process.

Capitol observers often complain about a number of procedural aspects of California’s lawmaking process. So, what I did was undertook a very informal poll by asking a number of my lobbying colleagues, as well as staff in the Legislature from both sides of the aisle and in both the Senate and the Assembly, and asked them for suggestions on how to make the process operate better, or more efficiently.

By far the most common criticisms that were lodged by both lobbyists and staff focused on the state budget process. The second most common one was how legislative committees operate.

The most commonly cited reform would be to require the Budget Conference Committee to follow the general rule of all conference committees which is that a bill or issue cannot be considered in the budget as part of a budget trailer bill unless that subject matter has been heard and approved in the policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter in both houses of the Legislature. In other words, budget trailer bills should have to be heard and voted upon in policy committees in addition to being passed by the relevant budget subcommittees.

A number of capitol observers were also surprised by how many state agency department budgets are actually placed on the consent calendar on a budget subcommittee’s agenda, which means that the department’s budget gets lumped in with a number of other items that are resolved with a single vote and never actually even heard or considered.

When it comes to legislative committees, the most common reforms mentioned relate to the so-called two-and-two rule. Currently, the rule means that a committee limits two proponents and two opponents to speak as a matter of substance on a bill which, of course, reduces the amount of substantive testimony that can be provided by legislative committees. Most observers that I informally surveyed suggested eliminating the rule. Most of the folks I surveyed said that substantive testimony should not generally be limited by the policy committees, particularly when a bill is in its house of origin in its first policy committee hearing, as opposed to when it’s in the other house.

I cover more proposed reforms in the full audio. I hope you enjoy.

 

 

 

Helping Your Client’s Case by Changing the Law

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/helping-your-clients-case-by-changing-the-law

Today’s  podcast  is  on  helping  your  client’s  legal  problem  by changing  the  law.

Any  lawyer  can  apply  the  facts  of  his  or  her  case  to  the  law  as  it  exists  today,  but  a  really  good  lawyer  is  one  who  would  look  closely  at  changing  the  law  to  benefit  his  or  her  client’s  legal  position.

What should you do as a lawyer for your client?  I  think  a  lawyer  should  complete  a  policy  analysis  of  any  issue  facing  his  or  her  client  and  potential  changes  to  the  law  that  could  be  made,  either  statutory  or  regulatory,  that  would  benefit  his  or  her  client.

Lawyers  need  to  have  a  firm  understanding  of  the  area  of  the  law  and  what  has  led  to  the  current  statutory  or  regulatory  issue,  and  what  are  the  pros  and  the  cons  of  a  particular  approach  to  changing  that  statute  or  regulation?  Look  at  using  a  lobbyist  to  help  change  the  law,  or  the  lawyer  himself  or  herself  could  make  that  similar  attempt.

An  effective  lobbyist  will  understand  the  politics  and  policy  regarding  a  particular  subject  matter  and  has  the  ability  to  make  statutory  or  regulatory  changes.  Then,  just  like  a  lawyer,  a  lobbyist  advocates  for  his  or  her  client’s  position  with  those  responsive  decision-makers.

Basically,  a  well-rounded  lawyer  will  appreciate  that  solving  his  or  her  client’s  legal  problem  can  sometimes  be  accomplished  by  actually  changing  the  law  in  those  cases  where  the  law  may  not  be  favorable  to  a  potential  client  outcome  or  position.

I hope you enjoy today’s podcast!

One Committee Down, Many More to Go

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/the-clinic-episode-5-one-committee-down-many-more-to-go

Keri and Michelle are back, and (SPOILER ALERT!) their bill, AB 1784, cleared its first major hurdle, the Assembly Committee on Human Services – and on a unanimous, 7-0 vote, no less.

The hearing was the culmination all the prep work that Michelle and Keri talked about last week. But, despite all that prep work and positive feedback, the day was not without its stresses. Assembly Human Services was the first make or break moment for the bill. Coupling that with the fact that AB 1784’s fate was ultimately in the hands of the committee members and not in the control of Michelle and Keri, it’s understandable that they’d have a case of nerves.

But, it’s worth highlighting here that Keri and Michelle made a very smart decision in their planning for the Committee hearing by having Jen Rexroad, The Executive Director of the California Alliance of Caregivers, be one of the three people – the other two being Michelle and Assembly Member Maienschein – delivering testimony to the committee. When you’re working on a bill, it’s never easy to say, ‘I’m not the best voice for this right now,’ but Keri and Michelle clearly made the right strategic call by having someone who can speak for resource families up there to compliment Michelle – with her background in social work – and Assembly Member Maienschein.

And now, with Assembly Human Services in the rear view mirror, the next test is the Assembly Appropriations Committee. As Keri and Michelle note, the bill is destined for the Suspense File. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t any drama or aren’t some very interesting developments. But we’ll leave those developments for next week’s episode.

On this week’s episode of The CAP⋅impact Podcast we talk with John Finley, who is with the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault – or CALCASA for short – about their recent report – The Cost and Consequences of Sexual Violence in California. The report is a very interesting, and sobering, read about the sheer amount of sexual violence that’s occurred in California and what the financial impact of that violence is for California taxpayers. The other topic John and I discuss is the joint effort that CALCASA is engaged in with the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.

CALCASA and The Partnership are working together to get a funding increase from California’s state budget that would allow crisis centers across California to put more preventative policies and measures into action. These new preventative programs would be in addition to the emergency services that they already provide. If that team up of two coalitions sounds like a lobbying coalition to you, you probably read Chris Micheli’s piece earlier this week on utilizing successful lobbying coalitions, which is also featured in today’s episode.

I hope you enjoy today’s podcast. As always, you can find the show on iTunes, Apple Podcasts, and Stitcher Radio. If you enjoyed today’s show, please leave us a 5-star review on iTunes and Apple Podcasts while you’re there. Doing so will help other people find The CAP⋅impact Podcast more easily.

And again, if you want to find the report by the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault that John and I discussed – The Cost and Consequences of Sexual Violence in California – you can find the full report here.

 

 

 

Compromise and Gridlock

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/compromise-and-gridlock

Today’s post is on compromise and gridlock in the California legislative process. Gridlock and compromise are often inherent aspects of any law making process, and California’s Legislature is no exception.

The problem is that the usual approach to law making, often involving alignment from political parties to advance their particular position, all too often leads to no results, or questionable results, or even contested results. The political parties fight, and legislation doesn’t pass, or the parties fight, and the resulting legislation does little to advance a solution, or it contains significant flaws, or the losing parties continue to attack or try to undermine or overturn the legislation that was adopted.

While gridlock is caused by the way we’ve traditionally practiced policy making, it’s also the result of some vote requirements. For example, California has different types of bills that require a two-thirds supermajority of the legislature.

Under normal circumstances, the domination of political parties and specific interest groups make compromise too difficult to achieve when it comes to certain high profile controversial legislation, and every two years, election year politics aimed at creating stark differences between the political parties often also makes compromise more difficult.

Some of us believe that in order to overcome gridlock, at least three critical conditions must occur –  a committed and capable group of leaders who want to do things differently, a change in the mindset and the process in the way proposals are put together, and a focus on the long term best interests of the people in the state of California.

Also, there’s an alternative method of compromise, which is accompanied by the use of a win win negotiating process, which often leads to a more durable public policy determination.

I hope you enjoy this podcast and learn about gridlock and compromise in the California legislature.

 

 

 

President Trump announced on Wednesday, April 4th that he planned to deploy the National Guard to patrol the U.S. – Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration. California Governor Jerry Brown, who is in charge of overseeing the deployment of National Guard troops in California, agreed to cooperate.

But why the request from the Trump administration to increase the number of troops on the border? The number of apprehensions at the U.S. border is at the lowest it has been in over 17 years. The Trump Administration believes that this number will increase in the future. Further, former Presidents George W. Bush and Obama both deployed troops to the border to enforce immigration, but at varied amounts of personnel, with the overall number of agents increasing dramatically since 1995.

The Trump Administration did not initially release any specifics about the number of troops, deployment times, or costs with Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen stating, “I don’t want to get ahead of the governors. This is a partnership with them.”

California has 55 border patrol officers assisting in the prevention of illegal drugs and Governor Brown on Wednesday April 10th, announced that he would send an additional 400 National Guard members to patrol the border in response to President Trump’s announcement.

However, Governor Brown wrote in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Defense Secretary James N. Mattis. “This will not be a mission to build a new wall. It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life. And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws… Here are the facts: there is no massive wave of immigrants pouring into California. Overall immigration apprehensions on the border last year were as low as they’ve been in nearly 50 years (and 85 percent of the apprehensions occurred outside of California).”

President Trump himself tweeted: “California Governor Jerry Brown is doing the right thing and sending the National Guard to the Border. Thank you Jerry, good move for the safety of our Country!” Early Tuesday April 17th, President Trump changed his tune and criticized Governor Brown’s handling of the situation.

When asked about the disagreement, Governor Brown commented “Trying to stop drug smuggling, human trafficking and guns going to Mexico, to the cartels, that sounds to me like fighting crime. Trying to catch some desperate mothers and children or unaccompanied minors coming from Central America, that sounds like something else.” However, he announced that they were very close to an agreement about the National Guard troops to be sent.

 

 

 

How to Successfully Utilize Lobbying Coalitions

https://soundcloud.com/capimpactca/how-to-successfully-utilize-lobbying-coalitions

Today’s podcast is on utilizing lobbying coalitions. A vital aspect of lobbying in California is to join forces with other similarly situated parties because a larger group is often more powerful and effective than a single voice, or even just a few.

These organized efforts often draw more attention to an advocacy position and allow decision makers to know that many groups share the same perspective on a pending bill or issue. And quite frankly, in most cases, a collective voice is more effective than just a single voice. I think the key to running a successful lobbying coalition is to keep the group cohesive when working for or against an issue or measure.

Lobbying coalitions can also provide other benefits. One is that individual companies or interest groups may not want to be the only ones publicly involved in the bill or issue. As such, a lobbying coalition provides cover, if you will, for others to be more public and vocal with their position. A lobbying coalition can also provide funding to – for example – hire a grassroots firm or a media relations company to work on different aspects of a lobbying campaign.

Coalitions can be a critical component of effective lobbying because elected officials and their staff are often more interested or persuaded on an issue or bill when there are multiple voices weighing in on a particular issue or measure. What would you find more persuasive, an entire industry united in support or opposition to a bill, or just a couple companies?

Lobbying coalitions are also important because they allow for division of labor among their participants by ensuring that all the key legislators are being lobbied on a bill or use. That may not always occur if just one individual or group is responsible for lobbying a particular measure.

Lastly, it’s worth remembering that while it’s often said that two heads are better than one, it’s equally important to keep in mind that too many cooks spoil the meal. Both of these clichés are equally valid when applied to a lobbying coalition, and it’s important for an organization’s leader to be able to assess which one applies in a given situation.