Archive for Government Fiscal Issues

Planning for 2014: Two Recommendations in www.FlashReport.org to California Supporters of Economic Freedom and Fiscal Responsibility

Print Friendly

It’s too early to predict if Californians will elect more supporters of economic freedom and fiscal responsibility to Congress, statewide office, the state legislature, and local offices in 2014. It’s also too early to know if Californians are getting sick of accumulating yet more public debt through state and local ballot measures.

In the meantime, I’m trying to promote grassroots activities that might encourage Californians to do the following:

1. Consider electing government officials with a different philosophy of government than the tax-and-spend model prevalent in much of the state.

2. Better understand and scrutinize bond measures before approving educational districts to borrow money for construction (and other expenses authorized by Proposition 39, such as iPads).

See my December 6, 2013  article California Supporters of Economic and Personal Freedom Can Plan for 2014 by Thinking Locally in www.FlashReport.com.

Three Sacramento County Superior Court Rulings on California High-Speed Rail – Bond Validation Lawsuit and Prop 1A Lawsuit – November 25, 2013

Print Friendly

California High-Speed Rail Court Decisions

November 25, 2013 California High Speed Rail Authority Bond Validation Lawsuit Ruling (original source http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/media/docs/tos-v-ca-high-speed-rail-authority-ruling-112513.pdf)

HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY and HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN FINANCE COMMITTEE, for the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiffs, v. ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE VALIDITY OF THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT FOR
THE 21ST CENTURY AND CERTAIN PROCEEDING AND MATTER RELATED THERETO.

  • It was NOT proven to be “necessary and desirable” to authorize bond sales on 3/18/13 for California High-Speed Rail.
  • I’m referenced on pages 7-8 & page 18 (footnote 30).

August 16, 2013 Tos Fukuda Kings County v California High-Speed Rail Prop 1A Part 1 Ruling (original source http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/media/docs/tos-v-ca-high-speed-rail-authority-ruling.pdf)

JOHN TOS, AARON FUKUDA, COUNTY OF KINGS, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

  • California High-Speed Rail doesn’t need to rescind its Tutor-Perini contract for first segment construction (Merced to Fresno).
  • The 2012 appropriation of funds to California High-Speed Rail from Senate Bill 1029 is not invalidated.

November 25, 2013 Tos Fukuda Kings County v California High-Speed Rail Prop 1A Part 2 Ruling (original source http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/media/docs/tos-v-ca-high-speed-rail-authority-ruling2-112513.pdf)

JOHN TOS, AARON FUKUDA, COUNTY OF KINGS, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

  • California High-Speed Rail Authority has to rescind its approval of its non-compliant November 3, 2011 funding plan.

News Media Coverage

Judge Blocks Sale of California High-Speed Rail Bonds – Associated Press (in Sacramento Bee) – November 25, 2013

California High-Speed Rail Funding Overturned by Judge – FOX 11 (Los Angeles) – November 25, 2013

Judge Blocks Use of State Bond Money for California Bullet TrainLos Angeles Times – November 25, 2013

California High-Speed Rail Plans Stopped in TracksSan Francisco Chronicle – November 26, 2013

California’s High-Speed Rail Imperiled by Court RulingsSan Jose Mercury-News – November 25, 2013

Sacramento Judge Sides with Kings County Plaintiffs, Puts California High-Speed Rail Plan on the RopesHanford Sentinel – November 25, 2013

California High-Speed Rail Bond Sale Rejected by Judge – www.bloomberg.com – November 25, 2013

Judge Grants Partial Victory to Foes of California Bullet Train – KQED – November 25, 2013

California Bond Sale for High-Speed Rail Project Blocked by Judge – Reuters – November 26, 2013

Locals Participated in High-Speed Rail Court Case – Bakersfield Californian – November 26, 2013

Judge Blocks Sale of California High-Speed Rail Bonds – Capitol Public Radio – November 25, 2013

California High Speed Rail Bond Sales Halted and Funding Plan Invalidatedwww.nextcity.org – November 26, 2013

Judge Strikes Down High Speed Rail Bond, Causing More DelaysSilicon Valley Business Journal – November 26, 2013

Court Instructs California High-Speed Rail to Redo Funding Plan; Refuses to Validate State Bonds – www.Examiner.com – November 26, 2013

Judge Deals Setback to California High-Speed Rail ProjectWall Street Journal – November 26, 2013

Applying a Brake to High-Speed PlansThe Economist – November 26, 2013

California Judge Cuts Off State Funding for High-Speed Train Venture – FOX News Channel – November 26, 2013

Judge’s Rulings Favor Opponents of Rail Project – www.agalert.com – November 26, 2013

LaMalfa: High-Speed Rail ‘Dead in the Water’Redding Record-Searchlight – November 26, 2013

California Bullet Train Might Be Breathing Its LastMother Jones – November 25, 2013

Will High-Speed Rail Keep Rolling Ahead? – columnist Dan Walters (video) – Sacramento Bee – November 26, 2013

Hurdle for High-Speed Rail: Where is the Money? – Associated Press (in Sacramento Bee) – November 26, 2013

Hurdle For California High-Speed Rail: Where Is The Money? – KPIX Channel 5 (San Francisco), video – November 26, 2013

Judge Issues Setback to California’s High-Speed Rail Plan – KQED Forum, radio interview – November 27, 2013

  • Dan Richard, chairman, California High-Speed Rail Authority
  • Juliet Williams, political reporter for the Associated Press
  • Quentin Kopp, former chairman of California State Senate transportation committee

Bullet Train Snag Could Affect Transbay Terminal – columnists Matier & Ross (in San Francisco Chronicle) – November 27, 2013

High-Speed Rail Ruling Threatens To Derail Future Of Caltrain – KPIX Channel 5 (San Francisco), video – November 27, 2013

California State Senator Mark DeSaulnier Talks About The Fate Of High-Speed Rail – KPIX Channel 5 (San Francisco), video – December 1, 2013

Editorials

Bullet-Train Fiasco: Gov. Brown, Heed the JudgeUT San Diego – November 25, 2013

Time to End the California High-Speed Rail Fraud – Bay Area News Group (Contra Costa Times, Oakand Tribune, etc.) – November 26, 2013

Hit the Brakes on California’s High-Speed Rail FraudLos Angeles Daily News – November 26, 2013

Pump the Brakes on Bullet TrainRiverside Press-Enterprise – November 26, 2013

Judge Detours Plans for Bullet TrainOrange County Register – November 26, 2013

Bullet Train Must Deliver on Its Pledge to VotersVentura County Star – November 26, 2013

High-Speed Rail Proceeds in Fits and StartsSacramento Bee – November 27, 2013

Bumps in the Path of High-Speed RailSan Francisco Chronicle – December 1, 2013

Commentary

California Judge Sends High-Speed Rail Plan Careening Backward Into the Station – Reason Foundation – November 25, 2013

Rube Goldberg Legal System Derails California Bullet Train – The American Interest – November 26, 2013

End Game on Bullet Train: No $, No Project – and No Prospects for $ – CalWatchdog – November 26, 2013

Court Rules Against Bullet Train Authority – Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (in www.foxandhoundsdaily.com) – November 26, 2013

Obama’s Bullet Train Dream Just Derailed in California – American Enterprise Institute – November 26, 2013

Sources for Claims That One-Party Control and Government Taking More Money Triggered a California Comeback

Print Friendly

Prominent “Progressives” identify a simple way for governments to ease economic and social problems: take more money from people as tax revenue and spend it on programs and projects. And in 2013 they can cite an example that seems to conform with their ideas.

Yes, it’s California.

Below is a fairly comprehensive list of sources for this claim. Notice that many of these sources are based on the East Coast.

Reporters and columnists for the New York Times seem to be particularly knowledgeable about the political and economic circumstances of California. They have even personified the claim through Governor Jerry Brown, as if one heroic, enlightened man alone engineered a “comeback” for the state. (Governor Brown doesn’t do much to dispel the myth.)

I’m guessing that the interest of the New York Times in California’s economy and budget is based primarily on needing to tout an example that the federal government should emulate. The nation’s intellectual elite continues to be frustrated that the “New New Deal” that Progressives were envisioning for America after the November 2008 election never came to fruition. The “Tea Party” has exploited outdated structural checks and balances of the republican model of government and permitted the thinking of the Reagan Era to linger, hindering Progress.

California Comeback:
One-Party Control and Higher Taxes as a Model for Success
  1. California Beaming – commentary by Tim Egan – New York Times – March 28, 2013
  2. Lessons From a Comeback – column by Paul Krugman – New York Times – March 31, 2013
  3. California Faces a New Quandary, Too Much MoneyNew York Times – May 25, 2013
  4. California’s New ‘Problem’: Jerry Brown on the Sudden Surplus, and the FilibusterThe Atlantic – May 26, 2013
  5. The California Comeback: How Progressives Stopped California’s Decline – video of panel discussion at 2013 Netroots Nation – June 22, 2013
  6. California Shows the Country How to Overcome GOP Dead-EndersNew Republic – July 1, 2013
  7. California Resurgent Under Brown, But Spending a Worry – Associated Press – July 5, 2013
  8. California Economy is on the Comeback Trail. Can America Follow?Christian Science Monitor – July 23, 2013
  9. Brown Cheered in Second Act, at Least So FarNew York Times – August 16, 2013
  10. Jerry Brown’s Tough-Love California Miracle: The 75-year-old governor rescued the Golden State from financial ruin – and is reshaping a national progressive agenda – Rolling Stone – August 29, 2013
  11. New Rule: Conservatives Who Love to Brag About American Exceptionalism Must Come Here to California – commentary by Bill Maher – Huffington Post – September 27 2013
  12. Jerry Brown Calls Washington Gridlock Dangerous, ‘Really Sick’Sacramento Bee – October 2, 2013
  13. Sacramento Not as Dysfunctional as Washington, D.C. – column by Tim Rutten – Los Angeles Daily News – October 11, 2013
  14. California Sees Gridlock Ease in GoverningNew York Times – October 18, 2013
  15. Gov. Jerry Brown’s Advice for WashingtonLos Angeles Times – October 24, 2013
  16. California, Jerry Brown Enjoying Rave Reviews, but Comparisons Are TrickySacramento Bee – October 25, 2013
  17. While Congress Stalls, the Golden State Moves Forward – commentary by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D) – Santa Barbara Independent – November 5, 2013
  18. California Governor Brown: A Great Power Has To Find Some Unity – NPR – November 6, 2013
  19. California, Here We Come? – column by Paul Krugman – New York Times – November 24, 2013 (praise of Covered California)

After November 23, 2013

Jerry Brown’s Revenge – commentary by Tim Egan – New York Times – March 6, 2014

Palmy Days for Jerry – commentary by Maureen Dowd – New York Times – March 22, 2014

Jerry Brown’s 4th Act – Politico – October 28, 2014

 

“He’s Going to Be President One Day” – The Changing Positions of Candidate for San Diego Mayor Nathan Fletcher on Labor Policy Issues

Print Friendly

In the mid-2000s, establishment Republican Party officials would tell me that a young man named Nathan Fletcher was going to be President of the United States one day. He was a good-looking “war hero” – an up-and-coming model candidate whose wife was a top advisor for President George W. Bush and then for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Soon Nathan Fletcher ran for office in an affluent area of San Diego – not for a mere school board or city council, but for the California State Legislature, where political talents often launch their lifelong quest for power, fame, and wealth. He was an undistinguished member of the Republican minority in the California State Assembly for two terms, from 2008 to 2012. He quit the Republican Party in March 2012 after the Republican Party of San Diego County didn’t endorse him among three Republican candidates running for Mayor of San Diego.

Ditching the Republican label transformed Fletcher into an innovative paragon of political enlightenment. His decision even received national attention and praise when New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about it in A Moderate Conservative Dilemma.

Ordinary voters weren’t impressed. Fletcher came in third in the primary for Mayor of San Diego. He spent a lonely year unaffiliated with a political party, got himself some gigs as a corporate executive and as a “professor” at the University of California at San Diego, then joined the Democratic Party in May 2013. Now he’s running for Mayor of San Diego again, this time as a Democrat backed by power-brokers such as Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, a friend of Fletcher who was the president of the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council in 2012.

No one would identify Fletcher today as a “moderate conservative.” He has remade himself as a Silicon Valley-style liberal Democrat, glorifying a vague concept of “innovation” while endorsing government intervention in commerce and personal behavior to make the world a better place.

Just before the San Diego City Council ended 33 years of autonomy on city construction contracts and voted 5-4 to submit to state prevailing wage law, the San Diego Daily Transcript published an op-ed signed by Fletcher entitled Prevailing Wage: Good for Local Economy, Local Workers. He had opened his mind and decided that charter cities should let the state government set wage rates for city construction contracts based on employer payments indicated in union master labor agreements. I responded with the July 29, 2013 op-ed Did Nathan Fletcher Lose His Mind on Prevailing Wage?

It’s hard to pin down how Fletcher would act on specific issues, as his shtick is portraying himself as a pragmatist who doesn’t stoop to the abstract ideologies and philosophies that bind the thinking of bad people. However, behind the scenes he makes commitments to ensure campaign support from powerful political groups, such as labor unions.

After someone leaked Nathan Fletcher’s September 5, 2013 candidate questionnaire for the San Diego Imperial County Labor Council, Tony Krvaric, executive director of the Republican Party of San Diego County, analyzed the astonishing change in Fletcher’s positions on economic and labor issues in 18 months. Read the analysis and the signed questionnaire here:

Nathan Fletcher’s Labor Council Questionnaire

The October 31, 2013 article Critics Focus on Fletcher’s About-Face on Issues in the UT San Diego notes Fletcher’s conversion (or “evolution”) on high-profile labor issues, including Project Labor Agreements:

Much has been made of Nathan Fletcher’s political evolution from Republican to independent to Democrat, but what truly irks his most vehement critics is the 180-degree turn he’s made on several key issues. Some of those issues — project labor agreements, pension reform and managed competition — have formed the bedrock for the dividing line in San Diego between the two major political parties in recent years…

“I’m very comfortable as a Democrat, a pro-jobs Democrat.”…That’s a far cry from March 2012 when Fletcher sought the local Republican Party’s endorsement in the mayor’s race. He told party leaders he was a lifelong Republican who supported the June 2012 ballot initiative (Proposition B) to replace pensions with 401(k)-style plans for most new city workers, a ban on project labor agreements that call for city contractors pay union-level wages and benefits, and outsourcing city services…

Fletcher filled out a questionnaire in September for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council that outlined several stark changes. Specifically, he indicated support for project labor agreements and public employee pensions and opposition to putting city services up for competitive bid, a process also known as managed competition…

Fletcher has also said the ballot measure to ban project-labor agreements that voters approved last year is the type of divisive initiative meant to stir up the electorate.

Nathan Fletcher now thinks that simply asking voters to preserve fair and open bid competition on taxpayer-funded construction contracts is “divisive” and “meant to stir up the electorate.” If only we could set aside our differences and come together for the common good under the benevolent leadership of Nathan Fletcher!

It isn’t surprising that occasionally people warn that Nathan Fletcher is “creepy” and “dangerous” because he lacks solid principles and runs for office under a cult of personality based on a distorted portrayal of his background. He seems to be popular among high-tech executives, bicycle advocates, and other who fit the demographic description of “bourgeois and bohemian” (see David Brooks’ excellent 2001 book Bobos in Paradise). Is that enough to win a special election in a city of 1.3 million people? It worked for Gavin Newsom in San Francisco, but San Diego is more diverse and more conservative.

All of this vindicates the warning in my May 7, 2013 commentary Know Thyself, Republican: You Could Be the Next Nathan Fletcher in www.FlashReport.org. I concluded that “Even the strongest among us on the Right are always only a few temptations away from second-guessing ourselves and going the same direction as Nathan Fletcher. The rewards of holding fast are few right now, and the relief and rewards of being acceptable are enticing.”

As the Republican Party on the national level, in the State of California, and at the California local level splits into factions based on the degree of willingness to compromise principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility for the sake of the alleged “common good,” I expect more Republicans will follow the path of Nathan Fletcher. Will voters buy it?

California Charter Cities and State Prevailing Wage Mandates in 2013 – A Compilation of More than 150 News Articles

Print Friendly

Attorneys for charter cities and California citizens: you are welcome and encouraged to use this compilation as a resource and exhibit when you sue the State of California to overturn Senate Bill 7.


Capitol Weekly described Senate Bill 7, signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on October 13, 2013, as “arguably the most important bill to emerge this year from the Legislature.” The new law prohibits the State of California from disbursing funds for construction to any of the 121 cities with charters that exercise their “home-rule” right under Article XI of the California Constitution to establish their own government-mandated wage policies for purely municipal construction contracts and for private projects receiving government financial assistance only from the city.

To preserve their ability to get state funding, cities with charters must stop deviating in their construction contracts from state prevailing wage laws defined in the California Labor Code. Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters described SB 7 as “a significant departure from Brown’s oft-voiced support of ‘subsidiarity,‘ the principle that locally elected officials should have maximum discretion to make decisions for their constituents.” The League of California Cities had asked Governor Brown to veto the bill, noting that “using political leverage to punish those exercising rights provided by the Constitution is unjust.”

SB 7 was a significant attack on constitutional rights, local control, and fiscal responsibility. The new acting mayor of the City of El Cajon, whose citizens approved a charter in June 2012, called the bill “a classic overreach of the state government, to the cost of the rights of sovereign cities.”

Surely SB 7 confirmed the assertion of former Murrieta City Councilmember Doug McAllister, in his February 2013 argument for city charters as the best way to improve the lives of citizens, that “the Left believes the power to reach that goal radiates from top to bottom, while the Right reverses that flow.” Construction union leaders and lobbyists at the state and local levels of California government have been intent on derailing the movement for cities to use charters in order to free themselves from the costly mandates imposed by the state legislature and the governor.

The charter city movement is based on the eroding constitutional principle of federalism – a check and balance against the excesses of centralized government. In October 2012, a professor of public administration at Chapman University (in Orange County) described the City of Costa Mesa as the ideological “ground zero for virtually everything taking place in the country” and its proposed (and ultimately defeated) charter as “a political manifesto of how government should be organized in the 21st century.” Some of the recent intellectual backing for California’s charter city movement has come from the limited-government perspective of www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com and the report (soon to be published in its 4th edition) entitled Are Charter Cities Taking Advantage of State-Mandated Construction Wage Rate (“Prevailing Wage”) Exemptions?

Below are more than 150 news articles and opinion pieces from 2013 revealing the nature of the battle over local control and state-mandated prevailing wage. The year starts with a city adopting its own prevailing wage policy, city councils in several general law cities deliberating over charter language to propose to voters in 2014, and three powerful anecdotes showing the practical implications of state prevailing wage mandates: a planned private hotel stopped after the state determined it was a “public work” subject to prevailing wage, a bill introduced to end outrageously high state-mandated wage rates for janitorial work, and a state enforcement action revealing that prevailing wage increased the cost of a private hotel by more than $8 million.

Then the unions strike back, with the 5-4 votes of the San Diego City Council during the summer to enact a high-profile ordinance backed by disgraced Mayor Bob Filner to impose costly state-mandated prevailing wage on city projects. The ordinance ended 25 years of city control over its prevailing wage policies for city contracts. At the same time, union-backed Senate Bill 7 advanced through the California State Legislature despite significant opposition. Governor Brown signed SB 7 on October 13, even as the charter commission for the City of Costa Mesa was developing another charter and the Mountain View City Council imposed state prevailing wage mandates on private affordable housing developments receiving city financial assistance. Union lobbyists are now moving aggressively to suppress the uprising.

News and Opinion Articles on California Charter Cities, State-Mandated Prevailing Wage, and Senate Bill 7 in 2013

1

Assemblyman Curt Hagman to Introduce Bill on Prevailing Wages for Final Cleanup WorkersSan Bernardino Sun – January 2, 2013

2

California Bill Would Create a New Construction Trade Classification for Final Cleanup and Janitorial Work – by Kevin Dayton – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – January 5, 2013

3

Prevailing Wage Scams Steal from Taxpayers – www.CalWatchdog.com – January 11, 2013

4

Newport Beach to Discuss Dock Fees (and exemption of city contracts from prevailing wage requirements) – Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily Pilot – January 19, 2013

5

Council Closes Book on Dock Fee Increases (In other business…)Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily Pilot – January 23, 2013

6

Newport Triggers Dock-Fee Increases, Cost-Saving Labor ContractsOrange County Register – January 23, 2013

7

City Eschews Prevailing Wages – Newport Beach/Corona Del Mar Patch – January 24, 2013.

8

Newport Beach Is Latest California Charter City to Establish Its Own Prevailing Wage Policy: 7-0 Unanimous Vote for Fiscal Responsibility and Common Sense – by Kevin Dayton – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – January 24, 2013

9

Study Under Way to Find Out if Arroyo Grande Should Try to Become a Charter CitySan Luis Obispo Tribune – January 27, 2013

10

Arroyo Grande Considering City Charterwww.CalCoastNews.com – January 28, 2013

11

Unions Win Prevailing-Wage Case vs. Turtle BayRedding Record-Searchlight – January 29, 2013

12

Fate of Hotel at Turtle Bay in Limbo – Ruling: Park Must Pay Workers Prevailing Wage to build Sheraton HotelRedding Record-Searchlight – January 30, 2013

13

One More Costly Delay on Road to Turtle Bay Hotel – editorial – Redding Record-Searchlight – January 30, 2013

14

Redding Needs a Charter to End Nonsense Definition of Private Hotel as a “Public Works” Project – by Kevin Dayton – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – January 31, 2013

15

Got It Backward – letter to the editor by Michael Stanton – San Luis Obispo Tribune – January 31, 2013

16

Redding Needs a City Charter – letter to the editor by Kevin Dayton – Redding Record-Searchlight – February 4, 2013

17

Turtle Bay Nearing Compromise with Unions Over Hotel ConstructionRedding Record-Searchlight – February 7, 2013

18

Buellton Continues “Home Rule’ TalkSanta Ynez Valley News – February 7, 2013

19

Charting Best Path to Buellton’s Future – editorial – Santa Ynez Valley News – February 7, 2013

20

Prevailing Wage Supports Skilled Workers and Their Families – op-ed by Tom Curato – Redding Record-Searchlight – February 10, 2013

21

UA Local 228 Rep. Defends the Prevailing Wage for Redding, Californiawww.WePartyPatriots.com – February 13, 2013

22

Unions Rise to Defense of “Prevailing Wage” Rates Jeopardizing Hotel Project in Redding – by Kevin Dayton – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – February 15, 2013

23

Reasons to Consider Becoming a Charter City – op-ed by former Murrieta City Council member Doug McAllister – UT San Diego – February 19, 2013

24

State May Close Prevailing Wage Gap for Charter CitiesCentral Valley Business Journal – February 19, 2013

25

Escondido Mayor Touts Urban Renewal, Embracing DiversitySan Diego Union-Tribune – February 20, 2013

26

Bill Introduced in State Senate to Suppress Authority of California’s Charter Cities to Establish Their Own Policies on Government-Mandated Construction Wage Rates – by Kevin Dayton – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – February 20, 2013

27

Republican Lawmaker Touts Bill Pushed by Labor Bullieswww.CalWatchdog.com – February 21, 2013

28

County Offers $200,000 Tax Rebate to Attract $12 Million Business ExpansionBakersfield Californian – February 24, 2013 (States that “Kern County has not extended an economic incentive package to a prospective employer in about 10 years. Sometimes what stands in the way of making such offers, she said, is California’s requirement that building projects supported by public money pay construction workers prevailing wages.”)

29

Moreno Valley: Charter City Committee Could Be CreatedRiverside Press-Enterprise – February 25, 2013

30

Moreno Valley: City to Explore Becoming Charter CityRiverside Press-Enterprise – February 26, 2013

31

Turtle Bay Says It Can’t Afford Prevailing Wage Rate to Build HotelRedding Record-Searchlight – February 27, 2013

32

California’s Pro-Prevailing Wage Bill, SB7, Enjoying Broad Supportwww.WePartyPatriots.com – February 28, 2013

33

With Senate Bill 7, California Unions Advance Plot to Neuter City Charters – by Kevin Dayton – www.UnionWatch.org – February 28, 2013

34

Explain Why Moreno Valley Needs a Charter – editorial – Riverside Press-Enterprise – March 2, 2013

35

Turtle Bay Will Ask Judge for Relief on Hotel Prevailing-Wage RulingRedding Record-Searchlight – March 5, 2013

36

Turtle Bay to Challenge Prevailing Wage Findings – KNVN-24/KHSL-12 News – March 5, 2013

37

Unions Determined to Battle Turtle Bay’s Prevailing-Wage Court ChallengeRedding Record-Searchlight – March 6, 2013

38

Unions Fight Against Slave Labor – op-ed by Greg Beale – Redding Record-Searchlight – March 9, 2013

39

Buellton at ‘Crossroads’ for Decisions, Mayor SaysSanta Ynez Valley News – March 12, 2013

40

Senate Industrial Relations Committee Passes Controversial SB 7 – League of California Cities bulletin – March 13, 2013

41

Prevailing Wage’ Battle Shaping UpStockton Record – March 18, 2013

42

State Seeks to Hamper City Wage Policies – op-ed by Oceanside City Councilman Jerry Kern – UT San Diego – March 21, 2013

43

Oceanside Pol to Steinberg: Fix Your Own Mess and Leave Us Alonewww.CalWatchdog.com – March 22, 2013

44

Modesto Opposes Bill to Require ‘Prevailing Wage’ on ProjectsModesto Bee – March 24, 2013

45

City of Stockton should listen to their Development Oversight Committee’s Recommendation – ABC NorCal Blog (Northern California Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors) – March 28, 2013 (Recommendation was that “the City Council give direction to City staff and the Commission, as to whether or not they should continue working on the Prevailing Wage Exemption, so that the City Can Declare Itself Exempt from Prevailing Wage Laws on Local Projects.”)

46

Grover Beach to Again Look at Becoming a Charter CitySan Luis Obispo Tribune – March 29, 2013

47

Tulare County Board of Supervisors Opposes Wage BillVisalia Times-Delta – April 3, 2013

48

Senate Bill is Nothing More than a Power Grab – editorial – Porterville Recorder – April 5, 2013

49

Grass Valley: Prevailing Wage Bill is State ‘Overreach’The Union (Grass Valley) – April 16, 2013

50

Officials: Prevailing Wage Bill is an Overreach by CaliforniaTahoe Daily Tribune – April 23, 2013

51

Pair of Assembly Bills to Protect the Prevailing Wage Move Through California Committeewww.WePartyPatriots.com – April 26, 2013

52

SB 7 Will End Loophole to Avoid Paying Prevailing Wage – From the President, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California – May 2013

53

Labor, Charter Cities Clash Over Prevailing WageCapitol Weekly via www.CaliforniaCityNews.org – May 7, 2013

54

Mountain View Council Shifting Stance on Prevailing WageSan Jose Mercury-News – May 8, 2013

55

City to Review Mayor’s Proposal to Expand Prevailing Wage Requirements on Public Works Projects – KGTV-10 – May 15, 2013

56

Council Moves to Require Prevailing Wage on ContractsSan Diego Daily Transcript – May 16, 2013

57

City Council Should Reject ‘Prevailing’ Wage Proposal – op-ed by George Hawkins – San Diego Daily Transcript – May 28, 2013

58

Truckee, Grass Valley Watching California Prevailing Wage BillTahoe Daily Tribune – June 4, 2013

59

Prevailing Wages Will Lift San Diego Economy – op-ed by Tom Lemmon – San Diego Daily Transcript – June 5, 2013

60

Don’t Impose ‘Prevailing” Wage on More Cities – editorial – Riverside Press-Enterprise – June 13, 2013

61

Labor Commissioner Collects Over $8 Million in Wages for Public Works Job at Hilton Hotel in San Diego – California Department of Industrial Relations press release – June 17, 2013

62

SB 7 Represents Arrogance of Sacramento’s Local Policy Breakerswww.PublicCEO.com – June 18, 2013

63

SB 7 Subverts Charter Cities’ Autonomywww.CalWatchdog.com – June 19, 2013

64

Committee OKs Prevailing Wage Ordinance – KGTV-10 News – June 19, 2013

65

Hilton Bayfront Construction Workers Collect $8M in Wages – San Diego Daily Transcript – June 20, 2013

66

California Cities Ramp Up Fight Against Union Wage Bill – Sacramento Bee – June 21, 2013

67

Bill Would Push Prevailing WagesUT San Diego – June 21, 2013

68

Mayor Says SB 7 Could Strip Public Works Funding for GilroyGilroy Dispatch – June 25, 2013

69

Senate Bill 7 Limits Charter Cities’ Control – editorial – Modesto Bee – June 24, 2013

70

Charter Panel Digs into Public-Works ContractingNewport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily Pilot – June 24, 2013

71

Steinberg’s Bill Would Infringe on Local Control – editorial – Sacramento Bee – June 25, 2013

72

The Assault on Charter Cities and Taxpayers – editorial – UT San Diego – June 25, 2013

73

San Diego Takes Next Step Toward Lowering the Threshold for Prevailing Wages to $25,000www.WePartyPatriots.com – June 25, 2013 (includes claim that “The prevailing wage issue is gaining momentum across the state of California.”)

74

Charter Cities: Senate Bill 7 Threatens Voting Rights – op-ed by Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities – San Jose Mercury-News – June 26, 2013

75

Steinberg’s SB 7 Would Tie Charter Cities’ Hands – editorial – Fresno Bee – June 26, 2013

76

Prevailing Wage Bill for Public Works AdvancesUT San Diego – June 27, 2013

77

Union Wages Shouldn’t Be Forced on Cities – editorial – Orange County Register – June 27, 2013

78

Dems Push for Prevailing Wages – KMJ 580 AM News (Fresno) – June 27, 2013

79

SB 7 Limits Charter City Wage Control – editorial – Merced Sun-Star – June 30, 2013

80

Prevailing Wage: Moving Forward in California, Backward in Other States – From the President, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California – July 2013

81

Prevailing Wages Hurt City – column by Joseph Perkins – UT San Diego – July 6, 2013

82

Prevailing Wage Bill for Charter Cities Inches Closer to GovernorThe Union (Grass Valley) – July 18, 2013

83

City Officials Say Prevailing Wage Bill Threatens ProjectsBakersfield Californian – July 18, 2013

84

Union Operatives Infiltrate Office of San Diego Mayor Bob Filner to Push Costly and Burdensome Prevailing Wage Mandate for City Contracts – by Kevin Dayton – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – July 25, 2013

85

Prevailing Wage: Good for Local Economy, Local Workers – op-ed by Nathan Fletcher – San Diego Daily Transcript – July 26, 2013

86

Did Nathan Fletcher Lose His Mind on Prevailing Wage? – op-ed by Kevin Dayton – San Diego Daily Transcript – July 29, 2013

87

City Faces Higher Costs Under Wage PlanUT San Diego – July 29, 2013

88

Vote ‘No’ on Expanding ‘Prevailing Wage’ in San Diego – editorial – UT San Diego – July 29, 2013

89

Simple List of Official Documents Relevant to July 30 San Diego City Council Vote to Require State Prevailing Wage on City Contracts – by Kevin Dayton – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – July 29, 2013

90

After 33 Years, San Diego Submits to State Prevailing Wage Law – by Kevin Dayton in www.UnionWatch.org – July 30, 2013

91

City Council Approves Prevailing Wage Proposal – City News Service, posted on several news web sites, such as KPBS – July 30, 2013

92

U-T San Diego Ignores Growing Evidence Of Prevailing Wage Benefits – Media Matters for America – July 30, 2013

93

City Council Passes Prevailing-Wage OrdinanceSan Diego Daily Transcript – July 30, 2013

94

Council Approves Higher Wages for Projects: City already pays prevailing wages on big developmentUT San Diego – July 30, 2013

95

San Diego Passes Prevailing Wage Bill: Council votes 5-4 to expand policy to work contracts, following Filner’s leadUT San Diego – July 31, 2013

96

Smart Cities Prevail Applauds San Diego Decisionwww.SmartCitiesPrevail.org – July 31, 2013

97

Prevailing Wage Will Force Out Small Guy; Prevailing Wage is All About Payback to Unions; Big Labor Dominates City Hall – letters to the editor – UT San Diego – July 31, 2013

98

A Day to Remember, Not Fondly, at San Diego City Hall – editorial – UT San Diego – August 1, 2013

99

San Diego Political Celebrity Nathan Fletcher Now Supports Government-Mandated Construction Wage Rates – by Kevin Dayton – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – August 1, 2013

100

Statewide Poll Shows Broad Support for Prevailing Wage – Substantial Opposition to Going Charterwww.SmartCitiesPrevail.org – August 1, 2013

101

The Stories the Scandal Swallowed – Voice of San Diego – August 2, 2013 (San Diego City Council 5-4 vote to submit to state prevailing wage law for city construction contracts.)

102

Three Recent Polls Show Strong Support for Prevailing Wage Policieswww.SmartCitiesPrevail.org – August 8, 2013

103

Modesto Claims Prevailing Wage Bill Would Punish the CityModesto Bee – August 12, 2013

104

Central Valley City Officials Publicly Voice Opposition to SB 7 in Stockton – League of California Cities bulletin – August 13, 2013

105

Charter Panel Tackles Public WorksNewport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily Pilot – August 15, 2013

106

Merced Mayor, Other Officials Gather in Modesto to Protest Prevailing Wage BillMerced Sun-Star – August 16, 2013

107

Unions Tempt Republicans with “Bipartisanship” Lure: Five Tips for Resistance – by Kevin Dayton – www.FlashReport.org – August 17, 2013

108

CEOs and Business Leaders for Prevailing Wage – op-ed by Mark Breslin, executive for a unionized construction company association – Modesto Bee – August 19, 2013

109

La Mirada Eyes to Become a Charter CityWhittier Daily News – August 19, 2013

110

Prevailing Wage: Consider Variables – letter to the editor – Modesto Bee – August 21, 2013

111

CEO Comes Out Swinging in Favor of SB7, Prevailing Wages, and the Race to the Topwww.WePartyPatriots.com – August 22, 2013

112

Senators Try To Compel Charter Cities to Pay Prevailing Wages – Capitol Public Radio – August 23, 2013

113

Just What is a ‘Prevailing Wage?’ – op-ed – Pomerado News – August 24, 2013

114

This Week in the War on Workers: Fending Off the ALEC of the Construction Industry in California – Daily Kos – August 24, 2013

115

Reject Push to Blackmail Cities on Wage RulesRiverside Press Enterprise – August 25, 2013

116

Why the Prevailing-Wage Ordinance is a Bad Idea – op-ed by Fred Schnaubelt – San Diego Daily Transcript – August 26, 2013

117

Something is Bothering California Union Leaders and Lobbyists – by Kevin Dayton in www.UnionWatch.org – August 27, 2013

118

Prevailing Wage Panders to Unions, Costs Taxpayers – op-ed by Michael Saltsman of Employment Policies Institute – Orange County Register – August 30, 2013

119

Prevailing Wage Standard Empowers Middle Class – op-ed by Dale Howard of www.SmartCitiesPrevail.orgOrange County Register – August 30, 2013

120

Cities Shouldn’t Ignore Prevailing Wage Economics – op-ed by Tracy Emblem, Democratic candidate for Congress – UT San Diego – August 30, 2013

121

Costa Mesa Mayor: Charter is Sure to PassOrange County Register – September 5, 2013

122

Charter Cities Challenge: State Dollars or Prevailing Wage?UT San Diego – September 7, 2013

123

SB 7: Cities Stand to Lose Home Rule over Municipal Affairswww.PublicCEO.com – September 9, 2013

124

Three Bad Bills that Gov. Jerry Brown Should Veto – editorial – Sacramento Bee – September 9, 2013

125

City Council Reaffirms Prevailing WageSan Diego Daily Transcript – September 10, 2013

126

Legislative Sampler: 2 to Sign, 2 to Veto – editorial – Riverside Press-Enterprise – September 18, 2013

127

‘Prevailing Wage’ Fact and Fiction – op-ed by George Hawkins – San Diego Daily Transcript – September 24, 2013

128

Costa Mesa Charter Committee Takes Up Prevailing WageOrange County Register – September 26, 2013

129

Prevailing Wage Bill Deserves a Veto – editorial – UT San Diego – October 4, 2013

130

Has Labor Leader Overreached? – columnist Dan Morain – Sacramento Bee – October 9, 2013

131

Stifling Unions – editorial – Victorville Daily Press – October 9, 2013

132

Costa Mesa Charter to Remove ‘Prevailing Wage’Orange County Register – October 10, 2013

133

Mountain View: City-Funded Affordable Housing Projects to Pay Prevailing WageSan Jose Mercury-News – October 10, 2013

134

Council OKs Union Wages for Affordable Housing: Policy Will Add about 10 Percent to Cost of New ProjectsMountain View Voice – October 10, 2013

135

City of Mountain View Expands Prevailing Wage Mandate to Private Affordable Housing Developments Getting City Funds – by Kevin Dayton – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – October 10, 2013

136

Governor Should Veto Wage bill – editorial – Modesto Bee – October 11, 2013

137

If Gov. Brown Doesn’t Like Intrusion, He Should Veto SB 7 – editorial – Sacramento Bee – October 12, 2013

138

Jerry Brown Signs Prevailing Wage Bill for Charter CitiesSacramento Bee – October 13, 2013

139

Governor Brown Signs Union-Backed Senate Bill 7 and Continues Erosion of Constitutional Checks and Balances – by Kevin Dayton in www.FlashReport.org – October 13, 2013

140

Brown Signs Prevailing Wage Bill – Capitol Weekly – October 14, 2013

141

Brown Signs Prevailing Wage Bill for CitiesCentral Valley Business Journal – October 14, 2013

142

Governor Brown Signs Prevailing Wage Bill – A Bubbling Cauldron (blog in Costa Mesa) – October 14, 2013

143

Governor Signs Prevailing Wage Bill for Charter CitiesSacramento Business Journal – October 14, 2013

144

Charter Cities to Lose Authority Over Public Works Projectswww.PublicCEO.com – October 14, 2013

145

Gov. Brown Signs SB 7 to Neuter Charter Citieswww.CalWatchdog.com – October 14, 2013

146

New Law Requires Charter Cities to Pay Prevailing Wages – East County Magazine – October 14, 2013

147

Prevailing Wage Law Could Raise CostsUT San Diego – October 14, 2013

148

Unions Smile, Cities Frown at Prevailing Wage LawBakersfield Californian – October 14, 2013

149

Modesto Fears Harm from New Prevailing Wage LawModesto Bee – October 14, 2013

150

California Construction Unions Get Two Big Wins – columnist Dan Walters – Sacramento Bee – October 15, 2013

151

Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down: Autonomy is good – but only for state? – editorial – Santa Rosa Press-Democrat – October 15, 2013

152

Charter Could Cost City FundingNewport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily Pilot – October 16, 2013

153

Governor Signs SB 7: Charter Cities Required to Pay Prevailing Wage – Porterville Recorder – October 16, 2013

154

Governor Does Disservice to All Charter Cities – editorial – Porterville Recorder – October 20, 2013

155

Prevailing Wage Now Irrelevant – A Bubbling Cauldron (blog in Costa Mesa) – October 22, 2013

156

Oppose a Charter with ‘Prevailing Wage’ Exemption – letters to the editor – Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily Pilot – October 22, 2013

157

Groups Accuse Grover Beach of Violating State Open Meeting LawSan Luis Obispo Tribune – October 22, 2013 (One group is www.SmartCitiesPrevail.org)

158

Facts Wrong – letter to the editor by Robbie Hunter, president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California – Porterville Recorder – October 24, 2013

159

Wage Law Costs Cities More than Money – op-ed by El Cajon Acting Mayor Bill Wells – UT San Diego – October 25, 2013

160

Unions “Using Political Leverage to Punish Those Exercising Rights” in California Constitution – by Kevin Dayton in www.UnionWatch.org – October 29, 2013

161

Brown Inconsistent on Local-Control Issues: Is ‘subsidiarity’ little more than a platitude?UT San Diego – October 30, 2013

 

Project Labor Agreement on Planned New Sacramento Kings Arena Comes Back to Bite: Contractors Fund “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal”

Print Friendly

On October 15, 2013, a new organization called “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal” held a press conference at Sacramento City Hall to announce a new campaign to collect voter signatures on petitions to place a fiscal accountability ordinance on the ballot in the City of Sacramento.

October 15, 2013 press conference at Sacramento City Hall announcing formation of "Voters for a Fair Arena Deal."

October 15, 2013 press conference at Sacramento City Hall announcing formation of “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal.”

The “Voter Approval for Public Funding of Professional Sports Arena Act” states the following:

The City of Sacramento shall not use or redirect, undertake an obligation to pay, or bond or borrow against monies intended for or from the City general fund for the development and/or construction of a professional sports arena without the approval of a simple majority of voters.

Leaders of the organization are making a deliberate attempt to distance themselves from another organization called “Stop Arena Subsidy” (STOP), which qualified the petition but then made some poor strategic decisions about its name, message, and sources of funding.

Contractors opposed to the union deal to impose a Project Labor Agreement on construction of the proposed new Sacramento Kings arena (the “Entertainment and Sports Center”) are funding the signature-gathering efforts of “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal.”


If you are a registered voter within the boundaries of the City of Sacramento, you can obtain a petition and instructions to help place the Voter Approval for Public Funding of Professional Sports Arena Act on the ballot:

On the “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal” web site: http://ourcityourvote.com/petition/

On the “Stop Arena Subsidy” web site: http://www.stoparenasubsidy.com/signature-petitions/

Documents from “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal”

October 15, 2013 - Voters for a Fair Arena Deal - Lectern Logo

October 15, 2013 – Media Advisory – Voters for a Fair Arena Deal – Sacramento Kings

October 15, 2013 – Press Release – Voters for a Fair Arena Deal – Sacramento Kings

October 15, 2013 – Ten Principles – Voters for a Fair Arena Deal – Sacramento Kings

October 15, 2013 – Campaign Code of Conduct – Voters for a Fair Arena Deal – Sacramento Kings

Opposition Response

www.DowntownArena.org – Supporting the Arena Is Sponsored by Region Builders, Inc.“Lipstick on a Pig” – October 15, 2013

News Coverage

New Group Forms to Combat Kings Arena Subsidy – Sacramento Bee – October 15, 2013

New Kings Arena Draws Fan Attention – and New Opponent – Sacramento Bee – October 16, 2013

Sacramento’s Arena Deal Has a New Playerwww.CalWatchdog.com – October 16, 2013

Voters for a Fair Arena Deal Forms Today to Gather Initiative Signatures, Change Tone of Arena Discourse – Sacramento News & Review – October 15, 2013

New Group Emerges in Campaign for Public Vote on Arena Deal – Fox News 40 (KTXL) – October 15, 2013

New Sacramento Arena Group to Help Force Public Vote: Group Will Help STOP Gather Signatures – CBS News 3 (KCRA) – October 15, 2013

New Sacramento Kings Arena Coalition “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal” to Hold Press Conference at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Print Friendly

I received this news advisory from “Voters for a Fair Arena Deal” via an email.

NEWS ADVISORY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 15, 2013

CONTACT: Isaac Gonzalez
OurCityOurVote@gmail.com
916-893-3170

SACRAMENTO LEADERS LAUNCH NEW GROUP TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS TO ARENA ISSUE.

WHEN: Tuesday, October 15
3:00 pm

WHERE: Sacramento City Hall
915 I Street

WHO: Voters for a Fair Arena Deal –
A coalition of Neighborhood Leaders, Taxpayer Advocates,
Businesses, Good Government Watchdogs and Concerned
Sacramento Citizens.

Our City, Our Vote – Voters for a Fair Arena Deal ID# TBA
5714 Folsom Blvd. #111 Sacramento, CA 95819
www.OurCityOurVote.com

Eight Steps to Alleviate Taxpayer and Contractor Outrage About Project Labor Agreement on Planned New Sacramento Kings Arena

Print Friendly

On Monday, September 9, 2013, I began circulating a memo entitled “Eight Steps to Possibly Alleviate Taxpayer and Contractor Outrage about the Backroom Deal for a Project Labor Agreement on Construction of the Sacramento Kings Arena.”

I independently put together eight reasonable, constructive steps toward a solution based on my long experience with construction labor issues and government affairs. Not surprisingly, no one cares: “politics is corrupt,” as one resigned person told me. Nevertheless, I’ve fulfilled my moral obligation to ordinary Kings fans in the Sacramento region who pleaded with me to work something out so the team can stay.

To allow this Project Labor Agreement to remain on the arena and tell construction company owners to stand down for “the common good” will create a precedent that will end up giving unions control of every major construction project in the Sacramento region and possibly in the state. Knowing that no one will have the guts to criticize the deal in public, developers and public agencies will simply acquiesce to a Project Labor Agreement with unions to avoid their interference through objections and litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Here are my proposed eight steps, classified in three categories:

I. For the Taxpayers

1. Trust funds affiliated with construction trade unions (such as pension funds, labor-management cooperation committees, etc.) must reduce the public funding obligation for this project by 10 percent by investing $25.8 million in the arena project.

II. For Preservation of Principles of Good Government

2. The complete Project Labor Agreement (aka Community Workforce and Training Agreement) with addenda shall be released to the public immediately, that is, by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 11, 2013.

3. The Sacramento City Council shall vote on ratifying the Project Labor Agreement (aka Community Workforce and Training Agreement) after a public hearing at a city council meeting before October 1, 2013. To ensure that the People and the representatives of the People are adequately informed about the issue, the public hearing shall assign 10 minutes each for supporters and opponents of the proposal to make formal presentations.

III. For Fair and Open Competition and Freedom of Choice for Workers

4. The Project Labor Agreement shall include a provision that allows a contractor and its employees to maintain their own existing fringe benefit programs if those programs are equivalent or better than the union programs, instead of forcing that contractor to make employer payments to union-affiliated trust funds and depriving employees of benefits from such contributions made on their behalf.

5. The Project Labor Agreement shall allow the contractor to comply with Title 8, Section 230.1 of the California Code of Regulations and request apprentices from any program authorized and approved by the Director of the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards to provide on-the-job training to construction trade workers in Sacramento County.

6. The Project Labor Agreement shall allow for transparency concerning mandatory payment of union dues and fees by trade workers by including an appendix that indicates the exact cash amount of dues and fees, such as initiation fees, that would be requested of any journeyman or apprentice for any trade that is working under the terms and the conditions of the Project Labor Agreement.

7. The Project Labor Agreement shall allow “core workforce” employees of contractors not signatory to a union Master Labor Agreement to choose whether or not to pay union dues and fees.

8. The Project Labor Agreement should include language exempting the contractor from employer withdrawal liability if the employer made all of the required contributions to the union pension fund during the period it was covered under the agreement.

My Public Comments on Bond Finance for California High-Speed Rail Entered into Record for Pivotal Bond Validation Lawsuit

Print Friendly

My March 15, 2013 written comments to the California High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee outlining several concerns about its plans for bond financing were the ONLY written comments submitted to the committee before its March 18, 2013 meeting, at which it authorized borrowing more than $8 billion for California High-Speed Rail through bond sales (a requirement under Proposition 1A).

In addition, I was one of four people to speak in person at the March 18, 2013 California High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee meeting at which committee members voted to authorize the bond sales.

My written and oral comments to the California High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee have been entered into the record for the validation lawsuit (High Speed Rail Authority et al. v. All Persons Interested et al. – Case No. 2013-00140689) filed on March 19, 2013 in Sacramento County Superior Court concerning the legal validity of the bond sales. My comments help to boost the case of the respondents (“All Persons Interested”) that the California High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee failed to fulfill its legal responsibilities under Proposition 1A before it authorized the bond sales.

My written comments are submitted to the court as Exhibit G (public comment letter to the HSPT Finance Board by Kevin Dayton, March 15 , 2013) in the August 19, 2013 declaration of Rita Wespi of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) based in Palo Alto. Her declaration states that “Based on a series of Public Records Act requests I submitted to the High-Speed Rail Authority and the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee, it is my opinion that the Finance Committee voted to approve over eight billion dollars of state bonds with little more information than a resolution from the High Speed Rail Authority.”

The declaration goes on to state the following:

On March 25, 2013, I made a similar request of the HSPT Finance Committee for “copies of all reports, analyses and recommendations provided to the HSPT Finance Committee members.”

Mr. Mark Paxson, General Counsel for the Treasurer’s Office, replied that “other than the agendas, resolutions and minutes from the prior meeting that are due for approval, there are typically no other documents provided to Finance Committee members prior to their meetings.”

In his response, Mr. Paxson stated that, for the March 18 committee meeting, the HSPT Finance Committee received in total one public comment letter and a briefing memo from the Public Finance Division’s staff. The staff briefing memo simply reiterated the agenda.

The March 15, 2013 public comment letter requested the Finance Committee to add language to Resolutions IX and X which would a) prohibit 40-year terms of maturity, and b) prohibit the use of Capital Appreciation Bonds. The letter argued that without this language, the bond sales and resulting repayment schedule would deviate from what was described in the 2008 voter guide for Proposition 1A. To the best of my knowledge, this letter was not acknowledged or discussed by the Finance Committee.

The declaration is correct: the only indications that my public comment was received was a subsequent email dated March 20, 2013 from Timothy Aguirre in the State Treasurer’s office informing me that “The State Treasurer’s Office will be holding the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee meeting on Friday, March 29, 2013 at 2:00 pm at STO Room 587. Please see the attached meeting agenda” and a March 25, 2013 email from a general mailbox for the State Treasurer’s Office stating “You have indicated you would like to be contacted on items relating to the High Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee. The resolutions to be taken up during the March 29th meeting have been posted to the State Treasurer’s website.  You can find the resolutions by following the web link provided below. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/financial/meeting.asp.”

My comments in person at the California High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee meeting on March 18, 2013 were submitted as Exhibit A (transcript of the meeting) as part of an August 19, 2013 declaration of Kathy Hamilton of Menlo Park, who writes articles about California High-Speed Rail for the Examiner web site.

Kevin Dayton: Note: Tape was turned on a little late, missing his intro. Kevin is CEO of
Labor Issues Solutions.

“Will the bonds be sold separately or at the same time for state bonds for other purposes? What rate do you expect to sell them at? I heard the chairman say 6.25% but I’m going to guess that was probably made that number up out of his head. The bonds selling last week were between 3.5 and 3.8%, something like that. I’d like to hear more about what you think you will get out of this. How will the bonds be structured? Will we be selling capital appreciation bonds at all for this? If the lawsuit that is coming up in Kings County is lost by the High-Speed Rail Authority and you’ve sold bonds, what happens to the money? These are questions I think that regular Californian who voted for this want to know. [They want to know] a lot more about this. We need to know a lot more about this [because] it’s a lot of money for us especially when you consider the interest etc will be about $20 billion [interest on bond funds] total for the whole thing. Thank you.”

Carol Ferris breaks in: “I’d like to thank you for your comments. I would also like to say that the purpose of this is to hear public comment and certainly the committee members can then take your comment into consideration. It’s not a question and answer session at this time.”

As noted in Kathy Hamilton’s declaration about the California High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee, “There was no evidence presented, questions asked or witnesses called. There were no discussions that the approval of the High-Speed Rail resolution was necessary or desirable. There were no discussions at all…none of the appointed committee members were in attendance, and all were substitute representatives.”

In other words, it was a farce. My article California High-Speed Rail: One-Way Ticket to Debt in www.FlashReport.org on March 25, 2013 described my experience speaking at the March 18, 2013 meetings of the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the California High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee. Also related to this meeting are my March 15, 2013 post Message to California High-Speed Rail Authority and California High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee: No 40-Year Bonds, No Capital Appreciation Bonds, What If You Lose Lawsuit? and my March 30, 2013 post Reality of Crushing Public Debt from Bond Sales Eclipses the Fantasy Vision of California High-Speed Rail.

Additional Background on Bond Validation Lawsuits

Documents filed in California High-Speed Rail Bond Validation Lawsuit – on the web site of Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF)

Sacramento Judge Has a Full Plate of Rail LawsuitsFresno Bee – September 9, 2013

Legal Challenges Plague the California Rail Projectwww.Examiner.com, by Kathy Hamilton – September 8, 2013

Bullet Project Attempts Legal Maneuver to Limit Damage by Lawsuits – www.Examiner.com, by Kathy Hamilton – April 2, 2013

California’s High-Speed Rail Authority Sues Everybody, Invites You to Argue Case in CourtSan Jose Mercury-News – March 28, 2013

San Diego Political Celebrity Nathan Fletcher Now Supports Government-Mandated Construction Wage Rates

Print Friendly

UPDATE – August 9, 2013: This morning Nathan Fletcher “chimed in” and spoke to Fox News 5 KSWB in San Diego about the Filner scandals. An excerpt from Fletcher May Run for Mayor if Filner Resigns:

Fletcher even told Fox5 that he’d consider throwing his hat in the ring if the mayor’s seat opens up.

“I’d have to consider it. I’ve been humbled by the number of folks that have reached out for the last few weeks and provided a lot of encouragement,” Fletcher said. “But as of right now, the office isn’t open. If it becomes open than that’s a decision that I’ll have to make.”

Until that happens, Fletcher can be found teaching at University of California, San Diego, working for Qualcomm and with his family.


Unexpectedly, former California State Assemblyman and once-and-future San Diego mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher (R) (I) (D) declared his new position in support of state-mandated wage rates (“prevailing wages”) for contracts on public works construction projects. See the July 26, 2013 San Diego Daily Transcript commentary Prevailing Wage: Good for Local Economy, Local Workers.

He claims his position is a “no-brainer” that resulted from approaching the issue in a “thoughtful, open-minded way.” But why did he approach the issue in the first place? Mr. Fletcher has never before exhibited extraordinary interest or unusual expertise in arcane construction labor issues, including as a state legislator voting on such issues.

Tom Lemmon – the head of the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council – would have had credibility in submitting this professionally-written piece under his name. But few people would have read it. In contrast, Nathan Fletcher has a cult following in San Diego, apparently because many people can relate to his lack of principles – a condition that I warned Republicans to avoid in my www.FlashReport.org article Know Thyself, Republican: You Could Be the Next Nathan Fletcher.

Some people are suspicious of Fletcher’s authorship of his prevailing wage manifesto. On July 30, 2013, campaign consultant Duane Dichiara posted an article on San Diego Rostra – Notes on Fletcher’s Pro-Prevailing Wage Article – speculating that Fletcher didn’t write it because of the obvious rhetorical skill of the writer. Richard Rider of San Diego Tax Fighters then commented that “it’s TOO well written. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that Nathan didn’t pen it. Doubtless it was written by labor union professionals (or their PR contractors), with Nathan dutifully signing it as the author.”

Regardless of who actually wrote it, representatives of www.SmartCitiesPrevail.org were quick to post comments in support of Mr. Fletcher and his position, and he received some impressive tweets of support.

I responded to Fletcher’s piece with a rebuttal published on July 29, 2013 entitled Did Nathan Fletcher Lose His Mind on Prevailing Wage? A representative of the union-oriented public policy organization Working Partnerships USA and a Colorado State University economics professor commented in response to defend their work as cited by Fletcher. I have commented in response to their comments. Meanwhile, Nathan Fletcher has not given the public any additional insight into his understanding or views on prevailing wage policies.