Tag Archive for Silicon Valley

The “Six Californias” – Where Would You Live If It Happened? Where Would You Move If It Happened?

Under the proposed “Six Californias” initiative, the State of California and its 58 counties would be divided into six states:

Six Californias Map Color California Counties in the New State
State of Jefferson Blue Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Trinity.
State of North California Purple Amador, El Dorado, Marin, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba.
State of Central California Red Alpine, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne.
State of Silicon Valley Yellow Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz.
State of West California Green Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, Ventura.
State of South California Orange Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego.
Six Californias Initiative to Create Six New States

Six Californias Initiative to Create Six New States 

Sources 

Six Californias Initiative to Create Six New States (Web Site: “We are submitting a proposal to the State of California to create six new states. We encourage you to support it. STAY TUNED! Participate in the future of California! Enter your email address to be notified when the initiative is launched.”)

Language of Six Californias Initiative

Map of Six Californias

News Coverage

Silicon Valley Investor Has A Wacky Proposal To Carve Up California Into Six Separate StatesSan Francisco Chronicle (from Business Insider) – December 20, 2013

Tim Draper Proposes Splitting California into Six States – Sacramento Bee – December 20, 2013

Famed Tech Investor’s Next Idea: Six Californias? – CNBC – December 20, 2013

Tech Investor Tim Draper Launches ‘Six Californias’ Ballot Measure to Divide the Golden State – San Jose Mercury News ‎- December 24, 2013

Tech Investor Tries to Rally Support for Splitting California – Los Angeles Times – ‎December 23, 2013‎

What Would Six Californias Look Like? – Los Angeles Times – December 23, 2013

‘Six Californias’ Plan Explained by Its Father, VC Tim Draper – Silicon Valley Business Journal – ‎December 23, 2013

Tim Draper Seeks ‘Six Californias’: New Initiative Calls for Dividing State into Six Sections – San Mateo Daily Journal – ‎December 22, 2013‎

Californians Could Vote To Split Themselves Into Six New States – Forbes – ‎December 20, 2013‎

Text of Six Californias Initiative


SIX CALIFORNIAS

INITIATIVE MEASURE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO VOTERS

SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

A. California is the nation’s most populous state, nearly six times larger than the average population of the fifty states. However, much of the state’s population is concentrated in certain urban and coastal areas, particularly in Southern California.

B. California is the nation’s third largest state by geography, over two times larger than the average of the fifty states, with enormous and diverse economies, including agriculture, energy, technology, and entertainment.

C. As a consequence of these and other socio-economic factors, political representation of California’s diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable. Additionally, vast parts of our state are poorly served by a representative government dominated by a large number of elected representatives from a small part of our state, both geographically and economically.

D. It is not surprising that efforts to divide the state have been part of its history for over one hundred years. In fact, voters overwhelmingly approved the splitting of California into two states in 1859, but Congress never acted on that request due to the Civil War.

E. The citizens of the whole state would be better served by six smaller state governments while preserving the historical boundaries of the various counties, cities, and towns.

F. Moreover, the voters in any given county should be permitted to choose a different state then assigned by this law, thereby creating competition in proposed governance which will lead to better and more responsive governance.

G. The legal processes for division of the State will take time. In the interim, we the people desire to empower local governments and lessen the role of Sacramento over every aspect of our lives, to encourage regional cooperation, and to begin the process of new state identification.

SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

A. The people, acting as the legislative body of the State pursuant to their reserved legislative power provided by the California Constitution, hereby:

(1) Establish new boundaries for six new states within the boundaries of the State of California;

(2) Establish a procedure for county voters to choose to associate with a different state than assigned by this law prior to each State’s formation;

(3) Establish a procedure for the transformation of the single State of California into six new states;

(4) Provide the legislative consent for the formation of six new states to Congress as required by the United States Constitution; and

(5) Provide interim relief to the people by empowering local government and promoting regional cooperation in recognition of the new states proposed herein.

SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE CONSENT FOR THE CREATION OF SIX NEW STATES WITHIN THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES OF CALIFORNIA.

Section 2 of Article III of the California Constitution is amended to read:

Sec. 2. The boundaries of the State are those stated in the Constitution of 1849 as modified pursuant to statute changing said boundaries or providing legislative authorization to divide the State into two or more new states and providing for such transformation. Sacramento is the capital of California.

Article 3.1 of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 173) of the Government Code is added to read:

§ 173(a) Upon enactment of this section, the legislative consent required by Section 3 of Article IV of the United States Constitution for the creation of six (6) states within the current boundaries of the State of California, established pursuant to Article 3 of this Code, is given by the people.

(b) The boundaries of the six (6) new states shall be as follows:

(1) A new state, named Jefferson, including the territory represented by the boundaries of the following counties: Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, and Trinity.

(2) A new state, named North California, including the territory represented by the following counties:, Amador, El Dorado, Marin, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba.

(3) A new state, named Central California, including the territory represented by the boundaries of the following counties: Alpine, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Tuolumne.

(4) A new state, named Silicon Valley, including the territory represented by the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Monterey.

(5) A new state, named West California, including the territory represented by the following counties: Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, and Ventura.

(6) A new state, named South California, including the territory of Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego.

(c) On or before November 15, 2017, the voters of any county, pursuant to the initiative power or upon action of the Board of Supervisors placing a measure on the ballot, may enact an ordinance to become part of a contiguous state other than the state assigned pursuant to this section. Within thirty (30) days after certification of the vote approving the ordinance, the Boards of Supervisors in the state to which the county seeks to be re-assigned shall vote to approve the reassignment, and if a majority of those county Boards approve, the reassignment shall become effective and the Registrar of Voters shall transmit the certification and ordinance to the Governor.

(d) On January 1, 2018, the Governor shall transmit a copy of the certified election results enacting this Article, including the results of any subsequent county election to associate with a different state than assigned by this section, and a copy of this Article to Congress, with a request that Congress act upon the consent of the people as soon as practicable.

§ 174(a) Upon enactment of this section, there shall be a Board of Commissioners established with the authority to provide for the division and transformation of California. Not less than 180 days after Congress acts to approve the creation of six (6) states from within the boundaries of the state of California, established pursuant to section 173, the Legislature shall appoint twelve (12) Commissioners, six (6) by the Assembly and six (6) by the Senate to serve on a Board of Commissioners for a term not to exceed two (2) years.

(b) The Board of Supervisors of each county within a newly created state shall convene and collectively appoint two Commissioners to represent that new state on the Board of Commissioners for a term not to exceed two (2) years.

(c) The twenty-four (24) member Board of Commissioners shall, settle and adjust the property and financial affairs between the State of California and the newly created states. In the event the Commissioners fail to reach resolution of such matters before the end of their terms, the debts of the State of California shall be distributed among the newly created states based on the population of the new states proportionately to the whole population of California, as reported in the last census of the United States, and the assets within the boundaries of each newly created state shall become the assets of that state.

(d) The Legislature shall provide the financial and staff resources needed for the Board of Commissioners to conduct its business.

(e) Except as provided in section 4.5 of Article XI, the legal relationship between the counties and the State of California shall continue until the organization and establishment of a separate government in a newly created state, including the adoption of a Constitution by convention or popular vote within each newly created state.

SECTION 4. COUNTY AND REGIONAL POWER DURING INTERIM PERIOD OF TRANSFORMATION

Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to add section 4.5 to read:

Sec. 4.5(a) Upon enactment of this section, it shall be competent in any county charter to provide that the county governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. County charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.

(b) A county charter may provide for the delegation of authority in respect to municipal affairs, by way of compact, or other agreement, to a regional association of counties, consisting of the other counties within the boundaries of the new states provided for in section 2.5 of Article II, during the interim period of time before Congressional approval of the new states.

(c) For purposes of this section, any law intended by the Legislature to be a general law or matter of statewide concern that supersedes the authority of a county over its municipal affairs and also requires an annual subvention of funds to reimburse the county for the costs of the program or service pursuant to section 6 of Article XIIIB, shall require an annual transfer of funds from the state treasury to a county treasury, as needed, and in the absence of such reimbursement, the county shall have no obligation to enforce the law. The state shall have no power to incur debt owed to a county pursuant to this subdivision.

SECTION 5. GENERAL PROVISIONS

(a) If any provision of this Act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

(b) This Act is intended to be comprehensive. It is the intent of the People that in the event this Act or measures relating to the same subject shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Act.

In the event that this Act receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in their entirety, and all provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.

(c) In recognition of his personal and financial stake in the enforcement, implementation, and defense of the initiative, the official proponent of the initiative is hereby appointed “agent of the State of California” for purposes of defending the initiative against any legal challenge. In that capacity, he will supervise the legal defense provided by the Attorney General. If, in his sole determination, the Attorney General is not providing an adequate defense, the proponent shall be authorized to retain outside counsel to be compensated from the budget of the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General shall appoint such counsel as “Special Deputy Attorney General of the State of California” for the limited purpose of defending the initiative against any and all legal challenges, both at trial and on any appeal, including appeal by way of petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.

###

Here Comes Yet ANOTHER Project Labor Agreement on a California Community College District: West Valley-Mission in Silicon Valley

UPDATE: Here is a report from the Northern California Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) about what happened when the board of the West Valley-Mission Community College District considered a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) at its November 13, 2012 meeting:

November 13 was the last meeting for PLA proponent Trustee Chris Stampolis at the West Valley-Mission Community College District and last opportunity for him to get a Project Labor Agreement placed on the agenda…he was able to get one final agenda item to provide direction on Project Labor Agreements on the November 13, 2012 agenda through PLA proponent and Board President Adrienne Grey. Before a packed crowd of union members touting their praise for the union and how it has provided them a career, Trustees Stampolis and Grey pushed for forward action on PLA negotiations in the district, against the recommendation of Vice Chancellor Maduli for the Board to wait to provide direction on Project Labor Agreements until after the December 11 study session on the pros and cons of PLAs. Vice Chancellor Maduli recommended looking at several delivery options as strategies to improve local hire in the district. A pilot PLA on a less complicated project like the Learning Resource Center at West Valley Mission Campus was one of the strategies mentioned in addition to multi-prime and lease leaseback methodologies. After deliberating back and forth on an original motion by Trustee Lucas to wait until the December 11 meeting where staff will bring back information regarding pros and cons about PLAs and a pilot PLA that was ultimately withdrawn, the final motion was to direct staff to pursue the PLA/PSA with the appropriate entity using their discretion and bring it back at a timely future date no later than March in addition to completing the staff study on the pros and cons of PLAs at the December 11 meeting. Motion passed 4-1 with Trustee Heimlich and Trustee Walsh absent.

President Grey touted the PLA as opportunities to be gained by pursuing a Project Labor Agreement as $8 billion of public and private work is currently being built under a PLA in Santa Clara County [according to Neil Struthers, head of the Santa Clara County Building and Construction Trades Council].

Trustee Heimlich voted against the motion. He noted that state law exempted PLAs from labor and wage monitoring and wanted to know what the public would get for a PLA in exchange for higher costs and more labor law violations.


Note: this article is also posted on www.UnionWatch.org as Advancing the Union Agenda: A More Mundane Silicon Valley Ambition.


Almost all of the community college districts located within 50 miles of San Francisco (the Bay Area Community College Consortium) have succumbed to the union political agenda and require their construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with trade unions as a condition of working on taxpayer-funded projects.

(See the current revised list below, which now also indicates the imminent end of fair and open bidding competition at the Ohlone Community College District in Fremont, as reported in my November 8, 2012 article Another Project Labor Agreement in the Works for a California Community College District: Unions Will Control Construction at Ohlone College.)

One of the few holdouts has been the West Valley-Mission Community College District, which includes the cities of Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno. I regret to report that the celebrated (but somewhat exaggerated) free choice, free mind, free market culture of Silicon Valley is about to experience another intrusion of government into commerce, this time for the benefit of unions.

Through the 2000s, politically moderate college board members resisted the pressure to negotiation a Project Labor Agreement. Leading the charge to ram this union deal through the board of trustees was Chris Stampolis, a Democratic Party activist intent on advancing his own political career with the help of powerful San José union officials.

Trouble arrived soon after 60.1% of voters in the West Valley-Mission Community College District voted for Measure H in November 2004, thereby authorizing the college board to borrow $235 million for construction projects by selling bonds. In May 2005, the West Valley-Mission Community College District issued a request for proposals for construction management services that included notice of a possible Project Labor Agreement, prematurely revealing the union plan to get monopoly control of the work.

Opponents of Project Labor Agreements were ready to respond when Neil Struthers, the head of the Santa Clara Building and Construction Trades Council, made a formal presentation during the May 17, 2007 West Valley-Mission Community College District board meeting about a Project Labor Agreement, at that time disguised as a “Construction Career Agreement.”

A majority of the board was either lukewarm or opposed to the plot of union officials and board member Chris Stampolis to give unions control of the work. Risking retaliation from powerful union interests, the San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce issued a letter in 2008 opposing the proposed Project Labor Agreement for West Valley-Mission Community College District Project Labor Agreement. The threat faded – for a time.

In the June 2012 elections, 59.9% of voters approved Measure C, which authorized the board of trustees to borrow $350 million for construction by selling bonds. This time the unions and their allies had a more clever plan to get their government-mandated Project Labor Agreement for taxpayer-funded construction.

The same head construction union official made another presentation about Project Labor Agreements, this time disguised as “Promoting Local Hiring for Future Major Building Projects and Partnering to Develop Construction Industry Educational Pathways.” But this time the Project Labor Agreement presentation was scheduled as a “study session” at a May 8, 2012 “special” board meeting of the West Valley-Mission Community College District.

Notice that the board meeting notice that West Valley-Mission Community College District posted on its web site for the May 8, 2012 special meeting does not include any background information about this special agenda item, perhaps because only ONE side was studied during the so-called study session. Also notice that the West Valley-Mission Community College District failed to post the minutes of this May 8, 2012 special meeting on its web site.

Lessons:

(1) Just because a government entity is based in Silicon Valley doesn’t mean it is diligent or committed to transparency by opening its most controversial business to public scrutiny on the web. Union deals are best done when the taxpayers don’t know about it.

(2) Regarding community colleges, is there any other class of local government in California that manages so much money but has so little accountability to the People? Three times I’ve seen a one-sided, Project Labor Agreement presentation from union officials and their attorneys scheduled for a “special” community college board meeting, with the minutes of this “special” meeting somehow slipping through the cracks and not getting posted on the web for public scrutiny, as is done with the minutes of the regular meetings.

There’s a lot of strange antics still going on at West Valley-Mission Community College District board meetings. At the October 2, 2012 meeting, board member Chris Stampolis again called for discussion of a Project Labor Agreement at a future meeting. Then, at the October 14, 2012 meeting, Stampolis demanded that the minutes be changed regarding his comments on the Project Labor Agreement. He wanted the minutes to state his call for discussion at an October meeting, not a future meeting.

Finally, Chris Stampolis is getting his way. At tomorrow night’s meeting (November 13, 2012), the board of the West Valley-Mission Community College District is scheduled to give direction to the college administration about preparations to impose a Project Labor Agreement on the district’s construction contractors. Mr. Stampolis is obviously emboldened by the November 6 exercise of union political might in California and his own victory in the race for board of trustees of the Santa Clara Unified School District (where he’ll likely push for another Project Labor Agreement in that district to cover construction funded by three bond measures.) He wants to get this Project Labor Agreement in place at the West Valley-Mission Community College District before he leaves for new ambitions, and his proposed directive calls for the college administration to provide a final report on Project Labor Agreements at the December 11, 2012 board meeting.


Here’s the current status of Project Labor Agreements for community college districts in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Community College District (CCD) Year as PLA Target Year of PLA Enacted
Peralta CCD (Alameda County) 2004 2004, 2009
Chabot-Las Positas CCD (Alameda County) 2003 2006, 2010
Ohlone CCD (Alameda County) 2002, 2011 Looks like 2012
Contra Costa CCD (Costa Costa County) 2000 2012
College of Marin (Marin County) 2005 2008
Hartnell CCD (Monterey County) 2004 2004; rescinded 2004
Monterey Peninsula College Not Yet Not Yet
Napa Valley College (Napa County) 2004 Not Yet
City College of San Francisco (San Francisco) 2002 2005
San Mateo CCD (San Mateo County) 2002 2002, 2007
Cabrillo College (Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey Counties) 2004 Not Yet
Foothill-DeAnza CCD (Santa Clara County) 2007 2008, 2011
San Jose-Evergreen CCD (Santa Clara County) 2006 2011
West Valley-Mission CCD (Santa Clara County) 2005, 2008, 2012 Looks like 2012
Solano CCD (Solano County) 2003 2004
Santa Rosa Junior College (Sonoma County) 2002, 2005 Not Yet

See my www.UnionWatch.org analysis of why California’s community college districts are inclined to require construction contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions:  Unions Increase Control of California’s Community College Boards.