Friday, October 01, 2004
Pesticide bill is signed by governor
Applicators would help pay medical costs under the new law.
By Jennifer M. Fitzenberger / BEE CAPITOL BUREAU
(Updated Friday, October 1, 2004, 5:57 AM)
SACRAMENTO — Pesticide applicators will help pay the medical bills of Californians sickened by sloppy sprays under a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Senate Bill 391, by state Sen. Dean Florez, also calls for local agencies to include drift scenarios in their emergency response plans.
Schwarzenegger said the bill makes sure victims will get immediate medical treatment and receive prompt payment for their expenses. "It also squarely places the financial burden to pay for acute medical costs on those businesses that create harm," the governor said during a signing statement.
Florez, D-Shafter, said the Republican governor's approval is an indication that Schwarzenegger is willing to work across party lines. "He isn't just going to listen every single time to agribusiness. He can make up his mind independently," Florez said of the governor. "He did something today that protects farmworkers, their families and people who live in small Valley towns."
Farmers were against the bill. They worry that insurance companies will raise their premiums, and they say it creates a system ripe for fraud and abuse.
Schwarzenegger said he is concerned that liability provisions in SB 391 might be viewed as overly broad and could make it hard for some to get insurance. "These provisions need to be addressed in follow-up legislation to remediate these unintended consequences," he said.
Florez said he does not expect insurance premiums to increase, but he said he will do what is necessary to "make the law more appropriate."
Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League in Fresno, said he is confident Schwarzenegger will monitor the law to make sure it isn't abused.
Said agriculture lobbyist Louie Brown: "All in all, I think the governor did great work for agriculture. This is just one of those we didn't agree with, and we'll just have to learn to deal with now."
According to bill proponents, several hundred pesticide applications have gone askew in the past four years, exposing more than 1,000 people to chemicals that caused short- and long-term illnesses.
Some victims were left with hundreds of dollars in medical bills they couldn't afford and, in some cases, they were refused treatment because they didn't have health insurance.
Several high-profile pesticide drifts have occurred in the central San Joaquin Valley, including one in 1999 that sickened several Earlimart residents.
Marc Grossman, a spokesman for the United Farm Workers of America, said people who get sick often are victimized twice: "The first time they're poisoned by the pesticide drift. They're victimized a second time when they get stuck with the bill for emergency and medical care because they were poisoned."
SB 391 will benefit people who live near pesticide drifts. Farmworkers who get sick on the job are covered by workers' compensation.
Said Martha Guzman of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation: "This is obviously a very good first step that will help future victims of pesticide drift from, at a minimum, having to pay for their acute medical costs."
By Jennifer M. Fitzenberger / BEE CAPITOL BUREAU
(Updated Friday, October 1, 2004, 5:57 AM)
SACRAMENTO — Pesticide applicators will help pay the medical bills of Californians sickened by sloppy sprays under a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Senate Bill 391, by state Sen. Dean Florez, also calls for local agencies to include drift scenarios in their emergency response plans.
Schwarzenegger said the bill makes sure victims will get immediate medical treatment and receive prompt payment for their expenses. "It also squarely places the financial burden to pay for acute medical costs on those businesses that create harm," the governor said during a signing statement.
Florez, D-Shafter, said the Republican governor's approval is an indication that Schwarzenegger is willing to work across party lines. "He isn't just going to listen every single time to agribusiness. He can make up his mind independently," Florez said of the governor. "He did something today that protects farmworkers, their families and people who live in small Valley towns."
Farmers were against the bill. They worry that insurance companies will raise their premiums, and they say it creates a system ripe for fraud and abuse.
Schwarzenegger said he is concerned that liability provisions in SB 391 might be viewed as overly broad and could make it hard for some to get insurance. "These provisions need to be addressed in follow-up legislation to remediate these unintended consequences," he said.
Florez said he does not expect insurance premiums to increase, but he said he will do what is necessary to "make the law more appropriate."
Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League in Fresno, said he is confident Schwarzenegger will monitor the law to make sure it isn't abused.
Said agriculture lobbyist Louie Brown: "All in all, I think the governor did great work for agriculture. This is just one of those we didn't agree with, and we'll just have to learn to deal with now."
According to bill proponents, several hundred pesticide applications have gone askew in the past four years, exposing more than 1,000 people to chemicals that caused short- and long-term illnesses.
Some victims were left with hundreds of dollars in medical bills they couldn't afford and, in some cases, they were refused treatment because they didn't have health insurance.
Several high-profile pesticide drifts have occurred in the central San Joaquin Valley, including one in 1999 that sickened several Earlimart residents.
Marc Grossman, a spokesman for the United Farm Workers of America, said people who get sick often are victimized twice: "The first time they're poisoned by the pesticide drift. They're victimized a second time when they get stuck with the bill for emergency and medical care because they were poisoned."
SB 391 will benefit people who live near pesticide drifts. Farmworkers who get sick on the job are covered by workers' compensation.
Said Martha Guzman of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation: "This is obviously a very good first step that will help future victims of pesticide drift from, at a minimum, having to pay for their acute medical costs."
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Lenders Levy up to 120% interest -- legally
Loophole lets firms target the poor, military families
-- David Lazarus
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
A handful of money lenders, exploiting a loophole in California law, is making loans with annual interest rates as high as 120 percent and then repossessing customers' vehicles if the money can't be repaid.
Lawmakers and consumer advocates say the firms are making so-called car- title loans even though California's legislators deliberately chose not to approve the practice seven years ago.
Critics say the loans, which are tightly regulated in other states, target poor people, military families and others who might have no choice but to use their vehicles as collateral in a financial pinch.
Even the lenders say default rates run as high as 30 percent.
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, says he intends to move quickly to address the situation.
"On the scale of predatory business practices, these schemes fit somewhere between grand theft auto and carjacking," he said. "This is one loophole they won't be able to drive a car through next year, once we legislate."
Executives at car-title loan companies say practices are basically uniform throughout their industry:
Recipients hand over their vehicle title and a spare set of keys when they receive their cash, usually in under an hour after submitting an application. The title and keys are returned only after the loan and all interest have been paid off.
A default will result in the vehicle being repossessed and sold at auction so the lender can recover all outstanding costs.
"This kind of thing was supposed to be illegal," said Rosemary Shahan, head of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, a Sacramento advocacy group. "It's just predatory in nature. You can practically hear the theme music from 'Jaws.' "
State regulators were surprised at first to learn that car-title loans were being made.
After looking into the situation, officials at the Department of Corporations, which regulates financial transactions, determined that the loans are governed by the California Finance Lenders Law.
The law, part of the state Financial Code, applies to secured loans of relatively small amounts that are not regulated by other statutes.
The loans apparently do not fall under California's loose definition of predatory lending, which applies primarily to loans that are false or misleading.
Usury laws don't seem to be a factor either. According to the state attorney general's office, these laws aren't applicable to lending institutions such as banks, pawnbrokers and other finance companies.
Yet nearly a third of all Californians obtaining high-interest car-title loans -- typically without credit checks or other financial safeguards -- end up defaulting, lenders say.
Other loan recipients may make years of interest payments before ever reducing their principal.
"Yes, it's a profitable business, but it's no more profitable than other financial services," insisted Garry Gladstone, president of Growth Resource Group, one of the state's leading car-title lenders.
He added: "People go to Starbucks and pay $5 for a 50 cent cup of coffee. They pay 10 times markup for that cup of coffee. But if they pay more than prime rate for money, they think they're getting gouged. Why?"
Well, for one thing, California lawmakers voted down legislation in 1997 that would have explicitly approved the practice by adding provisions for car- title loans to the Financial Code. The bill was strongly opposed by consumer groups.
Assemblywoman Pat Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, says it's clear that the Legislature was against the notion of car-title loans when the bill was defeated in the Assembly Banking Committee.
Wiggins, who will leave the Assembly in November because of term limits, is chair of the Banking Committee. "There will be legislation to correct the issue," she predicted.
Tennessee officials met earlier this month to discuss stricter regulations for car-title lenders charging annual interest rates of as much as 264 percent. Florida and Kentucky officials cracked down on the rapidly growing industry several years ago.
No one knows exactly how large the car-title-loan market is nationwide or how many people are affected by its practices. No business groups represent lenders, and few government entities compile statistics.
Recipients of such loans, in turn, are generally desperate for cash and not the sort of people who lodge complaints with the Better Business Bureau.
"It's very alarming," said Jean Ann Fox, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. "I don't know anyone who has good numbers on this."
The nationwide market for so-called payday loans, which use people's paychecks as collateral for high-interest loans, is about $40 billion, she noted. The car-title-loan business is believed to be about one-fourth as big.
"I'm surprised to hear that it's happening in California," Fox said. "We fought hard to keep it out. But the industry is always looking for loopholes to allow it to do business."
In this case, car-title lenders focused on sections 22303 and 22304 of the California Finance Lenders Law, the state's grab bag for regulating small- scale lenders.
The first section lays out rules for interest rates charged by licensed lenders. The second stipulates that these rules don't apply to any loan worth more than $2,500.
"We spoke to lawyers about this," said Gladstone at Growth Resource Group, based in San Juan Capistrano. "They determined that this allows us to charge any interest rate the market will bear for loans over $2,500."
He says his firm was the first to offer car-title loans in California in 1995. Competitors soon showed up, Gladstone says, creating a robust market in which interest rates can vary from 60 percent to 120 percent.
He estimates the size of the California car-title-loan market at about $20 million. It's limited, Gladstone says, because lenders in this state must offer larger loans than elsewhere to be profitable, which requires customers in turn to own vehicles of commensurate value.
In other states, where car-title loans are typically for under $1,000, it's common for junkers to be used as collateral.
Gladstone acknowledges that he operates in a gray area of the law. But he believes he's done nothing wrong.
"The proper interpretation of the Financial Code," he said, "is that if they don't prohibit it, it must be legal."
William Wood, who oversees the Financial Code as California's commissioner of corporations, sees things a little differently.
"The law has a lot of things in it that don't get tested or don't get brought up for decades," he said. "That's finally happening now."
More on Friday.
-- David Lazarus
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
A handful of money lenders, exploiting a loophole in California law, is making loans with annual interest rates as high as 120 percent and then repossessing customers' vehicles if the money can't be repaid.
Lawmakers and consumer advocates say the firms are making so-called car- title loans even though California's legislators deliberately chose not to approve the practice seven years ago.
Critics say the loans, which are tightly regulated in other states, target poor people, military families and others who might have no choice but to use their vehicles as collateral in a financial pinch.
Even the lenders say default rates run as high as 30 percent.
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, says he intends to move quickly to address the situation.
"On the scale of predatory business practices, these schemes fit somewhere between grand theft auto and carjacking," he said. "This is one loophole they won't be able to drive a car through next year, once we legislate."
Executives at car-title loan companies say practices are basically uniform throughout their industry:
Recipients hand over their vehicle title and a spare set of keys when they receive their cash, usually in under an hour after submitting an application. The title and keys are returned only after the loan and all interest have been paid off.
A default will result in the vehicle being repossessed and sold at auction so the lender can recover all outstanding costs.
"This kind of thing was supposed to be illegal," said Rosemary Shahan, head of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, a Sacramento advocacy group. "It's just predatory in nature. You can practically hear the theme music from 'Jaws.' "
State regulators were surprised at first to learn that car-title loans were being made.
After looking into the situation, officials at the Department of Corporations, which regulates financial transactions, determined that the loans are governed by the California Finance Lenders Law.
The law, part of the state Financial Code, applies to secured loans of relatively small amounts that are not regulated by other statutes.
The loans apparently do not fall under California's loose definition of predatory lending, which applies primarily to loans that are false or misleading.
Usury laws don't seem to be a factor either. According to the state attorney general's office, these laws aren't applicable to lending institutions such as banks, pawnbrokers and other finance companies.
Yet nearly a third of all Californians obtaining high-interest car-title loans -- typically without credit checks or other financial safeguards -- end up defaulting, lenders say.
Other loan recipients may make years of interest payments before ever reducing their principal.
"Yes, it's a profitable business, but it's no more profitable than other financial services," insisted Garry Gladstone, president of Growth Resource Group, one of the state's leading car-title lenders.
He added: "People go to Starbucks and pay $5 for a 50 cent cup of coffee. They pay 10 times markup for that cup of coffee. But if they pay more than prime rate for money, they think they're getting gouged. Why?"
Well, for one thing, California lawmakers voted down legislation in 1997 that would have explicitly approved the practice by adding provisions for car- title loans to the Financial Code. The bill was strongly opposed by consumer groups.
Assemblywoman Pat Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, says it's clear that the Legislature was against the notion of car-title loans when the bill was defeated in the Assembly Banking Committee.
Wiggins, who will leave the Assembly in November because of term limits, is chair of the Banking Committee. "There will be legislation to correct the issue," she predicted.
Tennessee officials met earlier this month to discuss stricter regulations for car-title lenders charging annual interest rates of as much as 264 percent. Florida and Kentucky officials cracked down on the rapidly growing industry several years ago.
No one knows exactly how large the car-title-loan market is nationwide or how many people are affected by its practices. No business groups represent lenders, and few government entities compile statistics.
Recipients of such loans, in turn, are generally desperate for cash and not the sort of people who lodge complaints with the Better Business Bureau.
"It's very alarming," said Jean Ann Fox, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. "I don't know anyone who has good numbers on this."
The nationwide market for so-called payday loans, which use people's paychecks as collateral for high-interest loans, is about $40 billion, she noted. The car-title-loan business is believed to be about one-fourth as big.
"I'm surprised to hear that it's happening in California," Fox said. "We fought hard to keep it out. But the industry is always looking for loopholes to allow it to do business."
In this case, car-title lenders focused on sections 22303 and 22304 of the California Finance Lenders Law, the state's grab bag for regulating small- scale lenders.
The first section lays out rules for interest rates charged by licensed lenders. The second stipulates that these rules don't apply to any loan worth more than $2,500.
"We spoke to lawyers about this," said Gladstone at Growth Resource Group, based in San Juan Capistrano. "They determined that this allows us to charge any interest rate the market will bear for loans over $2,500."
He says his firm was the first to offer car-title loans in California in 1995. Competitors soon showed up, Gladstone says, creating a robust market in which interest rates can vary from 60 percent to 120 percent.
He estimates the size of the California car-title-loan market at about $20 million. It's limited, Gladstone says, because lenders in this state must offer larger loans than elsewhere to be profitable, which requires customers in turn to own vehicles of commensurate value.
In other states, where car-title loans are typically for under $1,000, it's common for junkers to be used as collateral.
Gladstone acknowledges that he operates in a gray area of the law. But he believes he's done nothing wrong.
"The proper interpretation of the Financial Code," he said, "is that if they don't prohibit it, it must be legal."
William Wood, who oversees the Financial Code as California's commissioner of corporations, sees things a little differently.
"The law has a lot of things in it that don't get tested or don't get brought up for decades," he said. "That's finally happening now."
More on Friday.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Lawmaker comes up for air
Florez takes breather from spotlight of clean-air legislation.
By Jennifer M. Fitzenberger
Bee Capitol Bureau
(Updated Sunday, September 5, 2004, 6:41 AM)
SACRAMENTO -- Sen. Dean Florez was a clean-air maverick last year, taking the lead on five new laws that require farmers to help clean California's dirty air.
Florez, D-Shafter, was outspoken and bullheaded, landing big headlines and praise from leaders in the state's environmental community for ending agriculture's exemption from air operating permits and setting a schedule for phasing out open-air farm burning.
But this year -- the second in the two-year legislative session that ended in late August -- Florez avoided the clean-air spotlight. He went public with two bills to improve air quality, but both died without Florez vigorously defending them.
"Do I feel I need to be the marquee or can I be the second movie? I can be the second movie," Florez says. "As long as the policy gets done, no big deal."
Some political players say Florez worked hard behind the scenes to support other clean-air legislation and has evolved from a lawmaker who thrived on taking credit to one content to let others shine on an issue that has defined his Senate career.
Others are more critical, saying Florez took advantage of last year's more Democratic-friendly political climate to gain clout for a possible 2006 run for state treasurer.
"It was strictly statewide recognition to run for statewide office," Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League in Fresno, says of Florez's motivation. "I am absolutely disappointed, and I just don't have any more trust."
Cunha says Florez had little to do with legislation this year that could provide millions of dollars for clean-air programs and allow farmers to continue accessing state funds to help switch and revamp their dirty diesel engines.
But environmental advocates say Florez was instrumental in pushing such bills through the Legislature. They say they depend on Florez for help, knowing he is a staunch supporter of cleaning the Valley's air.
"He hasn't been as much of a leader this year, but he's still showing concern about air quality in the Valley," says Bonnie Holmes-Gen, assistant vice president of government relations for the American Lung Association of California.
Carolina Simunovic, a member of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, says Florez hasn't abandoned his effort to reduce air pollution. She says he might be more subdued this year because he recognizes that other lawmakers also have expertise on air quality.
Says John White, representing the Sierra Club: "One of the things Dean is learning how to do is be a team player."
Florez has not decided whether he will run for treasurer in 2006. He says he will run for re-election if his work on air quality isn't finished.
The senator scoffs at the suggestion he took up the air quality issue to get attention.
"It's been a somewhat hostile environment -- given the air bills -- to go home. You have to argue why they're good bills," says Florez, who lives in agriculture-rich Kern County. "You don't really need to do that unless you really feel that it's important."
The political landscape this year is different because of Gov. Schwarzenegger's recall win over Gray Davis. Florez says he has chosen his bills more carefully.
"I don't know if I can go and ask the governor to sign all of these clean-air bills if ag opposes them," Florez says. He doubts Schwarzenegger would have signed last year's air bills.
Florez says he had a hand in advancing key air legislation this year.
He supported Assembly Bill 923 that could provide up to $90 million for clean-air programs. The bill, sent to the governor at the end of the session, also would allow farmers to use state funds to replace their diesel engines for at least a few more years.
Florez says he didn't push hard this year for some of his bills because other lawmakers had similar legislation.
One of those measures, AB 1009, would require trucks heavier than 10,000 pounds to meet federal emission standards for their model years. Assembly Member Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, introduced the bill in June after the U.S. Supreme Court opened the border to trucks and buses. It awaits the governor's signature.
Florez in June announced he would introduce a similar bill to hold foreign trucks to California emission standards, which are more strict than federal standards, and he held a hearing on the issue. But the bill never materialized because, Florez says, Democrats wanted Pavley to carry the bill.
Florez says he didn't push the issue because "there are other things that I want to do ... like my other bills."
The senator focused this year on measures to help make medical care affordable to people sickened by drifting pesticides and to discourage diesel fuel theft. The pesticide bill cleared the Legislature and is on Schwarzenegger's desk, but the fuel theft bill died in committee.
Florez's revived $5.2 billion clean-air bond measure -- his most high-profile air legislation this year -- also died. It would have provided money for asthma screening, biomass energy plants and alternative waste disposal methods such as wood-chipping. Florez hoped to get it on the 2006 ballot.
The bill, SB 403, ran into problems when lawmakers asked that a larger chunk of the bond proceeds go to urban interests, and Florez abandoned it after learning that Schwarzenegger wouldn't pledge his support.
Environmental and agricultural advocates back Florez's decision.
"The bond wasn't happening because of the fiscal condition of the state," White says.
Says Louie Brown, an agriculture lobbyist: "While the bond is a good idea in some respects, the time just isn't right. I don't think it has the political momentum to happen at this point."
Florez plans to bring the bond back next year.
By Jennifer M. Fitzenberger
Bee Capitol Bureau
(Updated Sunday, September 5, 2004, 6:41 AM)
SACRAMENTO -- Sen. Dean Florez was a clean-air maverick last year, taking the lead on five new laws that require farmers to help clean California's dirty air.
Florez, D-Shafter, was outspoken and bullheaded, landing big headlines and praise from leaders in the state's environmental community for ending agriculture's exemption from air operating permits and setting a schedule for phasing out open-air farm burning.
But this year -- the second in the two-year legislative session that ended in late August -- Florez avoided the clean-air spotlight. He went public with two bills to improve air quality, but both died without Florez vigorously defending them.
"Do I feel I need to be the marquee or can I be the second movie? I can be the second movie," Florez says. "As long as the policy gets done, no big deal."
Some political players say Florez worked hard behind the scenes to support other clean-air legislation and has evolved from a lawmaker who thrived on taking credit to one content to let others shine on an issue that has defined his Senate career.
Others are more critical, saying Florez took advantage of last year's more Democratic-friendly political climate to gain clout for a possible 2006 run for state treasurer.
"It was strictly statewide recognition to run for statewide office," Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League in Fresno, says of Florez's motivation. "I am absolutely disappointed, and I just don't have any more trust."
Cunha says Florez had little to do with legislation this year that could provide millions of dollars for clean-air programs and allow farmers to continue accessing state funds to help switch and revamp their dirty diesel engines.
But environmental advocates say Florez was instrumental in pushing such bills through the Legislature. They say they depend on Florez for help, knowing he is a staunch supporter of cleaning the Valley's air.
"He hasn't been as much of a leader this year, but he's still showing concern about air quality in the Valley," says Bonnie Holmes-Gen, assistant vice president of government relations for the American Lung Association of California.
Carolina Simunovic, a member of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, says Florez hasn't abandoned his effort to reduce air pollution. She says he might be more subdued this year because he recognizes that other lawmakers also have expertise on air quality.
Says John White, representing the Sierra Club: "One of the things Dean is learning how to do is be a team player."
Florez has not decided whether he will run for treasurer in 2006. He says he will run for re-election if his work on air quality isn't finished.
The senator scoffs at the suggestion he took up the air quality issue to get attention.
"It's been a somewhat hostile environment -- given the air bills -- to go home. You have to argue why they're good bills," says Florez, who lives in agriculture-rich Kern County. "You don't really need to do that unless you really feel that it's important."
The political landscape this year is different because of Gov. Schwarzenegger's recall win over Gray Davis. Florez says he has chosen his bills more carefully.
"I don't know if I can go and ask the governor to sign all of these clean-air bills if ag opposes them," Florez says. He doubts Schwarzenegger would have signed last year's air bills.
Florez says he had a hand in advancing key air legislation this year.
He supported Assembly Bill 923 that could provide up to $90 million for clean-air programs. The bill, sent to the governor at the end of the session, also would allow farmers to use state funds to replace their diesel engines for at least a few more years.
Florez says he didn't push hard this year for some of his bills because other lawmakers had similar legislation.
One of those measures, AB 1009, would require trucks heavier than 10,000 pounds to meet federal emission standards for their model years. Assembly Member Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, introduced the bill in June after the U.S. Supreme Court opened the border to trucks and buses. It awaits the governor's signature.
Florez in June announced he would introduce a similar bill to hold foreign trucks to California emission standards, which are more strict than federal standards, and he held a hearing on the issue. But the bill never materialized because, Florez says, Democrats wanted Pavley to carry the bill.
Florez says he didn't push the issue because "there are other things that I want to do ... like my other bills."
The senator focused this year on measures to help make medical care affordable to people sickened by drifting pesticides and to discourage diesel fuel theft. The pesticide bill cleared the Legislature and is on Schwarzenegger's desk, but the fuel theft bill died in committee.
Florez's revived $5.2 billion clean-air bond measure -- his most high-profile air legislation this year -- also died. It would have provided money for asthma screening, biomass energy plants and alternative waste disposal methods such as wood-chipping. Florez hoped to get it on the 2006 ballot.
The bill, SB 403, ran into problems when lawmakers asked that a larger chunk of the bond proceeds go to urban interests, and Florez abandoned it after learning that Schwarzenegger wouldn't pledge his support.
Environmental and agricultural advocates back Florez's decision.
"The bond wasn't happening because of the fiscal condition of the state," White says.
Says Louie Brown, an agriculture lobbyist: "While the bond is a good idea in some respects, the time just isn't right. I don't think it has the political momentum to happen at this point."
Florez plans to bring the bond back next year.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Senator calls for end to Kern County dumping
Waste Dumping Prompts Worries over Ground Water Safety
Posted: Friday August 20th, 2004, 6:38 PM
Last Updated: Friday August 20th, 2004, 6:38 PM
Click here for Streaming Video on Demand -- http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/story/4886916p-4940459c.html
Tons of waste are disposed on remote Kern County fields, supporters say it's good recycling -- critics worry about ground-water contamination. Kern County rules allow the use of only the most highly-treated waste, but the concerns continue.
"Why take a chance?" says Kern Water Agency Board Director Gene Lundquist. He tells 29 Eyewitness News the agency supports waste disposal only on the west side of the county, since there are no underground water supplies there.
State Senator Dean Florez has scheduled a September hearing on waste dumping, he's worried about so much being brought from places like Los Angeles County.
"Without us, the L.A. basin has very few alternatives," Honeybucket Farms General Manager Ben Lapadula tells 29 Eyewitness News. His company farms 2,000 acres west of Delano, spreading some 50-thousand tons a year of "bio-solids."
That's treated material from sewer treatment plants, and much of it does come from L.A. Lapadula says the bio-solids improve marginal soil so crops like cattle feed can be grown.
Lapadula says the bio-solids are treated to remove pathogens, and the material is monitored for pollutants and metals. The farm also tests the bio-solids and the soil. Lapadula says the practice improves farm land without using other fertilizers.
Lapadula says spreading bio-solids is the best way to dispose of them. He says the material can't be dumped in the oceans. Putting it in land-fills only concentrates the material, and burning bio-solids would contaminate the air.
But, Senator Florez wants to require review of air and water quality impacts from waste materials brought in from other counties. He's worried about a recent incident where "green waste" was brought up from Los Angeles. Trash was mixed in with the grass and branches, and Florez says that could contain contaminants that could seep down into ground-water supplies.
Florez has scheduled a hearing September 23rd in Delano. "It will be an investigative hearing," Florez tells 29 Eyewitness. "The focus will be bringing in the waste haulers and asking them tough questions."
Florez intends to introduce legislation that would lower the level of trash allowed in "green waste," and require review of air and water quality impacts from debris brought in from other counties.
The water agency's Lundquist says every precaution should be taken to protect local groundwater from contamination. "It may show up next year in the groundwater, or maybe 50 years."
Lapadula insists the bio-solids his farm uses are safe for groundwater. He says groundwater there is very deep, and he doesn't put enough water on his acres to allow the bio-solids to seep down.
Lapadula also invites anyone to ask him questions about bio-solid spreading, or to come to see the operation. He says use of the waste is safe. "Especially with the oversight I get from all the governing bodies that have control, there's virtually no way it would contaminate it."
Posted: Friday August 20th, 2004, 6:38 PM
Last Updated: Friday August 20th, 2004, 6:38 PM
Click here for Streaming Video on Demand -- http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/story/4886916p-4940459c.html
Tons of waste are disposed on remote Kern County fields, supporters say it's good recycling -- critics worry about ground-water contamination. Kern County rules allow the use of only the most highly-treated waste, but the concerns continue.
"Why take a chance?" says Kern Water Agency Board Director Gene Lundquist. He tells 29 Eyewitness News the agency supports waste disposal only on the west side of the county, since there are no underground water supplies there.
State Senator Dean Florez has scheduled a September hearing on waste dumping, he's worried about so much being brought from places like Los Angeles County.
"Without us, the L.A. basin has very few alternatives," Honeybucket Farms General Manager Ben Lapadula tells 29 Eyewitness News. His company farms 2,000 acres west of Delano, spreading some 50-thousand tons a year of "bio-solids."
That's treated material from sewer treatment plants, and much of it does come from L.A. Lapadula says the bio-solids improve marginal soil so crops like cattle feed can be grown.
Lapadula says the bio-solids are treated to remove pathogens, and the material is monitored for pollutants and metals. The farm also tests the bio-solids and the soil. Lapadula says the practice improves farm land without using other fertilizers.
Lapadula says spreading bio-solids is the best way to dispose of them. He says the material can't be dumped in the oceans. Putting it in land-fills only concentrates the material, and burning bio-solids would contaminate the air.
But, Senator Florez wants to require review of air and water quality impacts from waste materials brought in from other counties. He's worried about a recent incident where "green waste" was brought up from Los Angeles. Trash was mixed in with the grass and branches, and Florez says that could contain contaminants that could seep down into ground-water supplies.
Florez has scheduled a hearing September 23rd in Delano. "It will be an investigative hearing," Florez tells 29 Eyewitness. "The focus will be bringing in the waste haulers and asking them tough questions."
Florez intends to introduce legislation that would lower the level of trash allowed in "green waste," and require review of air and water quality impacts from debris brought in from other counties.
The water agency's Lundquist says every precaution should be taken to protect local groundwater from contamination. "It may show up next year in the groundwater, or maybe 50 years."
Lapadula insists the bio-solids his farm uses are safe for groundwater. He says groundwater there is very deep, and he doesn't put enough water on his acres to allow the bio-solids to seep down.
Lapadula also invites anyone to ask him questions about bio-solid spreading, or to come to see the operation. He says use of the waste is safe. "Especially with the oversight I get from all the governing bodies that have control, there's virtually no way it would contaminate it."
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Lawmaker stands up against Illegal Dumping
Lawmaker's hearing to probe waste dumping in Kern County
CHRISTINE BEDELL, Californian staff writere-mail: cbedell@bakersfield.com
A local lawmaker plans to haul out-of-town waste dumpers into a hearing to explain how they are protecting the air and water of Kern County. Even more ambitiously, he wants to seek a statewide ban on the spreading of sewage sludge, perhaps even the limited kind Kern County allows.
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, announced his plans Friday. They come as Kern officials try to force the clean-up of debris-strewn Southern California greenwaste they say was illegally dumped west of Delano.
Florez also is reacting to years-long but now more loudly expressed concern by Kern County Water Agency officials that Los Angeles-area sludge, or biosolids, is being spread too close to groundwater aquifers.
Sewage sludge is a mix of treated human and industrial waste used as fertilizer on non-edible crops. Water Agency officials are working with Kern County supervisors and Southern California sludge generators on plans to move biosolids-spreading sites further west in Kern County, away from usable groundwater supplies.
"We need to know we're being protected, our water is being protected," Florez said.
Florez said he will hold an "investigative hearing" in Delano Sept. 23 to get more information about the dumping of Los Angeles-area waste in Kern County.
He said participants will include officials with the State Integrated Waste Management Board, the Kern County Environmental Health Department, local landowners and a company called Los Angeles Waste Industries.
For more than a year, Environmental Health officials have tried to get the company to clean up thousands of cubic yards of greenwaste west of Delano that includes lumber, clothing, metal, plaster, glass and food waste.
Kern County Environmental Health Director Steve McCalley said he didn't yet know enough about the hearing to say whether it'd be of value.
"I don't know if there's a role for Mr. Florez per se except maybe to educate the public," McCalley said.
Laszlo Lencse, general manager of Los Angeles Waste Industries, said he'll have a representative at the hearing. He denied he's illegally dumped.
McCalley said new state legislation might help Kern County crack down on illegal dumping; Florez said he plans to introduce some.
They include lowering the level of trash and debris California allows in greenwaste and banning state credits to companies that reduce the amount of garbage going to their local landfills by, perhaps illegally, dumping the waste in other communities that don't want it.
Florez said he knows it could be tough but he also wants to make the state's biosolids regulations stricter than the federal government's.
That includes banning the spreading of both Class A and Class B biosolids. Class A is more extensively treated to remove elements that many scientists believe are hazardous.
Already, Kern County only allows a type of Class A sludge called "Kern County exceptional quality." That contains even fewer contaminants than regular Class A. It's not clear whether that, too, would be disallowed.
Right now, Bakersfield spreads sludge from its sewage treatment plant -- sludge that is rated Class B -- on land it owns on the far southwest reaches of the city.
But that practice would be affected by the proposed Florez bill.
Florez said he thinks he can negotiate with Southern California officials on these issues in part because they want to make water-supply deals with Kern County.
Florez
Copyright, 2004, The Bakersfield Californian
CHRISTINE BEDELL, Californian staff writere-mail: cbedell@bakersfield.com
A local lawmaker plans to haul out-of-town waste dumpers into a hearing to explain how they are protecting the air and water of Kern County. Even more ambitiously, he wants to seek a statewide ban on the spreading of sewage sludge, perhaps even the limited kind Kern County allows.
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, announced his plans Friday. They come as Kern officials try to force the clean-up of debris-strewn Southern California greenwaste they say was illegally dumped west of Delano.
Florez also is reacting to years-long but now more loudly expressed concern by Kern County Water Agency officials that Los Angeles-area sludge, or biosolids, is being spread too close to groundwater aquifers.
Sewage sludge is a mix of treated human and industrial waste used as fertilizer on non-edible crops. Water Agency officials are working with Kern County supervisors and Southern California sludge generators on plans to move biosolids-spreading sites further west in Kern County, away from usable groundwater supplies.
"We need to know we're being protected, our water is being protected," Florez said.
Florez said he will hold an "investigative hearing" in Delano Sept. 23 to get more information about the dumping of Los Angeles-area waste in Kern County.
He said participants will include officials with the State Integrated Waste Management Board, the Kern County Environmental Health Department, local landowners and a company called Los Angeles Waste Industries.
For more than a year, Environmental Health officials have tried to get the company to clean up thousands of cubic yards of greenwaste west of Delano that includes lumber, clothing, metal, plaster, glass and food waste.
Kern County Environmental Health Director Steve McCalley said he didn't yet know enough about the hearing to say whether it'd be of value.
"I don't know if there's a role for Mr. Florez per se except maybe to educate the public," McCalley said.
Laszlo Lencse, general manager of Los Angeles Waste Industries, said he'll have a representative at the hearing. He denied he's illegally dumped.
McCalley said new state legislation might help Kern County crack down on illegal dumping; Florez said he plans to introduce some.
They include lowering the level of trash and debris California allows in greenwaste and banning state credits to companies that reduce the amount of garbage going to their local landfills by, perhaps illegally, dumping the waste in other communities that don't want it.
Florez said he knows it could be tough but he also wants to make the state's biosolids regulations stricter than the federal government's.
That includes banning the spreading of both Class A and Class B biosolids. Class A is more extensively treated to remove elements that many scientists believe are hazardous.
Already, Kern County only allows a type of Class A sludge called "Kern County exceptional quality." That contains even fewer contaminants than regular Class A. It's not clear whether that, too, would be disallowed.
Right now, Bakersfield spreads sludge from its sewage treatment plant -- sludge that is rated Class B -- on land it owns on the far southwest reaches of the city.
But that practice would be affected by the proposed Florez bill.
Florez said he thinks he can negotiate with Southern California officials on these issues in part because they want to make water-supply deals with Kern County.
Florez
Copyright, 2004, The Bakersfield Californian
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Utilities hinder cow power plans, dairy owners tell lawmakers
August 12, 2004
By VIC POLLARD, Californian Sacramento Bureau
e-mail: vpollard@bakersfield.com
SACRAMENTO -- A single dairy cow can power two 100-watt light bulbs, but Pacific Gas and Electric Co. doesn't want the competition, lawmakers were told Wednesday.
Dairy owners said resistance from PG&E and other utilities is largely to blame for the fact that less than a dozen California dairies have begun converting their manure into electricity in recent years.
Attorneys for the utilities insisted the blame is misplaced.
"We want to make the program work," said the utility's senior environmental attorney, John Busterud.
The exchange came at a hearing called by state Sen. Dean Florez on ways to reduce air pollution in the Central Valley by speeding up the use of small generating systems on the rapidly growing number of dairies.
Clean air regulators say methane, ammonia and other gases produced by dairy waste contribute to air pollution, although they are not sure exactly how much.
Methane also is a greenhouse gas that contributes to the deterioration of the earth's protective ozone layer, scientists say.
Dairies can capture the smelly methane and other gases produced by decaying manure and urine and use it to run an internal combustion engine that generates electricity.
Experts at the hearing said cows produce enough "biogas" daily, to generate 200 watts of electricity. A herd of 1,000 can often produce more than enough energy to run the dairy.
Environmentalists and government officials have tried for years to promote the use of biogas conversion for both energy and air quality reasons.
Three years ago, the state provided $10 million to help install the systems on dairies, but nearly a third of the money went unused, one dairy industry official testified. The systems can cost anywhere from $300,000 to more than $4 million, a Senate air quality committee was told.
But less than a dozen have been installed, although a number of others are on the verge of completion, witnesses said.
Witnesses said laws and regulations are needed to streamline the program.
But Mark Moser, whose firm RCM Digesters installs the systems, said, "The single largest barrier in the state currently is the utilities."
He and other witnesses said PG&E regularly takes months to respond to requests to inspect and hook up the systems to its distribution system and imposes arbitrary restrictions and fees.
"They don't really support other people in the business," Moser said. "It's their party and they don't want anyone else to participate."
That's not true, said PG&E's Busterud. He said taking electricity from dairies and the rapidly growing number of other small generation systems does not hurt the utility.
"We are held economically harmless," he said.
After the hearing, PG&E public relations officials called reporters, saying there's another reason for delays in hooking up dairies that was overlooked in the hearing.
Spokeswoman Jann Taber said crews are overwhelmed with a recent explosion in private generating systems using wind, solar and other forms of energy.
"We get about 300 of them a month," she said. "The same crews have to do all of those."
By VIC POLLARD, Californian Sacramento Bureau
e-mail: vpollard@bakersfield.com
SACRAMENTO -- A single dairy cow can power two 100-watt light bulbs, but Pacific Gas and Electric Co. doesn't want the competition, lawmakers were told Wednesday.
Dairy owners said resistance from PG&E and other utilities is largely to blame for the fact that less than a dozen California dairies have begun converting their manure into electricity in recent years.
Attorneys for the utilities insisted the blame is misplaced.
"We want to make the program work," said the utility's senior environmental attorney, John Busterud.
The exchange came at a hearing called by state Sen. Dean Florez on ways to reduce air pollution in the Central Valley by speeding up the use of small generating systems on the rapidly growing number of dairies.
Clean air regulators say methane, ammonia and other gases produced by dairy waste contribute to air pollution, although they are not sure exactly how much.
Methane also is a greenhouse gas that contributes to the deterioration of the earth's protective ozone layer, scientists say.
Dairies can capture the smelly methane and other gases produced by decaying manure and urine and use it to run an internal combustion engine that generates electricity.
Experts at the hearing said cows produce enough "biogas" daily, to generate 200 watts of electricity. A herd of 1,000 can often produce more than enough energy to run the dairy.
Environmentalists and government officials have tried for years to promote the use of biogas conversion for both energy and air quality reasons.
Three years ago, the state provided $10 million to help install the systems on dairies, but nearly a third of the money went unused, one dairy industry official testified. The systems can cost anywhere from $300,000 to more than $4 million, a Senate air quality committee was told.
But less than a dozen have been installed, although a number of others are on the verge of completion, witnesses said.
Witnesses said laws and regulations are needed to streamline the program.
But Mark Moser, whose firm RCM Digesters installs the systems, said, "The single largest barrier in the state currently is the utilities."
He and other witnesses said PG&E regularly takes months to respond to requests to inspect and hook up the systems to its distribution system and imposes arbitrary restrictions and fees.
"They don't really support other people in the business," Moser said. "It's their party and they don't want anyone else to participate."
That's not true, said PG&E's Busterud. He said taking electricity from dairies and the rapidly growing number of other small generation systems does not hurt the utility.
"We are held economically harmless," he said.
After the hearing, PG&E public relations officials called reporters, saying there's another reason for delays in hooking up dairies that was overlooked in the hearing.
Spokeswoman Jann Taber said crews are overwhelmed with a recent explosion in private generating systems using wind, solar and other forms of energy.
"We get about 300 of them a month," she said. "The same crews have to do all of those."
Cows willing, but power flow slow
By ERIC STERN
BEE CAPITOL BUREAU
August 12, 2004
SACRAMENTO -- During the 2001 state energy shortage, lawmakers passed a $10 million emergency measure to convert methane-packed manure from dairy farms into electricity.
But three years later, only two of the 14 approved projects are up and running -- and that was only in recent months, according to testimony presented Wednesday at a state Senate hearing. In fact, $2.8 million in unused funds was returned to the state.
It wasn't for a lack of interest.
"We have a number of projects that are right on the cusp," said Mike Marsh, chief executive officer of the Modesto-based Western United Dairymen, which helped administer the state grants.
Dairy farmers and biogas operators complained Wednesday of a sluggish response from utility companies to connect dairies to the energy grid. The hearing was a joint session of the Senate Select Committee on Air Quality in the Central Valley and the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.
"They don't really support other people in the business," said Mark Moser of RCM Digesters.
He took aim at Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for creating a "dysfunctional" system of red tape that led to long and ongoing delays for dairies still trying to tap into cow power.
"I can't get straight answers out of them," Moser said.
Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, called the hearing to accelerate the projects and criticized utilities for a "cavalier" approach to the biogas concept.
John Busterud, senior environmental counsel for PG&E, responded that his company "strongly supports" methane digesters as an alternative energy source. But he acknowledged, "We have room for improvement in the area of hookups."
Carl Morris, general manager of Joseph Gallo Farms in Atwater, told the committee that a company dairy has been generating manure-based power for the past three weeks -- about eight months behind schedule.
He said it took 16 months of talks with PG&E for approval.
"It's time-consuming and costly," he said.
The state awarded Gallo Farms a $600,000 grant to pay for 50 percent of the project, although cost overruns put Gallo's share closer to 75 percent, Morris said.
"We went way over budget," he said.
Though start-up costs are high, cow power can translate into huge savings: One cow equals two light bulbs, energy experts say.
A covered manure lagoon at the Gallo dairy now provides 25 percent of the energy needed to run a cheese production plant, Morris said.
Morris said he was anxious to get the methane digester operational. With the delays, he said the farm was losing $1,000 a day in potential savings.
Florez said he will hold a similar hearing next year to check on the progress of other dairies trying to set up biogas systems.
Bee Capitol Bureau reporter Eric Stern can be reached at 916-326-5544 or estern@modbee.com.
BEE CAPITOL BUREAU
August 12, 2004
SACRAMENTO -- During the 2001 state energy shortage, lawmakers passed a $10 million emergency measure to convert methane-packed manure from dairy farms into electricity.
But three years later, only two of the 14 approved projects are up and running -- and that was only in recent months, according to testimony presented Wednesday at a state Senate hearing. In fact, $2.8 million in unused funds was returned to the state.
It wasn't for a lack of interest.
"We have a number of projects that are right on the cusp," said Mike Marsh, chief executive officer of the Modesto-based Western United Dairymen, which helped administer the state grants.
Dairy farmers and biogas operators complained Wednesday of a sluggish response from utility companies to connect dairies to the energy grid. The hearing was a joint session of the Senate Select Committee on Air Quality in the Central Valley and the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.
"They don't really support other people in the business," said Mark Moser of RCM Digesters.
He took aim at Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for creating a "dysfunctional" system of red tape that led to long and ongoing delays for dairies still trying to tap into cow power.
"I can't get straight answers out of them," Moser said.
Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, called the hearing to accelerate the projects and criticized utilities for a "cavalier" approach to the biogas concept.
John Busterud, senior environmental counsel for PG&E, responded that his company "strongly supports" methane digesters as an alternative energy source. But he acknowledged, "We have room for improvement in the area of hookups."
Carl Morris, general manager of Joseph Gallo Farms in Atwater, told the committee that a company dairy has been generating manure-based power for the past three weeks -- about eight months behind schedule.
He said it took 16 months of talks with PG&E for approval.
"It's time-consuming and costly," he said.
The state awarded Gallo Farms a $600,000 grant to pay for 50 percent of the project, although cost overruns put Gallo's share closer to 75 percent, Morris said.
"We went way over budget," he said.
Though start-up costs are high, cow power can translate into huge savings: One cow equals two light bulbs, energy experts say.
A covered manure lagoon at the Gallo dairy now provides 25 percent of the energy needed to run a cheese production plant, Morris said.
Morris said he was anxious to get the methane digester operational. With the delays, he said the farm was losing $1,000 a day in potential savings.
Florez said he will hold a similar hearing next year to check on the progress of other dairies trying to set up biogas systems.
Bee Capitol Bureau reporter Eric Stern can be reached at 916-326-5544 or estern@modbee.com.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Extensive legislative investigation?
Legislature has a chance to improve investigative record
By Dan Walters
Sacramento Bee Columnist
(Published August 11, 2004)
The Legislature reacted with uncommon speed when allegations surfaced in thelate 1990s that Chuck Quackenbush, the state insurance commissioner and a potential Republican candidate for governor, was making under-the-tabledeals with insurance companies.
The Legislature, controlled by Democrats, launched the most extensive legislative investigation in recent history, delving deeply into insurers'payments to private foundations, in lieu of official fines, for mishandling claims.
The foundation payments were spent in ways that raised Quackenbush's political profile. Ultimately, after trial-like legislative hearings,Quackenbush resigned in disgrace. Did the Quackenbush case herald a new and long-overdue era of activeoversight by the Legislature, as its leaders insisted, pointing proudly toits bipartisan nature?
Apparently not, because a couple of years later, theDemocratic leaders tried to bury a detailed investigation of a $100 millionsoftware contract the Gray Davis administration awarded to the Oracle Corp under unusual, even inexplicable, circumstances.
One Democratic lawmaker, Dean Florez, stubbornly insisted on delving into the Oracle matter (which included a $25,000 campaign contribution to Democrat Davis), bucking interference from legislative leaders.
The same double standard of legislative justice has been evident in thehandling of other potential scandals as well.
The Legislature refused, for example, to probe irregularities in how millions of dollars inimmigrant-assistance funds were spent. The Department of Education shoveledmoney to groups that were supposed to be conducting educational programs forimmigrants, but when career civil servants raised questions about whetherthe money was being spent for its intended purposes, they - not the recipients of the money - were chastised by their political bosses.
The Legislature now has another opportunity to prove that its investigative zeal isn't confined to the actions of Republican officeholders such as Quackenbush because another statewide official, Secretary of State KevinShelley, finds himself under a cloud.
The San Francisco Chronicle, in an exhaustively researched article, reportedthis week that Democrat Shelley, a former San Francisco legislator, received$100,000 in campaign funds from individuals and companies that had been paidalmost identical amounts from a state grant that Shelley had championed.
The grant was to build a community center that was, in fact, never constructed.Shelley denies any knowledge of the interrelated transactions, and sayshe'll return any funds that were improperly funneled into his campaign treasury - and the FBI says it is looking into the case. But that shouldn'tstop the Legislature from conducting its own inquiry, because the chain ofevents involves the state Department of Parks and Recreation.
The money in question was a small piece of the many millions of dollars theLegislature lavished on local pork barrel projects in 2000, as the statetreasury bulged with income tax revenues. Legislators lined up to getgoodies for their constituents, and among them was Shelley, then a state assemblyman from San Francisco, who got $500,000 earmarked for the community center. As the Chronicle reported, the parks and recreation agency approved payments totaling $492,500 to the nonprofit San Francisco Neighbors Resource Center after accepting misleading, perhaps even fraudulent, documentsindicating that the work had been completed. Shelley, the newspaperreported, has extensive political ties to the recipients of the bond money.
The Legislature should order an audit of where the money went and demand facts about parks and recreation's approval. Was it bureaucratic bungling,or was pressure exerted through the politically appointed parks hierarchy -its director at the time was former Assemblyman Rusty Areias - to accept thescant documentation that the group submitted?
There are hints of the Quackenbush and Oracle scandals in the Shelley affair- of public money going into someone's pocket under mysterious, politicallycharged circumstances - as well as the immigrant-education scandal. Will theLegislature conduct real oversight, or once again overlook some seriously suspicious events?
By Dan Walters
Sacramento Bee Columnist
(Published August 11, 2004)
The Legislature reacted with uncommon speed when allegations surfaced in thelate 1990s that Chuck Quackenbush, the state insurance commissioner and a potential Republican candidate for governor, was making under-the-tabledeals with insurance companies.
The Legislature, controlled by Democrats, launched the most extensive legislative investigation in recent history, delving deeply into insurers'payments to private foundations, in lieu of official fines, for mishandling claims.
The foundation payments were spent in ways that raised Quackenbush's political profile. Ultimately, after trial-like legislative hearings,Quackenbush resigned in disgrace. Did the Quackenbush case herald a new and long-overdue era of activeoversight by the Legislature, as its leaders insisted, pointing proudly toits bipartisan nature?
Apparently not, because a couple of years later, theDemocratic leaders tried to bury a detailed investigation of a $100 millionsoftware contract the Gray Davis administration awarded to the Oracle Corp under unusual, even inexplicable, circumstances.
One Democratic lawmaker, Dean Florez, stubbornly insisted on delving into the Oracle matter (which included a $25,000 campaign contribution to Democrat Davis), bucking interference from legislative leaders.
The same double standard of legislative justice has been evident in thehandling of other potential scandals as well.
The Legislature refused, for example, to probe irregularities in how millions of dollars inimmigrant-assistance funds were spent. The Department of Education shoveledmoney to groups that were supposed to be conducting educational programs forimmigrants, but when career civil servants raised questions about whetherthe money was being spent for its intended purposes, they - not the recipients of the money - were chastised by their political bosses.
The Legislature now has another opportunity to prove that its investigative zeal isn't confined to the actions of Republican officeholders such as Quackenbush because another statewide official, Secretary of State KevinShelley, finds himself under a cloud.
The San Francisco Chronicle, in an exhaustively researched article, reportedthis week that Democrat Shelley, a former San Francisco legislator, received$100,000 in campaign funds from individuals and companies that had been paidalmost identical amounts from a state grant that Shelley had championed.
The grant was to build a community center that was, in fact, never constructed.Shelley denies any knowledge of the interrelated transactions, and sayshe'll return any funds that were improperly funneled into his campaign treasury - and the FBI says it is looking into the case. But that shouldn'tstop the Legislature from conducting its own inquiry, because the chain ofevents involves the state Department of Parks and Recreation.
The money in question was a small piece of the many millions of dollars theLegislature lavished on local pork barrel projects in 2000, as the statetreasury bulged with income tax revenues. Legislators lined up to getgoodies for their constituents, and among them was Shelley, then a state assemblyman from San Francisco, who got $500,000 earmarked for the community center. As the Chronicle reported, the parks and recreation agency approved payments totaling $492,500 to the nonprofit San Francisco Neighbors Resource Center after accepting misleading, perhaps even fraudulent, documentsindicating that the work had been completed. Shelley, the newspaperreported, has extensive political ties to the recipients of the bond money.
The Legislature should order an audit of where the money went and demand facts about parks and recreation's approval. Was it bureaucratic bungling,or was pressure exerted through the politically appointed parks hierarchy -its director at the time was former Assemblyman Rusty Areias - to accept thescant documentation that the group submitted?
There are hints of the Quackenbush and Oracle scandals in the Shelley affair- of public money going into someone's pocket under mysterious, politicallycharged circumstances - as well as the immigrant-education scandal. Will theLegislature conduct real oversight, or once again overlook some seriously suspicious events?
