CRA President Ken Mettler filed for a run at the 32nd Assembly District yesterday, creating an immediate vacancy for that position according to that body’s bylaws. However, prior to him returning all the necessary paperwork, an aborted attempt was made to amend the rules to allow a candidate for office or an elected official to concurrently serve as an officer of the CRA. In other words, if it passed, Mettler could remain President while running for—and serving in—the Assembly, opening the door for a future president or board to inject politics into the volunteer-run CRA. 

The existing Article VII, Section 7.02(b) states: 

No officer of the CRA shall be a candidate for, or hold, any partisan, elected public office, other than an office within the Republican Party. In the event that an officer becomes a candidate for such office, the officer’s CRA position shall be automatically vacant.

At CRA’s convention last weekend, a proposed bylaw amendment was circulated—without any mention of Mettler’s decision to file thus creating a vacancy per Article VII, Section 7.02(b)—that would replace the above language with: 

No person shall be automatically disqualified from holding a CRA office because he holds a public office or is a candidate for public office. However, the Board of Directors may remove any CRA officer from his position at any Board meeting if that officer holds a public office (or if the officer has officially registered to become a candidate for such office) if the Board determines that the officer’s public duties or candidacy might interfere with the officer’s ability to exercise independent judgment and perform the officer’s CRA duties. 

Mettler could have his cake and eat it, too. That’s all fine and good, until a future board decides that they don’t like the president/candidate/officeholder and decides to oust him from the presidency under the auspices of the last provision, which grants the board the discretion to determine if his non-CRA functions “might interfere with…independent judgment” or the performance of his CRA duties. 

Discretion is power, and power is maximally exerted for short-term gain in politics. If that holds true for the CRA, as it does everywhere else, then it sets up a potential power struggle between the board and the president, for the power will flow in both directions. 

An elected official that concurrently presides over the CRA is practically invited to exert pressure on the board for his personal gain. Not that Mettler would do that, but future CRA presidents might not be as benevolent as he. 

In defense of the proposed amendment, it would have decreased the likelihood of a potential power struggle somewhat by prohibiting such a president from calling or participating in local endorsing conventions, but that wouldn’t be enough to offset all the perils introduced by it. 

Someone must have thought better of the whole thing, for it was removed after making it out of the bylaw committee and before being considered by the convention, and Mettler has now officially vacated his position. 

Bylaws dictate that his successor will be one of his vice presidents, and the CRA has called a special board meeting for March 27th to fill the vacancy. 

California students are angry. Everyone from elementary school students who have less access to technology to Cal students who face higher tuition and fewer resources to go around are joining together in protests around the state to voice their frustration with budget cuts to California’s public schools over the last three years. California students have good reason to be upset - the promise of a quality public education that will equip them with the essential skills to compete in a global marketplace is slowly slipping away. Most often, it is politicians in Sacramento who are targeted by these protests; it is easy to blame the individuals who decide on the education budget each year. California politicians, however, are not the root cause of budget cuts for education. I’d argue instead that it is the teachers unions that are primarily responsible for missed opportunities to fund California’s public education.

Statistics prove that California lags behind the rest of the nation in terms of per-pupil spending. According to a report published by the California Teachers Association (CTA), California ranked 47^th in the nation for per-pupil spending in 2009 at $7,571, over $2,000 below the national average. This is even more dramatic considering that California spent $9,124 per-pupil in 2007 – approximately $2,000 decrease over two years. Even though in a previous post I argued that increased education spending is not a panacea for California’s educational achievement woes, increased spending – used strategically – increases access to resources and improves student outcomes.

Even though the state of California is finding it difficult to fund the public school system directly, there was federal funding available ($4.3 Billion overall) in the Obama administration’s Race to the Top program. According to the official RTTT website this initiative rewards schools that, “are leading the way with ambitious yet achievable plans for implementing coherent, compelling, and comprehensive education reform.” The target areas of this initiative include such reforms as adopting standards and assessments that help prepare students to compete in a global economy, building data systems to measure student achievement, recruiting and developing effective teachers, and turning around the lowest performing schools.

Even though it has the largest school system in the United States, the state of California did not receive a dime of federal funding from the Race to the Top program. The reason California was denied funding is simple: lack of support from the California Teachers’ Unions. Fighting tooth and nail, union leaders forced the State Assembly to make many concessions on the education reform package that passed in January. Frustrated by the watered-down reform and contention with RTTT mandates, many California school districts did not sign-on to the RTTT application. Other states (Kentucky) that did receive funding in phase 1 of the program had all of their school districts support the program. Lack of alignment around education reform is hurting public education in California.

According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 6^th, Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers, even said he wasn't sorry that California lost the first round. The main point of contention is the use of test scores to evaluate teacher effectiveness and foster merit pay. Here is what the California Teachers’ Association had to say on this matter on their website regarding RTTT:

“Unfortunately, the RTTT proposal reveals that this administration is repeating the past mistakes of NCLB, including an over-reliance on test scores as an accurate measure of student achievement and support for interventions that do not have a track record of success, such as unregulated charter schools and compensation tied to test scores.”

At this time there is very little a school system in California can do to reward the best teachers and identify and dismiss the underperforming teachers. If anything, teachers are overprotected by the teachers’ unions and students are forced to attend class with substandard instruction. In fact, public school teachers can receive tenure after only TWO years in the classroom under Proposition 71, which has been a law in California since 1921. After that time, teachers can only be dismissed for “just cause” such as unsatisfactory performance or misconduct, but includes nothing about low student achievement as grounds for dismissal. Further, once tenured teachers receive a tenure raise each year with no consideration given for educational outcomes of their students. No matter how dedicated a teacher is to building knowledge in his/her students this proposition alone misplaces incentives and breeds mediocrity in the public schools.  

There are many pros and cons in the debate on merit pay for public school teachers, see both sides of the argument here: http://k6educators.about.com/od/assessmentandtesting/a/meritypay.htm

In the end, teachers are delivering a product. Just like a car manufacturer gets compensated for the quality of their cars, teachers should get compensated – at least in part – by the quality of individuals they produce. Clearly there are many factors that influence the success of a single child over their lifetime, but to ignore the importance of incentivizing teachers to give their best to students is a mistake. I find the unwillingness of California teachers’ unions to support merit pay and Race to the Top funding a selfish move that sacrifices the quality of education of the entire system to protect a special interest group (bad teachers). If we are looking for people to blame for compromising the future of California’s youngsters, it’s not the politicians in Sacramento, but instead the teachers’ unions that shelter underperforming teachers.

If these past four weeks of the candidates filing period has gone silly, then this latest surrounding the race for Los Angeles County Assessor has gone overboard.

My source has confirmed that former State Assemblyman Ed Chavez (D-La Puente, District 57) has pulled his nomination papers for County Assessor.

As you all may recall my RedCounty post way back on August 21, 2008 about Mr. Chavez running for another office entitled "Former Assemblyman Ed Chavez...runs for local office...again!" 

Though, Mr. Chavez did managed to win a second local office in 2008 on the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Board of Directors after a defeat in 2007 for the Mt. San Antonio College Board of Trustees.

Now, Mr. Chavez keeps on shopping for another local office and this time he wants to run for Los Angeles County Assessor, which will make it the third run...or as I would call it a thrice run.

The current Los Angeles County Assessor Rick Auerbach has decided months ago not to seek re-election. 

As of date, there are five candidates who have already filed their nomination papers for the already crowded race for Los Angeles County Assessor:  John Dortch, Adrian Gomez, Charles Hahn, Krish Kumar, and John Loew.

Mr. Chavez is amazing, because the man keeps on running for different local offices in Los Angeles County.

We will be glad that once the filing period ends...the silly season ends as well!

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has complied a very interesting report detailing over $1 Billion was spent in the past ten years by special interest groups to influence California's voters and elected officials.

The report, “Big Money Talks,” details the staggering amounts of money these interest groups spent on candidates, ballot measures and lobbying efforts, since electronic filing went into effect in 2000.  Included in this list are six corporations, three Indian tribes, two labor unions and four business associations. 

“This tsunami of special interest spending drowns out the voices of average voters, and intimidates political opponents and elected officials alike," said FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson. 

These five interests are responsible for over half of the $1 billion spent by the top 15: 

·         California Teachers Association—$211,849,298

·         California State Council of Service Employees—$107,467,272

·         Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America—$104,912,997

·         Morongo Band of Mission Indians—$83,600,438

·         Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians—$69,298,909

“The message from special interests is unmistakable—that they're willing to spend millions of dollars to protect their narrow interests," Johnson continued.  “The spending also serves as a warning to officeholders:  'Don't forget, we can use our money to help or hurt you.  Think about it.'” 

The complete report is available on the Commission’s website and the list follows. 

The Top 15 That Spent $1 Billion to Influence California Voters and Public Officials

1)    California Teachers Association                                  $   211,849,298

2)    California State Council of Service Employees         $   107,467,272

3)    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America              $   104,912,997

4)    Morongo Band of Mission Indians                                 $     83,600,438

5)    Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians                              $     69,298,909

6)    Pacific Gas & Electric Company                                    $     69,240,759

7)    Chevron Corporation                                                         $     66,257,132

8)    AT&T Inc.                                                                              $     59,619,677

9)    Philip Morris USA Inc.                                                        $     50,756,360

10)  Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians                        $     49,078,448

11)  Southern California Edison                                              $     43,412,031

12)  California Hospital Association                                      $     43,281,456

13)  California Chamber of Commerce                                $     39,065,861 

14)  Western States Petroleum Association                      $     35,214,325

15)  Aera Energy LLC                                                                $     34,671,163

Total of Top 15                                                                           $1,067,726,126

The Next Ten

16)  California Association of Realtors                                $     33,329,943

17)  Calif. Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n.                   $     32,452,083

18)  California School Employees Association                  $     31,861,749

19)  San Manuel Band of Mission Indians                            $     29,747,811

20)  Reynolds American Inc.                                                   $     29,213,942

21)  Pala Band of Mission Indians                                          $     24,021,356

22)  United Auburn Indian Community                                   $     24,019,877

23)  California Medical Association                                       $     23,064,218

24)  Anthem Blue Cross                                                            $     21,993,466

25)  Consumer Attorneys of California                                  $     21,294,921

Total of Next 10                                                                   $270,999,366

GRAND TOTAL OF ALL 25                                                 $1,338,725,492

Another Blue County has signed on to RedCounty in order to bring a much needed perspective to Contra Costa.  Contra Costa is one of the original counties established in 1850. Its' landmark is Mt. Diablo and its' name means the "opposite coast."  

Our Contra Costa Editor, Wendy Lack, is sure to bring an opposite perspective to our readers.  In her first post, she takes on the establishment within the GOP and hopes to find a new Central Committee Chairman that will restore fiscal responsibility, transparency and voter registration in her county.  

Wendy states:  "With luck the incoming CCRP chairman will understand the importance of building strong relationships with a diverse spectrum of individuals throughout the county.  The 2010 and 2012 elections are critical for the GOP; in blue-state Contra Costa the only way the GOP can win is by providing responsive solutions to voter worries about rising unemployment, higher taxes, increasing government regulation, growing government debt, continuing government budget deficits and underperforming schools and public agencies.  All voters that share these concerns – regardless of political affiliation – should be considered the GOP’s target market."

I would offer that Wendy's above statement transcends the boundaries of Contra Costa and are wise words for many Central Committee leaders across our once "Golden" State and our county network nationwide.  

At the beginning of last year, former Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi looked like the clear frontrunner for the Board of Equalization District 2 seat with a field clear of other elected officials and with his domination of slate mailers. Well, what a difference a year makes! Since then, Senator George Runner and former Assemblywoman Barbara Alby jumped in the race and have toppled Nakanishi from his perch.

It's only Wednesday, but this week alone, Runner captured the CRA endorsement (Nakanishi captured a whole 2.2% of the CRA vote), Alby gained the status of acting member of the Board of Equalization (due to the appointment of Bill Leonard to the Schwarzenegger Cabinet), and Nakanishi was caught using state resources for his campaign (Red County will have more on that in the near future).

Nakanishi lost his frontrunner status because he grew complacent. He thought having a few legislative endorsements and most of the slate mailers would be enough to win the race. Well, he was out-hustled and out-manuevered by Runner and Alby. Runner has been omnipresent throughout BOE District 2 and Alby has certainly shown up to her fair share of events. Indeed, Runner and Alby both attended a televised candidate forum in Ventura County, another candidate forum in Placer County, and a Sacramento CRA meeting, yet Nakanishi was not at any of those events.

Runner has gained parity with Nakanishi in slate mailers, and at this point in the campaign, Runner has raised the most money, spent the most money, and still has the most cash on hand. Leonard's resignation to work for Schwarzenegger has allowed Alby to capture an absolutely solid ballot designation as the acting BOE member.

Nakanishi has been virtually invisible on the campaign trail and was banking on his slates, money, ballot designation, and endorsements by politicians. Well, Runner has gained control of the money race, snagged half the slates, and gained virtually all the endorsements by organizations while Alby has overpowered Nakanishi's ballot designation; on top of that, voters who watched those three candidate forums I mentioned above (including that televised one) are probably assuming only Runner and Alby are in this race.

Nakanishi wields absolutely no advantage in any element of the BOE 2 race (well, possibly the ethnic vote, but Asians are only 3% of BOE 2 voters, and we don't even know how many of those Asians are Republican primary voters).

I am predicting now that Alan Nakanishi comes in third in the BOE 2 Primary on June 8.