Analysis: California Solar Panel Mandate Lowers Emissions by 0.32%

If the cost to a homeowner to add solar panels, mandated by the Confederate State of California, only costs $12,000, that really means, due to financing a cost of $24,000 added to the cost of a home.  Peanuts in California these days.  But it also takes away the right of homeowners to determine the type of energy to use.  Government is making a loser of wind turbines, biomass, oil and other alternative forms of energy.  Worse, it does nothing to save the Earth—or even a little farm in the Central Valley.

“Rooftop solar panels are a “much more expensive way of increasing renewables on the grid,” costing between 12.9 and 16.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, more than twice the cost of utility-scale solar systems, according to the report.

“By demonstrating a very expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, I think this could very likely be used in other states and countries as an argument against moving towards renewable energy,” Borenstein said.

The California Energy Commission claims the added costs to homes will be more than made up for in energy savings. If they save on electricity bills, however, it will be because customers who do not have solar panels are subsidizing them.

Yup, the cost of energy is more expensive—and those without solar will be paying LOTS more to subsidize your new home with solar.  In the real world that is called theft—demanded by government.  Another example of why California is so expensive—Sacramento wants the middle class out of California—and policies will push us out.

Solar panels

 

Analysis: California Solar Panel Mandate Lowers Emissions by 0.32%

Adds $12,000 to cost of every home

 

BY: Elizabeth Harrington, Washington Free Beacon,  5/10/18

California will mandate solar panels on new homes out of concern for climate change, a policy that will raise prices in the most expensive home market in the country and does little to decrease the state’s carbon footprint.

The five-member board of the California Energy Commission unanimously issued an edict Wednesday requiring all new homes to either be installed with solar panels or share solar power in a group system. The rules go into effect on Jan. 1, 2020.

The New York Times called California a “trendsetter” for the move, but expressed surprise that such a costly rule would be approved outside the legislative process by the commission with “little debate.”

“It will add thousands of dollars to the cost of home when a shortage of affordable housing is one of California’s most pressing issues,” the Times reported. “That made the relative ease of its approval—in a unanimous vote by the five-member California Energy Commission before a standing-room crowd, with little debate—all the more remarkable.”

“The requirement is expected to add $8,000 to $12,000 to the cost of a home,” the Times added.

The costs come to consumers already in a market where the median price of a single-family home is $565,000, one of the highest in the nation, the Wall Street Journal reported.

MIT Technology Review reported requiring every new home to have solar panels is a “feel-good change” that is both expensive and does little to reduce carbon emissions.

“A solar panel on every house might sound good, but it isn’t smart climate policy,” said James Temple, writing for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology magazine.

The “big problem” is cost, Temple said, citing Severin Borenstein, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Rooftop solar panels are a “much more expensive way of increasing renewables on the grid,” costing between 12.9 and 16.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, more than twice the cost of utility-scale solar systems, according to the report.

“By demonstrating a very expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, I think this could very likely be used in other states and countries as an argument against moving towards renewable energy,” Borenstein said.

The California Energy Commission claims the added costs to homes will be more than made up for in energy savings. If they save on electricity bills, however, it will be because customers who do not have solar panels are subsidizing them.

The savings are “effectively subsidized by other ratepayers without solar panels, net metering and solar tax credits,” according to Borenstein.

Furthermore, MIT reported emissions reduced by the government mandate would not make much of a difference for the state’s carbon footprint.

“California estimates that the new rule will cut emissions by 1.4 million metric tons over three years, which is a small fraction of the 440 million tons the state generated in 2015,” the report said.

Emissions would be reduced by 0.32 percent.

Where Are Big GOP Donors Giving in Governor’s Race? To Democrats

Why is the Republican Party not going to have a candidate on the ballot in November?  Because the donors of the Party have determined to donate to Tony V.  At the end of the day, in the future it will b easier for them to donate to Democrats in future elections—just as it will be easier for registered Republicans in the future vote for Democrats.  In the 2016 Senate race, I was called by Republican office holders asked to help Loretta Sanchez.  When Steve Glazer ran in the special election for the State Senate in the Contra Costa area, several Republican leaders asked me to come on Board.  In the last election Democrat Glazer did several supportive joint appearances with Republican Catherine baker—as if there are no political parties

Any wonder in five years the GOP has lost its one million registrant edge to Decline to State?

“A KQED News analysis of donors to the last two Republicans to advance in a gubernatorial general election — Meg Whitman and Neel Kashkari — shows that those contributors are sending more money to leading Democrats this time around.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has received at least $1.1 million from Whitman and Kashkari donors, while former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has taken home more than $1 million.

Cox and Allen both received less than $100,000 from these individuals and businesses.

Of course Kashkari lost to Brown in 2014—then Obama had him appointed to be the President of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.  Was he really a Republican?  Or was that a scam by Republican money people to stop a real Republican, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, from getting the nomination for Governor?

newsom

 

Where Are Big GOP Donors Giving in Governor’s Race? To Democrats

Guy Marzorati, KQED,  510/18

With less than a month to go until California’s top-two primary sends two gubernatorial candidates to the general election, Republicans face an imminent challenge: coalesce behind one candidate or risk a split vote that could allow two Democrats to advance to November’s ballot.

“We need to unite as a party,” said gubernatorial hopeful John Cox at last weekend’s state Republican Convention. “We need to make sure that we get a good candidate in the top two.”

Neither Cox, a San Diego businessman, nor his leading Republican opponent, Assemblyman Travis Allen, were able to leave the convention with a party endorsement.

But their difficulty in consolidating traditional Republican support has extended beyond a delegate count.

A KQED News analysis of donors to the last two Republicans to advance in a gubernatorial general election — Meg Whitman and Neel Kashkari — shows that those contributors are sending more money to leading Democrats this time around.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has received at least $1.1 million from Whitman and Kashkari donors, while former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has taken home more than $1 million.

Cox and Allen both received less than $100,000 from these individuals and businesses.

KQED News matched donations to Whitman and Kashkari reported to the Secretary of State’s Office with donations reported in the current gubernatorial campaign, from the beginning of 2015 through the end of the latest campaign filing period, on April 21.

The analysis does not include donations made to independent expenditure committees operating separately from the campaigns.

Like Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, and Kashkari, a former U.S. Treasury official, Cox has largely bankrolled his own campaign.

But he and Allen have struggled to gain support from major donors who backed Whitman’s campaign in 2010. Before losing to Jerry Brown, Whitman raised tens of millions of dollars on top of the roughly $140 million of her own fortune that she poured into her run.

“[Whitman] had a very large Rolodex,” said Hector Barajas, a Republican strategist who worked as Whitman’s campaign spokesman in 2010. “She had a personal connection to a lot of these folks within the tech, the banking, the financial institutions that she had built throughout her entire career.”

The absence of a Republican candidate with those wide business ties seems to have splintered traditional big GOP donors, and pushed them toward Newsom and Villaraigosa.

In Silicon Valley, Newsom has recruited the maximum allowed contributions from major Whitman backers, including $56,400 each from Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang and venture capitalist Peter Thiel.

Closer to his home turf, Villaraigosa has raised over $100,000 from Southern California philanthropists Eli Broad and Henry Samueli, who both gave heavily to Whitman. Villaraigosa also received nearly $30,000 from businessmen Harry Sloan and Robert Day, big players on the national GOP fundraising scene.

Unlike the leading Democrats, Cox and Allen have also been unable to tap into historically bipartisan givers like telecom giants, Indian tribes and health care providers, which typically spread their contributions among both parties.

The cash these donors gave to Whitman couldn’t get her within 10 points of Jerry Brown in the 2010 election.

Now, those same donors may be concluding that any money spent on a Republican candidate is a lost cause in a state where the party’s registration sits at just 25 percent of registered voters.

“Most of the Republican donors really aren’t contributing to Republican candidates anymore,” said Mike Madrid, a GOP consultant who is advising Villaraigosa in this race. “Because they, like most of the voters, recognize a Republican is not going to win the governorship in California.”

Madrid’s presence in Villaraigosa’s campaign has been one signal that the former mayor is trying to attract traditional Republican voters and donors.

Villaraigosa has tried to establish a consistent campaign presence in the traditionally Republican Central Valley, and he’s situated himself to the right of Newsom on issues like health care.

State Treasurer John Chiang, who is hoping to leapfrog into second place in the waning weeks of the campaign, has taken aim at Villaraigosa for receiving donations from Republicans.

“Antonio Villaraigosa has shown he doesn’t care whose name is on the check as long as it clears its way into his bank account,” said Fabien Levy, Chiang’s deputy campaign manager, in a press release this week.

Chiang has received at least $277,735 from Whitman and Kashkari donors.

“It’s a politician doing political things as their numbers get stalled in the low single digits,” Madrid said of Chiang’s attack.

Newsom and Villaraigosa entered the race months (in Newsom’s case, years) before Allen and Cox, building up war chests that leave the Republicans in a financial paradox.

Allen and Cox could both use an influx of cash for a final boost leading up to election day, but that financial infusion may not happen unless either shows an increased level of viability.

“People oftentimes wait to see who makes it through the primary,” said Barajas. “Then you start seeing some of these traditional Republican donors.”

Methodology

Donations to Whitman and Kashkari reported to the Secretary of State’s Office were matched with donations reported in the current gubernatorial campaign, from Jan. 1, 2015, through the end of the latest campaign filing period on April 21, 2018. Each match was then individually reviewed to ensure that it was coming from the same donor. Some entries under different names were consolidated if they came from the same organization, but contributions from employees of a business were left separate from the businesses’ own donations.

Kamala Harris Cancels as Cal Graduation Speaker–Supports Unions/Not Students

Senator Harris knows that young people vote in lower numbers than the rest of society.  Also, students and those just graduated do not have the money to donate to Presidential campaigns.  But, unions have lots of money—and all they had to do is steal it from the workers—supported in the theft by kamala Harris.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced Monday she will boycott the UC Berkeley graduation ceremony, where she was scheduled to deliver the keynote speech, due to a massive union-backed labor strike that forced the rescheduling of over 12,000 surgeries, cancer treatments, and appointments.

Harris tweeted, “If we are going to live up to our ideals as a nation, it’s critical we focus on economic equality and economic justice. One key is making sure everyone has access to a good job, with fair wages, and safe working conditions.”

She is teaching the students a valuable lesson—when in office sell out to the highest bidder—the special interests.  Harris knows how to raise money—by not meeting her commitments.  A Democrat of course.

800px-Kamala_Harris

Kamala Harris Cancels as Cal Graduation Speaker over Union Protests

 

by Adelle Nazarian, Breitbart CA,  5/9/18

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced Monday she will boycott the UC Berkeley graduation ceremony, where she was scheduled to deliver the keynote speech, due to a massive union-backed labor strike that forced the rescheduling of over 12,000 surgeries, cancer treatments, and appointments.

Harris tweeted, “If we are going to live up to our ideals as a nation, it’s critical we focus on economic equality and economic justice. One key is making sure everyone has access to a good job, with fair wages, and safe working conditions.”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, campus chancellor Carol Christ will address the nearly 6,000-strong graduating study body in Harris’s place at Cal’s Memorial Stadium Saturday morning.

UC Berkeley announced Monday: “We regretfully share the news that, after much consideration, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris has decided not to speak at Saturday’s commencement ceremony at UC Berkeley due to a UC-wide speaker boycott called by AFSCME Local 3299.”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “thousands of service workers with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, walked off the job at all 10 UC campuses Monday in protest of what they said was the University of California’s practice of hiring contractors and displacing longtime employees.”

The unions are reportedly demanding a multiyear contract with annual pay raises of 6%, no increase in healthcare premiums and continued full pension benefits at the retirement age of 60.

The Los Angeles Times noted that the walkout will likely expand on Tuesday with two other unions joining in on the strikes. “About 14,000 members of the California Nurses Assn., who work at UC’s medical centers and student health clinics, are set to walk off their jobs, along with 15,000 members of the University Professional & Technical Employees, who include pharmacists, clinical social workers, physical therapists, physician assistants and researchers,” wrote the Times.

Adelle Nazarian is a politics and national security reporter for Breitbart News. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

 

Santa Barbara Voters will be asked to approve cannabis taxes in June primary

Santa Barbara turned down one billion to allow oil drilling in the County.  It would have created hundreds of well paying jobs and tens of millions in revenues from the oil.  Instead, they prefer to tax pot and hope they make enough money to pay the bills.

“Voters in the June 5 primary will be asked to approve a tax on cannabis operations that could shore up Santa Barbara County’s sagging budget, helping to retain a variety of community services, as well as provide funds needed to pay for enforcement action against illegal marijuana operations.

County staff has estimated tax authorized by Measure T will pump between $5 million and $25 million into county coffers every year.

That is a big difference–$5 million or $25 million.  Looks like a prayer, not an educated prediction.  Government loves to lie—this appears to be another whopper.

Tax

Voters will be asked to approve cannabis taxes in June primary

Mike Hodgson, Santa Maria Times,  5/7/18

Will cannabis fill Santa Barbara County’s coffers with tax revenues? That will depend on a number of factors, starting with whether voters approve Measure T in the June 5 primary.

Voters in the June 5 primary will be asked to approve a tax on cannabis operations that could shore up Santa Barbara County’s sagging budget, helping to retain a variety of community services, as well as provide funds needed to pay for enforcement action against illegal marijuana operations.

County staff has estimated tax authorized by Measure T will pump between $5 million and $25 million into county coffers every year.

Proponents say the tax should be approved to ensure compliance with the county cannabis regulations and eliminate the black market that will try to operate outside those laws. As a general tax, it only requires a majority vote to pass, or 50 percent plus one vote.

“Santa Barbara County needs to tax cannabis growers and businesses to enforce our ordinance and fund other priorities, such as the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney’s Office, mental health services, public health and other general services,” says the Board of Supervisors’ argument in favor of Measure T2018 signed by Board Chairman and 1st District Supervisor Das Williams.

“Whether you agree with the legalization of cannabis or not, it is imperative that we tax the industry to ensure compliance and eradicate the black market.”

Opponents say the tax should be rejected because it is a general tax, and the revenues will go into the General Fund where it can be spent on anything with no guarantee it will be used for enforcement. They say it should be a special tax, which would require approval by two-thirds of the qualified voters in the county.

“Measure T is another new tax supposedly to be used mitigating public safety impacts from commercial pot-growers in our county,” says the argument opposing the measure, signed by 4th District Supervisor Peter Adam, Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association Executive Director Joe Armendariz, retired sheriff’s Sgt. Susan Brown and Montecito resident Tobe Plough.

“In fact, it’s another blank check to be spent on general county services. … Another blank check will result in more wasteful spending without the critical protections we taxpayers deserve.”

The opponents claim the county is facing a $50 million deficit because of misplaced spending priorities, and the cannabis tax revenues will be swallowed by the general fund and used to maintain the status quo.

The supervisors’ argument in favor of the tax rebuts that assertion: “Opponents will claim that the money will simply go into the General Fund. What they won’t tell you is that the General Fund is what funds the critical departments listed above.”

Death of taxes

One thing is certain: If the tax is not approved by voters in the June primary, the ordinances the Board of Supervisors have approved — or expect to approve — governing cannabis operations in Santa Barbara County will not go into effect.

That caveat was built into the ordinances when supervisors approved them, because without the tax, the county will lack money needed for enforcement.

Supervisors have not specified what steps they will take if the tax measure fails. But the board would only have until July 17 to authorize placing another tax measure on the Nov. 6 General Election ballot.

Another alternative would be to completely ban cannabis operations in the county, which would be difficult given the number already underway. It could also lead to liability claims and lawsuits.

Those in the cannabis industry say any failure to make the ordinances effective will push all existing operations into the black market, and without funding the county will be hard pressed to prevent the proliferation of illegal operations.

Many residents also say the inability of the county to provide adequate enforcement will likely leave them to endure the undesirable impacts of cannabis operations, ranging from traffic and environmental damage to noise and odor.

As proposed, the cannabis tax will apply to both adult, or recreational, cannabis operations and medical marijuana operations but only in the unincorporated areas of the county, not within the incorporated cities, and will be levied on operators’ gross receipts.

The tax rate selected by the Board of Supervisors will vary, depending upon the type of operation.

Nurseries and distributors — excluding those engaged in transport only — will pay 1 percent, while manufacturers will pay 3 percent, cultivators will pay 4 percent and retail and microbusinesses, which vertically integrate more than one type of operation, will pay 6 percent.

No one is sure how much revenue the taxes will generate. If cannabis operations remain stable at the anticipated level, the figure could easily be $25 million annually.

But there is also a strong possibility the market will become oversaturated with cannabis operations, creating a downward spiral in revenue.

In 2017, California’s total cannabis production was estimated at 13.5 million pounds per year, but total cannabis consumption was estimated at 1.6 million to 2.5 million pounds per year.

Analysts said that meant the state’s entire market could be supplied by just 200 medium-sized indoor growing operations, or less than the total potential production in Santa Barbara County alone.

Yet state officials estimated more than 14,000 cultivation licenses could be issued statewide.

With supply greatly exceeding demand, prices are expected to plummet, and smaller undercapitalized operations likely will go under.

If the county ends up levying its tax on fewer operations with lower gross revenues than initially estimated, the annual revenue might be closer to $5 million.

 

Colman: NEW THINKING ON IMMIGRATION IS NEEDED

If you hear the news about immigration, it is about a Wall, Sanctuary Cities, open borders, closed borders, welfare for illegal aliens, protection of those here illegally or deporting them on the spot.  The current debate and discussion is all about us—not about the root causes.  Yes, we need a Wall.  Yes, we need to deport the law breakers.  Yes, we need to stop using financial incentives as a magnet to bring more illegal aliens to our country.  We also need a plan to have these folks stay home.  Dr. Colman reminds us of the plan to do this, by President Kennedy—more than 55 years ago.

That approach was suggested in 1961 by President Kennedy.  It was called the Alliance for Progress. 

The Alliance had several main goals: 

  • increase income among Latin Americans.
  • create democratic governments.
  • advance literacy.
  • eliminate inflation and establish of price stability.
  • implement land reform.”

In todays world JFK would be read out of the Democrat Party—while Sanders could be a charter member of the Totalitarian Party—along with his friend Hillary.  Sometimes those in the past had great ideas for the future.  Thanks to Dr. Colman we are reminded of what Kennedy brought to the table.

Immigration

NEW THINKING ON IMMIGRATION IS NEEDED

By Richard Colman, California Political News and Views,  5/16/18

 

 

Hoards of unskilled, illiterate (or semi-literate) immigrants, mostly from Latin America, have been invading the United States in recent decades. 

The time has come for new thinking about immigration, thinking based on ideas from the era of President John Kennedy, who held office from Jan. 20, 1961, to Nov. 22, 1963. 

The United States no longer has the money, the will, or the tolerance to admit people who cannot make a constructive contribution to American society. 

Currently, the debate — inside the United States — on immigration has focused on two extreme positions.  One position is to welcome millions of Latin American immigrants who want live in the U.S.  The other position is to build a wall along the American-Mexican border — a wall that will keep out these hoards who want the benefits of life in the U.S. 

The time has come to try a new approach — an approach that should satisfy just about everyone. 

That approach was suggested in 1961 by President Kennedy.  It was called the Alliance for Progress. 

The Alliance had several main goals: 

  • increase income among Latin Americans.
  • create democratic governments.
  • advance literacy.
  • eliminate inflation and establish of price stability.
  • implement land reform.

Solving the problem of excessive immigration into the United States must involve a cooperative efforts among Latin American nations and the U.S. itself.  There will be a need for social cohesion among Latin Americans 

Instead of having millions of Latinos entering the U.S. illegally, Latin American nations, working with the United States, need to form a special zone inside Latin America — a zone that will emphasize social and economic change. 

In effect, there needs to be inside Latin America a sort of homeland for the poor, the uneducated, and the dispossessed.  In some ways, such a model exists in the state of Israel, which offers any Jew anywhere in the world a place to live.  

Until 70 A.D., the Jews had a homeland in and near present day Israel.  The Romans threw them out, leading to a dispersion (called the Diaspora) of the Jewish people to such places as North Africa, Europe, Asia, and America.  In May 1948, present-day Israel was born and is now celebrating its 70th anniversary as a democratic state. 

Moreover, Israel has become an economic and technological powerhouse, especially in such areas as artificial intelligence, the enhancement of industrial and agricultural productivity, and what is call Big Data.  (Big Data refers to the kind of work done in Silicon Valley by such firms as Google, Facebook, and Apple.) 

Creating a sort of Latino homeland inside Latin America will not be easy.  But with a strong commitment to democracy and free markets, the standard of living for Latinos should rise, eliminating the need for Latinos to bang on the doors of a largely unwelcoming America. 

Simultaneously, a wall along America’s southern border, something proposed by American President Donald Trump, should be constructed while establishing a homeland for Latin Americans somewhere inside the vast area of South America, Central America, and Mexico. 

With the creation of a free-market economy along with needed social reforms, a prosperous region should emerge inside Latin America, just as an economic and technological powerhouse emerged in Israel once taxes and government spending were cut. 

A few billion American dollars could help create this new Latino homeland.  While the cost of American help may seem bothersome, the cost of admitting into America unskilled, illiterate or semi-literate people — people who must be fed, clothed, educated, and housed, — would be even higher. 

The time for immigration reform is now.

 

Convicted Rapist—Polanski—Threatens Legal Action Because Oscars Kicked Him Out

A rapist thinks he is so important that the folks giving you the Oscars should have him as a member.  This is a rapist of a young girl, who after conviction, fled the country—to France.  A few years ago they even gave this rapist an Oscar and gave him a standing ovation for getting away with rape.  Today in the age of Weinstein, he would only get the award.

“Roman Polanski’s attorney sent the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences a letter this week threatening to take legal action if the director is not granted a hearing over the academy’s decision to expel him, it was reported Wednesday.

In the letter sent Tuesday, a copy of which was obtained by the Los Angeles Times, attorney Harland Braun said the academy had failed to follow both its own rules and California law in denying the Oscar-winning director a chance to present his own case.”

Now this fugitive wants to sue because even the Hollywood hypocrites do not want to be associated with this public rapist.  The same folks that covered up hundreds of rapes and abuses of women, and boys, think an elderly creep should no longer be a member of their elitist organization.  Who cares—let him sue—the attorneys need the money.

oscars

Polanski Threatens Film Academy over Expulsion.

Posted by Contributing Editor, MyNewsLA,  5/9/18

Roman Polanski’s attorney sent the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences a letter this week threatening to take legal action if the director is not granted a hearing over the academy’s decision to expel him, it was reported Wednesday.

In the letter sent Tuesday, a copy of which was obtained by the Los Angeles Times, attorney Harland Braun said the academy had failed to follow both its own rules and California law in denying the Oscar-winning director a chance to present his own case.

“We are not here contesting the merits of the expulsion decision, but rather your organization’s blatant disregard of its own Standards of Conduct in, as well as its violations of the standards required by California Corporations Code,” Braun wrote.

The academy’s board of governors, which includes such industry heavyweights as Tom Hanks, Kathleen Kennedy and Steven Spielberg, voted last week to expel the Oscar-winning filmmaker, along with disgraced comedian Bill Cosby, in accordance with new standards of conduct adopted by the group in response to the sexual harassment scandals that have rocked the industry since the fall.

 

Antonucci: UTLA directs its members to boycott after-school faculty meetings for the month of May

Did you really think teachers in LAUSD work for the students, parents or taxpayers?  This action by UTLA, the mandated teachers union for LAUSD, is an example of how the unions control our schools—and why LAUSD is a massive failure.

“But the union is nothing if not persistent. UTLA is engineering a new series of actions that it hopes will culminate in a strike authorization vote in September.

The organized activities include a boycott of after-school faculty meetings every Tuesday for the month of May. The union advised teachers to continue conducting parent conferences but will be taking measures to ensure full participation in the boycott by teachers.

Each union site representative will be taking attendance at whatever alternate activity UTLA conducts during the faculty meeting time. Those who fail to participate in the boycott will receive a visit from the union rep, who has been instructed to “talk with them and explain that they are undermining you and your coworkers and weakening our chances of achieving a fair contract and encourage them to participate in the next boycott.”

Teachers are advised they could be subject to discipline, such as a letter of reprimand, but are being told, “Sometimes risks need to be taken for progress to occur.”

Not only is money being extorted by UTLA from the teachers—but if the teachers acted professionally, the union will punish them.  Any wonder LAUSD is a massive failure and our kids pay the price of extortion and blackmail.  Wait till the Janus decision, then the teachers will be able to leave the UTLA Plantation.

200px-LAUSD_Logo.svg

Antonucci: UTLA directs its members to boycott after-school faculty meetings for the month of May

Mike Antonucci, Los Angeles School Report,  5/8/18

The leaders of United Teachers Los Angeles have had many ambitious plans to create a teacher mass movement such as we have seen in West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arizona. Almost two years ago, UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl promised to “create a state crisis” in early 2018. His plan included a number of escalating steps that would ultimately “shock the system into investing in the civic institution of public education.”

His plan had a promising start with the passage of Proposition 55 in November 2016. It extended the temporary higher taxes on high-earning residents to fund schools that voters passed in 2012 as Proposition 30.

The next phases were much less successful.

UTLA wanted to win a majority on the Los Angeles school board in May 2017. It didn’t.

UTLA wanted coordinated bargaining with other large teacher unions in the state whose contracts were also expiring in June 2017. That didn’t happen.

UTLA wanted to lead a 2018 campaign to undercut the property tax limits in Proposition 13. That effort has been postponed until 2020.

But the union is nothing if not persistent. UTLA is engineering a new series of actions that it hopes will culminate in a strike authorization vote in September.

The organized activities include a boycott of after-school faculty meetings every Tuesday for the month of May. The union advised teachers to continue conducting parent conferences but will be taking measures to ensure full participation in the boycott by teachers.

Each union site representative will be taking attendance at whatever alternate activity UTLA conducts during the faculty meeting time. Those who fail to participate in the boycott will receive a visit from the union rep, who has been instructed to “talk with them and explain that they are undermining you and your coworkers and weakening our chances of achieving a fair contract and encourage them to participate in the next boycott.”

Teachers are advised they could be subject to discipline, such as a letter of reprimand, but are being told, “Sometimes risks need to be taken for progress to occur.”

UTLA explained the boycotts “are not actions against any individual principal or administrator; they are a demonstration of our power to LAUSD” and will “underscore our push for increased funding from the state.”

It bears mentioning that teachers are being misled by one aspect of UTLA’s call to action. The union states, “We cannot achieve the Schools LA Students Deserve with funding that ranks 46th out of 50 states.”

That ranking came from Education Week’s 2017 Quality Counts survey, using figures from the 2013-14 school year. That year was also the first year after Proposition 30 passed. The California Teachers Association estimates that education funding in the state has increased 66 percent since that time. The National Education Association estimates California will rank 26th in per-pupil spending this year.

 

L.A.’s gig economy one of the largest in the country

This could be a big political issue in Los Angeles and other towns where so many have part time job, second jobs or work only when they want.  This is called the “GIG” society.  Folks working for Uber, part time computer techs, people who do bookkeeping for a few clients, enough to keep them busy or an extra few bucks in their pockets.

“The gig economy isn’t just Uber drivers and Airbnb hosts. Freelancers also include writers and graphic designers; architects and engineers; and lawyers and accountants.

Los Angeles is one of the biggest markets for specialized independent professionals like these with about 400,000 workers who collectively earned more than $18 billion last year, according to a study commissioned by freelance marketplace Fiverr from market research firm Rockbridge Association.

Specialized independent professionals make up nearly 6 percent of the total workforce in Los Angeles, second only to San Francisco.

And freelancing is on the rise in Los Angeles, growing more than 14 percent since 2011.

Tax issues, traffic gridlock, working regulations, unions, these are just some of the issues facing the gig society residents.  Government control over their work will become more important.  For instance a judge just ruled that almost no one driving for UBER is a free lance person—instead they are employees—with benefits and everything.  That means the use of UBER self driving cars will become more important and come quicker—to save money.  Government is corrupt—it also kills jobs.

UberStockholm-039

L.A.’s gig economy one of the largest in the country

Los Angeles ranks second only to New York in specialized independent professionals with 400,000 workers earning more than $18 billion last year.

 

By Annlee Ellingson, L.A. Biz  5/9/18

 

The gig economy isn’t just Uber drivers and Airbnb hosts. Freelancers also include writers and graphic designers; architects and engineers; and lawyers and accountants.

Los Angeles is one of the biggest markets for specialized independent professionals like these with about 400,000 workers who collectively earned more than $18 billion last year, according to a study commissioned by freelance marketplace Fiverr from market research firm Rockbridge Association.

Specialized independent professionals make up nearly 6 percent of the total workforce in Los Angeles, second only to San Francisco.

And freelancing is on the rise in Los Angeles, growing more than 14 percent since 2011.

New York ranks first with 533,000 specialized independent professionals earning nearly $24.5 billion in 2017, and Chicago is third with 185,000 freelancers making almost $6.7 billion.

In order to determine these findings, Rockbridge analyzed annual databases for 2011, 2013 and 2015 from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Non-Employer Statistics data series comprised of tax return data for self-employed individuals, then made projections for 2017 data.

Overall, revenues from independent professionals in the 15 markets covered by the study earned more than $110 billion combined, representing roughly 1 to 2 percent of local GDP.

In L.A., independent workforce revenue was 1.7 percent of the area’s GDP.

Unsurprising for the entertainment capital of the world, Los Angeles has the greatest share of creative arts and performance professionals (composed of artists, writers, graphic designers, performers, and video and sound professionals) at more than 30 percent.

L.A. came in second-to-last among technical services professionals (in data processing, architecture, design, engineering, computer/IT and scientific professions) with 30 percent. San Francisco, San Diego and Seattle were virtually tied with around 35 percent.

And Los Angeles was dead last among professional service providers (in legal, accounting/bookkeeping, management consulting, marketing and business support) with 39 percent. Houston led in this category with 56.6 percent.

Look how the liberal drug culture has destroyed Eureka, California

I love the town of Eureka—great Victorian homes, wonderful antique shops, a foodies delight.  This is a town meant for tourist.  Of course, you have to get through the embedded drug culture to enjoy any of it.

“The above review is a few years old, but be assured that nothing has changed for the better in Eureka, as The New York Times reports:

California’s North Coast is known for its natural beauty and magnificent redwoods, but Eureka, the Humboldt County seat, is increasingly known for something else: the prevalence of dirty needles littering parks and public areas, crude remains of a heroin scourge that is afflicting the region.

Drug use in Humboldt County has many layers.  Meth has been a scourge in rural California for many years, and because it is often shot intravenously, the transition to heroin has been too easy for many.  Eureka’s large homeless population has been especially vulnerable to addiction in recent years.

Discarded syringes have become a significant concern for the town’s residents, who worry that the needles pose a threat to children and tourists.”

Is this what the whole of California will be like?  We need to make sure the drug culture as outlined above stays in Eureka—otherwise we will get every druggies in the nation to join forces with illegal aliens—pushing even more productive families out of the Confederate State of California.

Buds are removed from a container at the "Oregon's Finest" medical marijuana dispensary in Portland, Oregon April 8, 2014. Over 20 Oregon cities and counties are moving to temporarily ban medical marijuana dispensaries ahead of a May deadline, reflecting a divide between liberal Portland and more conservative rural areas wary about allowing medical weed. Portland, Oregon's largest city, already has a number of medical marijuana clinics and has not moved to ban them. Picture taken April 8, 2014.  REUTERS/Steve Dipaola (UNITED STATES - Tags: DRUGS SOCIETY POLITICS HEALTH) - RTR3KMHE

Look how the liberal drug culture has destroyed Eureka, California

By Ed Straker, American Thinker,  5/9/18

In normal circumstances, Eureka, California, would be a paradise.  It’s situated in northern California on the Pacific Coast and is simply beautiful, sandwiched between rugged redwood forests and an implacable open sea.  The weather is perfect, constantly between 50 and 75 degrees year round.  It’s isolated from other major cities, but some find value in the quiet of a more secluded lifestyle.

Unfortunately, Eureka, in Humboldt County, is in the center of a narco-state where marijuana is grown industrial-scale and drug use is rampant.  The situation has gotten so bad that even tourists avoid it.  Here’s one telling review from TripAdvisor. It’s a little long but well worth the read:

Just back from 5 days in Eureka CA. Had not been there for a few years so decided to visit north coast area, see some redwoods, great coastal scenery and victorian homes along the way. We were quite impressed that someone is trying to make Eureka a tourist destination (murals, town gazebo, festival, arts and a wonderful visitors center),. At the same time, we witnessed what appeared to be several dozen (at least!!) drunken and/or drugged human beings lying on curbs, in doorways, against fences, behind stores, camping out in parking lots, stumbling onto HWY 101 etc etc. Old motels (The Serenity for one) were overflowing with people outside at all hours of the day and night. A poor pit bull was chained to a fence next to highway all day Saturday w/ cops driving back and forth. Drug deals appeared to be taking place right out in the open within sight of traffic on 101. We stopped to take a picture of a cute mural downtown and a wild-eyed woman came screaming out of the shrubs-screaming at us for “taking her picture”. She had something in her raised hand and we got out of there fast. This was across the street from the jail and near an area of lovely victorian homes on 3rd. Doesn’t really matter where in town it was because it was all over. Mixed in with great businesses, lovely scenery, restaurants and historic places, we dodged crazies screaming at the top of their lungs. Panhandlers followed people around from store to store. We were in one cafe when a man sat down in filthy urine soaked clothes and reeking of alcohol. He wasn’t ordering anything but just came to talk-however, most of the other customers had to get up and leave as the smell was so overpowering. And although we felt bad that these people have such problems…well…Eureka has a big problem too. A split-image.

Later, at [a bookrestore] in the Bayshore Mall, we found several prominent displays on growing and/or manufacturing drugs. Umm…from the looks of Eureka’s streets, that information has already been put to use. I hope that this once lovely town can come to grips with this problem.

The above review is a few years old, but be assured that nothing has changed for the better in Eureka, as The New York Times reports:

California’s North Coast is known for its natural beauty and magnificent redwoods, but Eureka, the Humboldt County seat, is increasingly known for something else: the prevalence of dirty needles littering parks and public areas, crude remains of a heroin scourge that is afflicting the region.

Drug use in Humboldt County has many layers.  Meth has been a scourge in rural California for many years, and because it is often shot intravenously, the transition to heroin has been too easy for many.  Eureka’s large homeless population has been especially vulnerable to addiction in recent years.

Discarded syringes have become a significant concern for the town’s residents, who worry that the needles pose a threat to children and tourists.

As for the cause of all this:

OK, so why do so many people here use drugs? Theories abound, with the most common explanations tending to involve the marijuana industry and its associated culture of permissiveness and experimentation. Michael Goldsby [an addiction studies instructor at College of the Redwoods since 1987] thinks that theory makes sense.

“Risk factors for drug problems include availability of drugs, positive peer attitudes towards drug use [and] community norms that accept drug misuse,” he explained. “Drug and alcohol use is accepted and even encouraged in our community.”

Legalized drug use has destroyed some of the most beautiful places in California and is now doing the same in Colorado and elsewhere, where “harmless” marijuana, the gateway to even worse narcotics, has been legalized.  It’s just a shame that immorality seems to go hand in hand with some of the prettiest places in America.

 

How Predatory Teachers Stay on the Job in California

Thanks to union rules, the ACLU and the courts, it is next to impossible to get rid of bad and/or dangerous teachers.  Among those protected by this cabal, are predator teachers.

The Sweetwater Union High School District in Chula Vista investigated a male teacher last year for sexual misconduct following reports made by at least three students.

After the investigation concluded, district officials signed a resignation agreement in October 2017 that allows the teacher – the district declined to share his name, and VOSD has threatened legal action if officials continue to withhold it – to remain on paid leave through June 30.

It requires he seek full-time employment elsewhere. The deal contemplates he’ll be re-employed at another public school. If the teacher is hired only part time, Sweetwater agreed to pay the difference to preserve his existing income level and benefits through June 30.

As part of the deal, Sweetwater agreed to drop all existing investigations, and to tell people the teacher is employed in a special assignment position this school year.”

This predator is apparently now teaching elsewhere.  If I were a parent in the area—or anywhere in the State—and my child has a new male teacher in the classroom, I would ask if they previously taught at Sweetwater.  If they did, demand to know if they were the predator named above.  If the teacher or District refuse to answer, immediately take your child out of that class—even if a government school refuses to protect children, you the parent must.  Be warned—predator teachers are being protected by government education.

Walton_High_School_New_Classroom

How Predatory Teachers Stay on the Job

 

Ashly McGlone, Voice of San Diego,  5/10/18

 

The Sweetwater Union High School District in Chula Vista investigated a male teacher last year for sexual misconduct following reports made by at least three students.

After the investigation concluded, district officials signed a resignation agreement in October 2017 that allows the teacher – the district declined to share his name, and VOSD has threatened legal action if officials continue to withhold it – to remain on paid leave through June 30.

It requires he seek full-time employment elsewhere. The deal contemplates he’ll be re-employed at another public school. If the teacher is hired only part time, Sweetwater agreed to pay the difference to preserve his existing income level and benefits through June 30.

As part of the deal, Sweetwater agreed to drop all existing investigations, and to tell people the teacher is employed in a special assignment position this school year.

After June 30, Sweetwater officials agreed to say that he “has voluntarily resigned from the District, and we wish him well,” according to the settlement Voice of San Diego obtained from the district. The principal had to email school staff the same thing.

“Neither party will comment publically (sic) about the investigation conducted prior to this Agreement, the results of the investigation, or their position regarding the investigation including but not limited to the veracity or credibility of any witnesses interviewed as part of the investigation,” the settlement says.

The district is withholding the student complaints and a school district investigation report. Under the terms of the agreement, the district may not release them unless required by a court order or subpoena, or another lawful request.

The details of the deal and the district’s refusal so far to identify the teacher illustrate some of the systemic issues that have allowed accused teachers to get favorable exit deals and move to new schools with their reputations intact, where they may continue to abuse students.

Settlements sometimes forbid victims from speaking publicly about what they experienced, which means individual victims of a problem employee might never know about one another – and school officials might never know the pervasiveness of the behavior.

Lackluster prevention training. Poor record-keeping. Inconsistent policies from school to school and district to district. Union protections, costly litigation and disbelief.

These are just some of the factors that help public school employees accused of sexual harassment and misconduct evade accountability, even when administrators or investigators decide that student complaints are credible.

Voice of San Diego has spent the last few months speaking with parents, educators and former students about their experiences with harassment and abuse in public schools, and digging into employee sexual misconduct records from the county’s public school districts obtained under the California Public Records Act. School districts are only obligated to make records public when they involve claims that have been substantiated, and are deemed substantial enough to warrant public disclosure – a standard subjective enough that it allows many documents to stay secret. Records must also be released if an employee is disciplined for sexual misconduct at all.

The records VOSD has obtained so far include complaints, investigation and disciplinary records and settlements with employees or the students involved.

Within the stories we’ve heard and the files we’ve reviewed, some trends and gaps emerge. Opinions diverge widely over whether the existing system does enough to keep students safe from employee misconduct.

What’s clear is students who complain about harassment or abuse by a teacher or another school employee tend to face roadblocks at school, in the criminal justice system and even at home that can put them and other students in harm’s way.

Disbelief

For students willing to report harassment and abuse by school employees, the first hurdle may come at home. Parents may want to give the school employee the benefit of the doubt. They may think their child was mistaken.

Such was the case for a La Jolla High School student who told her parents longtime physics teacher Martin Teachworth touched her breast in class. Her parents “said it was probably an accident.” The student figured others would probably dismiss her concerns too, so she didn’t report it to the school.

Even if parents do believe the student, the school can pose additional obstacles. Principals or investigators interviewing the student may question their intentions, and even encourage them to think twice about making a report.

Another student who experienced inappropriate touching by Teachworth felt her concerns weren’t taken to heart, either. When then-La Jolla High School student Loxie Gant told the principal Teachworth grabbed her butt in class in the 2002-03 school year, she said, “He kind of kept pushing me to say that like, it wasn’t a big deal, or that it didn’t really happen. … I just remember feeling really like, kind of not believed right away, you know?”

Loxie Gant is one of at least four women who have said physics teacher Martin Teachworth harassed them when they were students at La Jolla High School. / Photo by Adriana Heldiz

School officials may also have a hard time believing a trusted colleague is capable of the actions reported by students.

“They are the vanguards in the community. They are the teachers of the year. They are the award-winning popular coach that have offended,” said Terri Miller, president of the Nevada-based nonprofit SESAME, or Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation. “The monster is only revealed through the victim. To everyone else, they’re great.”

“A lot of the time, it’s the guy you least expect,” said Los Angeles civil attorney David Ring, who has handled sex abuse cases against a Carlsbad elementary school teacher and others elsewhere in the state. “Predators come in all personalities, but usually have a pretty gregarious personality because that’s how they get away with it.”

La Costa Canyon High School English teacher Matt Cunningham said teachers need to “remain vigilant and have to be aware this stuff is going on.” He told school officials when he saw a colleague and a student off campus at a park in 2010. His report spurred a school investigation.

“Just believe your kids when they tell you, and believe the signs,” he said. “You’ve got to take what they say seriously.”

When school officials do bring employees or students in for questioning, the quality of the investigation, and what approach they use with students, can make or break a case. Making sure students know what to do when faced with school employee misconduct is also important.

Parents and schools often teach kids about “stranger danger” and urge them to “identify a teacher as safe person to tell, but they don’t identify teachers as a potential perpetrator,” said Miller. “So, when a kid is violated by their teacher, they don’t know what to do with that. ‘What do I do? My safe person is harming me.’”

“A lot of the time, it’s the guy you least expect. Predators come in all personalities, but usually have a pretty gregarious personality because that’s how they get away with it.”

Some students at La Jolla High and San Dieguito Academy said they feared reporting inappropriate behavior by their teachers, like shoulder rubs and sexual remarks, would negatively impact their grades.

Students involved in a sexual relationship with a school employee may also fear the consequences of reporting it, or not realize they’re in an abusive relationship.

A former La Costa Canyon High School student recently told VOSD she felt school officials treated her like an accomplice and not a victim when she was interrogated over a relationship with a teacher in 2010. She denied the affair at the time, but said she may have disclosed it if they were gentler with her and had offered her counseling.

By the time she went to police more than five years later, the statute of limitations for statutory rape had expired. No criminal charges were filed.

Elsewhere, records show school interviewers engaged students differently to get the truth when students were reluctant to share or initially denied anything inappropriate occurred.

They reminded students they are not to blame for encountering or engaging in illicit messages or physical relationships with a teacher. Other officials explained to students what they were experiencing was abusive, because students didn’t always see it that way.

Record-keeping and Secrecy

When warning signs emerge, how schools deal with them and what records are kept can make a huge difference.

Voice of San Diego recently obtained a 2004 school memo showing complaints of inappropriate behavior by San Dieguito Academy teacher Donn Boyd surfaced years before student complaints were made in 2007 and 2017. Boyd, who reached a deal to resign June 30, was told in 2004 to “be sensitive to the discomfort your female students and their parents have expressed.”

The district produced no other records of discipline, nor the actual complaints referenced in the 2004 memo in response to VOSD’s California Public Records Act request.

Documenting concerns and findings can be key to establishing a case for employee dismissal or discipline that can survive an employee appeal hearing before an administrative law judge, especially when the employee hasn’t been charged with a crime.

The nonprofit National Council on Teacher Quality created a 10-step flow chart to show the California teacher dismissal process back in 2008.

School district lawyers estimate districts may end up spending $100,000 to successfully terminate a teacher who fights a dismissal, or $300,000 or more if the district loses, since the district is then ordered to pay the teacher’s legal fees.

Under existing law, schools can remove employees accused of immoral conduct from the classroom immediately, said Claudia Briggs, spokeswoman for the California Teachers Association. That some repeat offenders stay employed in public schools for years isn’t a sign the system is broken, she said.

Rather, she said: “It’s a sign that school districts need to do their jobs in making sure our students are safe from these types of misconduct. The law is clear about what rights the school districts have, and that is to immediately remove these individuals accused of these charges. They need to remove the individual right away.”

In practice, not all schools escalate reports of abuse or harassment to law enforcement.

Some don’t even alert the school district office, and instead keep concerns and investigations at the school level. Some local union contracts, including the San Diego Unified teachers’ contact, require complaints against employees be handled at the lowest possible level, though laws require employees to report suspected child abuse to local law enforcement.

Some student abuse victim advocates and victims believe schools should also refer employee-student grooming behaviors to law enforcement. This could include sexual comments, messages or touching that may pave the way for abuse.

Documenting concerns with multiple officials and agencies creates a larger paper trail that’s harder to lose and can help with employee dismissals or criminal cases by establishing a pattern of behavior.

Ring said in the various cases he’s handled, he’s seen school officials refer complaints to the district office about half of the time, and the rest kept it at the school site.

“It is so difficult to get documentation into official employment files,” Ring said. “There’s a huge problem. There is no tracking of complaints from the past.” As complaints accumulate over the years, “there is no central location for them, or it’s put in a folder thrown away every year.”

Miller, SESAME’s president, said principals may only be “required to keep documentation of written complaints. If a parent only verbally expressed a complaint, they call it a concern. They can take notes, but he doesn’t have to document it, because no formal complaint is filed. When the principal leaves the position, they can take the notes and destroy them if they want to.”

Failure to keep records of complaints as they are made can make patterns of behavior less obvious and cause officials to treat every complaint like the first. Complaints may appear less credible as a result.

Cunningham, the La Costa Canyon High English teacher who reported a fellow colleague, is also troubled by the secrecy that surrounds sexual misconduct cases.

“It’s not like one school site tells the other. When this happens, information is not shared, which I don’t like,” Cunningham said. “Because of the way the legal system is set up, you have to be careful about sharing information.”

A state Senate bill proposed earlier this year would have required schools to share some information about school employees found responsible for an act of child abuse or sexual misconduct, but it died.

‘Passing the Trash’

When a 15-year-old Vista High School freshman texted a school math teacher in 2012-13 he reminded her of her father, the teacher responded, “Or maybe like a boyfriend.”

Three years later, school officials discovered the same teacher texting inappropriate messages to another student, according to district records recently obtained by VOSD.

The district investigated the messages and several other comments.

In May 2016, Vista Unified School District officials told the teacher he would be suspended without pay for 15 days and involuntarily transferred to Vista Magnet Middle School.

“The personnel issue related to a recent District investigation, from which we have determined that your continued assignment at Vista High School is untenable,” the letter says. “This transfer is not disciplinary in nature, but is proactive and necessary to ensure Vista High School students will be free from harassment and intimidation, which is in the best interests of the District, students and parents. We also believe this transfer will be in the best interests of your continued employment with the District.”

The teacher denied the allegations and appealed the discipline, as permitted by the teacher’s union contract.

“To avoid the time, expense and risk” of further administrative proceedings or litigation, a suspension deal was reached in July 2016 that made the reassignment to Vista Magnet Middle School voluntary, and reduced the unpaid suspension to five days.

The terms of the agreement – which also required the teacher attend teacher-student boundaries training – would be kept confidential unless release was required by a court order, subpoena or law, like the California Public Records Act.

The teacher is still employed by the district, but his name has not yet been provided, because he is fighting in court to keep it secret. A superior court judge earlier this month tentatively decided the teacher’s name needs to be released to VOSD, but a final order has not yet been issued.

Failure to keep records of complaints as they are made can make patterns of behavior less obvious and cause officials to treat every complaint like the first. Complaints may appear less credible as a result.

Elsewhere in the county, La Costa Canyon High School officials admonished English teacher Marc Sandknop in October 2010 after investigating whether he had a relationship with a student.

Records show Sandknop was reminded about “a number of reports” about his “relationships with girls who were your recent students,” and told, “Your closeness to certain female students reinforces the perception that your girlfriends may have been ‘recruited’ while they were your students.”

Despite the concerns, Sandknop was allowed to finish the school year and was transferred to Carmel Valley Middle School the following year, where he taught another five years before resigning after a former student told police Sandknop molested her as a student.

Then there’s the exit deal for the Sweetwater teacher that allowed him to continue receiving pay and in which district officials agreed to say publicly that he voluntarily resigned, though officials substantiated sexual misconduct complaints against him. The agreement paves the way for future school employment with no indication there were problems that led to his departure.

In such deals, school districts often agree to pay employees to stay home – sometimes for months – before resigning to avoid the lengthy and costly state termination process.

Victims’ advocates call these tactics – in which schools enable offenders to move from school to school, sometimes with letters of recommendation following credible sexual misconduct claims which may or may not rise to the criminal level – “passing the trash.”

The state bill that died earlier this year would have required schools to inquire with past employers to see if applicants were previously found responsible for an act of child abuse or sexual misconduct with a pupil. Schools would have been required to disclose substantiated sexual misconduct findings directly to other schools.

The legislation would have also banned language preventing disclosure of child abuse or sexual misconduct with a child in union contracts, as well as termination or severance deals with employees.

Miller’s group, SESAME, helped write the bill. She calls “passing the trash” “deliberate child endangerment. … One predator can have as many as 73 victims in lifetime.”

The California Teachers Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and others opposed the bill, citing due process concerns for employees.

Over the years, the CTA has opposed other efforts to change how teacher sexual misconduct cases are handled, but supported a 2014 law that streamlined dismissal proceedings for teachers accused of egregious misconduct, like child abuse, sex abuse and certain drug offenses.

Existing Enforcement

Briggs, the CTA spokeswoman, pointed out that there are already processes in place that require teacher misconduct to be reported to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, or CTC.

“The CTC is already thoroughly vetting new employees and disclosing whatever information it deems necessary,” Briggs said. “The CTC does a fine job and we know is committed to making sure they have the right people in those positions. … So, we believe the work that they are doing is key to making sure students are safe.”

State law requires school district superintendents to tell the teacher credentialing commission about changes in teacher employment status “as a result of an allegation of misconduct or while an allegation of misconduct is pending” within 30 days.

That could mean a dismissal, resignation, retirement, unpaid leave for more than 10 days as a final employment action, or other changes. Schools must also send the CTC documentation of the misconduct, which may be sexual or financial in nature, or something else.

Once such reports are received, the commission takes a variety of steps to determine whether to open an investigation, and whether to take action against the teacher’s credential by suspending or revoking it. The commission’s review and investigation process can take several months, and during that time, nothing about the review is posted publicly.

A report released April 30 by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said the median time spent by the teacher commission investigating teacher misconduct was 414 days.

Once a decision is made, educators can appeal it to the Department of Justice, which can settle a case or argue it before an administrative law judge. Educator appeals have grown in recent years, and DOJ attorneys have not kept pace, leading to a backlog. The same LAO report found the median time taken by the DOJ to process a teacher misconduct appeals case is 631 days.

“Together, CTC and DOJ are taking a combined 1,045 days to close out a teacher misconduct appeals case,” the report says.

Statewide from fiscal year 2009 to March 2018, the CTC received 765 educator misconduct reports from schools, according to data VOSD obtained through a public records request. During that same timeframe, the commission took disciplinary action on 301 teaching credentials, for an action rate of roughly 39 percent.

Disciplinary actions may include revocations, suspensions, public reprovals, private admonitions, probation or credential denials.

San Diego County schools made 235 of those misconduct reports, or approximately 31 percent, the data shows. Some 137 San Diego educators faced credential disciplinary action during the same timeframe, for an action rate of about 58 percent.

The misconduct reported for the remaining 98 San Diego County teachers who weren’t disciplined often remains secret, unless unearthed in a civil or criminal case, or through a public records request.

To see a list of the teacher misconduct reports made by local schools, and the number of credential disciplinary actions taken, click here.