ReportWire

Tag: fast food law

  • SEIU responds to reporting on its use of NDAs in California’s fast food law negotiations

    SEIU responds to reporting on its use of NDAs in California’s fast food law negotiations


    California Capitol Correspondent

    SEIU responds to reporting on its use of NDAs in California’s fast food law negotiations

    KCRA 3 first reported last week that SEIU required representatives from the fast food and franchise industry to sign non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of the law.

    ALERTS FOR THE LATEST NOTIFICATIONS. CALIFORNIA’S BRAND NEW FAST FOOD COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME TODAY IN OAKLAND. YEAH, THE GROUP WILL BARGAIN WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR THE STATE’S HALF A MILLION FAST FOOD WORKERS. THE COUNCIL IS MADE UP OF A BLEND OF LABOR AND FAST FOOD INDUSTRY LEADERS. THE GROUP DECIDED TODAY TO POST A JOB FOR AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO HELP MANAGE THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF THE COUNCIL, THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR FAST FOOD WORKERS GOES UP TO $20 AN HOUR IN APRIL, BUT THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL SAYS THERE’S MUCH MORE WORK TO DO. I THINK ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT HAPPENED TODAY WAS THAT I THINK WHAT YOU HEARD FROM EACH MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL IS THAT, UM, THEY’RE HERE TO WORK. UM. UM, YOU KNOW, IT’S WE HAVE A KIND OF A UNIQUE, UM, REPRESENT STATION. YOU HAVE WORKERS WHO WORK IN ONE OF THE LOWEST WAGE INDUSTRIES IN, IN CALIFORNIA. AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE REPRESENTATIONS OF FRANCHISEE OWNERS WHO REPRESENT SMALL BUSINESSES. AND IF THERE’S ANY TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE STRUGGLING RIGHT NOW IN THE ECONOMY, I WOULD SAY IT’S SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND IT’S WORKERS. SO I THINK, UM, WHAT. I WAS HAPPY TO HEAR WAS BOTH SIDES BEING BOTH REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH, UM, THE WORKER SIDE AND THE EMPLOYER SIDE SAYING THEY’RE READY TO GET TO WORK AND WORK TOGETHER. NOW, MEANTIME, THE LAW THAT CREATED THIS COUNCIL IS AT THE CENTER OF SCRUTINY RIGHT NOW, AS WE’VE BEEN REPORTING FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, NON-DISCO AGREEMENTS WERE USED IN THE FINAL NEGOTIATIONS OF THE LAW. THE LABOR GROUP SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, ALSO KNOWN AS SEIU, REQUIRED THEM. AND AFTER DAYS OF NOT COMMENTING ON THAT, THE GROUP FINALLY BROKE ITS SILENCE ON THE ISSUE. TODAY, THEIR SPOKESPERSON, MIKE ROTH, RELEASING A STATEMENT. AND WE’RE GOING TO READ THAT TO YOU NOW. THE STATEMENT READS, QUOTE, THIS STORY IS A NOTHING BURGER MADE OF INNUENDO AND HYPE. KCRA REPORTING REPEATEDLY, INTENTIONALLY, AND INAPPROPRIATELY FAILS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CONVERSATIONS TAKING PLACE BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES AND THE PUBLIC PROCESS BY WHICH A BILL BECOMES A LAW. CALIFORNIA’S LANDMARK LAW LIFTING 500,000 FAST FOOD WORKERS OUT OF POVERTY AND STRENGTHENING THEIR VOICE AT WORK, WENT THROUGH A FULL, TRANSPARENT AGAIN. THEIR WORDS AND PUBLIC PROCESS, BY REQUIRED BY LAW, THE STATEMENT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE SUGGESTION THAT PRIVATE PARTIES CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES IS ABSURD AND QUOTE OUR ASHLEY ZAVALA HAS BEEN COVERING THE FAST FOOD COUNCIL MEETING THAT HAPPENED TODAY IN OAKLAND AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL IS SEIU INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BRYANT. NOW, ASHLEY WAS ABLE TO TALK TO BRIAN AND ASK ABOUT THAT STATEMENT THAT WE JUST READ IN OUR ONGOING REPORTING ON THE USE OF NDAS DURING LEGISLATIVE NEGOTIATIONS HERE IS PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. DO YOU THINK OUR REPORTING IS A NOTHINGBURGER? DO YOU THINK OUR REPORTING IS HYPE AND INNUENDO? I DON’T THINK YOU’VE READ THAT REPORT. IN PARTICULAR, AND THAT STATEMENT, WAS IT FROM YOU? HAVE I HAVE NOT READ THAT REPORT. OKAY. THE USE OF NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS. I MEAN, DID YOU KNOW THAT THOSE WERE USED? WE WERE AT A PLACE WHERE WE MET IN PASS IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. YES. AND WE WERE ASKED BY, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, LEADERS AT THE STATE TO SAY, HEY, FIGURE THIS OUT. AND IN THESE SPACES, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WHEN YOU HAVE ENTITIES THAT COME FROM VERY DIFFERENT INTERESTS, YOU KNOW, OURS, YOU KNOW, COMING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ESTABLISHING, YOU KNOW, A VOICE FOR WORKERS AT THE TABLE, YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES COMING FROM THEIR THEIR PERSPECTIVE, UH, IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE CONVERSATIONS, UM, YOU KNOW. SOMETIMES IT DOES TAKE, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, STEPS TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH TRUST. THE LEGISLATION WAS PUT INTO PRINT ON SEPTEMBER 11TH. UH, IT PASSED SEPTEMBER 14TH, WHICH WAS THE FINAL DAY OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHEN STATE LAWMAKERS ARE SORTING THROUGH HUNDREDS OF BILLS. I MEAN, IS A IS A THREE DAY FAST TRACK PROCESS OF GOOD REPRESENTATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS? I WOULD SAY THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTREMELY LONG PROCESS. YES. AND AND, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE LAST PHASE OF THE BILL. OBVIOUSLY, THE BILL WENT THROUGH, UH, MANY OPEN HEARINGS, MANY COMMITTEE MEETINGS. UH, IT WAS DEBATE ON THE FLOOR, BOTH AT THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THERE WAS ENGAGEMENT FROM THE INDUSTRY. SO SO, YOU KNOW, FROM WHERE WE STARTED TO TO GET TO THE PLACE TO WHERE WE’RE AT OF SEPTEMBER 14TH, IT REALLY WAS A PROCESS OF MULTIPLE YEARS. WERE YOU A SIGNEE OF AN NDA IN THIS? UM, I WOULD PREFER NOT TO COMMENT. OKAY. AND COULD YOU TELL US AT LEAST THE TERMS OF THE NDA, WHAT THEY COVER AND HOW LONG THEY WERE IN, YOU KNOW, WERE SET TO BE APPLIED TO ANY OF THIS? DID THEY EXPIRE? UM, I WOULD SAY THE ONE THING AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE IT TAKES AWAY FROM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH. ITS YOUR ORGANIZATION’S OPINION THAT THESE WERE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS. BUT THIS IS A LAW THAT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE STATE. THE MEDIATORS OF THIS WERE PAID FOR ON THE TAXPAYER DIME. THE SYSTEMS IN WHICH THIS LAW WAS NEGOTIATED WERE ALSO PAID ON THE TAXPAYER DIME. WHY SHOULD NDAS BE USED IN THAT PROCESS? AND I THINK WHAT HAPPENED ABSOLUTELY BENEFITS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, WE ARE DEALING WITH A CRISIS IN REGARDS TO HOMELESSNESS IN THE STATE. UM. 6% OF THE, UH, OF THE FAST OR THE HOMELESS POPULATION ARE FAST FOOD WORKERS. SO SO THIS IS SOMETHING IN TERMS OF INCREASED THING THE, THE, THE INCOME OF FAST FOOD WORKERS HELPS ALL CALIFORNIANS. WE HAVE A EXORBITANT NUMBER OF FAST FOOD WORKERS WHO RELY ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. WE HAVE EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF FAST FOOD WORKERS THAT HAVE INSECURITY IN REGARDS TO THE STATE, WHETHER IT BE HOUSING, WHETHER IT BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR FAMILIES AND WHAT THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION DID WAS HELP. CALIFORNIA WAS HELP. CALIFORNIA BY HELPING CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE FAST FOOD WORKERS, AND TO BE ABLE TO ALSO LIFT UP EVERYONE IN THE STATE. OKAY, THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY PUBLIC RECORDS SPELLING OUT HOW AND WHY CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS WERE ADDED TO THAT BILL, AND LEGAL EXPERTS AND LEGISLATORS WE’VE SPOKEN WITH TELL US THEY HAVE NOT HEARD OF OR SEEN NDAS BEING USED IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, AND THEY DO NOT THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S OFFICE HAS SAID NONE OF ITS STAFF SIGNED THE NDAS. IT HAS NOT SAID IF IT WAS AWARE THAT THEY WERE BEING USED AND IF IT APPROVES OF THEIR USE IN THE POLICY MAKIN

    SEIU responds to reporting on its use of NDAs in California’s fast food law negotiations

    KCRA 3 first reported last week that SEIU required representatives from the fast food and franchise industry to sign non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of the law.


    California Capitol Correspondent

    The powerful labor group that helped lead negotiations in California’s landmark fast-food minimum wage law broke its silence for the first time Friday on its use of non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of that law. KCRA 3 first reported last week that the Service Employees International Union, also known as SEIU, required representatives from the fast food and franchise industry to sign non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of the law. The result of those negotiations was placed into a bill, AB 1228, on Sept. 11, 2023 and passed by state lawmakers on the final night of the legislative session three days later. In a statement Friday, Mike Roth, a spokesman for SEIU California said, “This story is a nothing burger made of innuendo and hype. KCRA’s reporting repeatedly, intentionally and inappropriately fails to distinguish between conversations taking place between private parties and the public process by which a bill becomes a law.”“California’s landmark law lifting 500,000 fast food workers out of poverty and strengthening their voice at work went through a full, transparent, and public process as required by law,” Roth said. “The suggestion that private parties cannot or should not have confidential discussions to resolve their differences is absurd.”Roth sent his statement as KCRA 3 has made repeated requests to interview Tia Orr, SEIU California’s leader, to answer questions about SEIU’s use of non-disclosure agreements. SEIU California released the statement halfway through the inaugural meeting of the fast-food council that was created by the law in question. The group’s representative on the council, Joseph Bryant, told KCRA 3 he was not aware of the statement or the reporting. When KCRA 3 asked if he was one of the signees of the non-disclosure agreement, Bryant would not comment. “We were at a place where we met impasse in the legislative process,” Bryant said. “We were asked by leaders at the state to say, ‘Hey figure this out.’”Bryant did not directly respond to many of KCRA 3’s questions but maintained that the law got a thorough review from lawmakers and the public. KCRA 3 learned about the use of non-disclosure agreements while trying to understand why a mysterious exemption was put into the law that exempts chains that make and sell their own bread as a stand-alone menu item. Multiple sources have said one of Gov. Newsom’s billionaire donors influenced him to push for the carveout. Those non-disclosure agreements prevent the negotiators from discussing how the exemption landed in the law. Gov. Newsom’s office has said no one in the office signed the NDAs. The office has not said if it was aware the NDAs were being used, and if it approved of their use in the policy making process. Long-time Capitol observer and McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli told KCRA 3 the use of NDAs between interest groups was surprising but not illegal.”It’s unprecedented in my mind because I’ve never heard of anyone using an NDA when it comes to legislative negotiations,” Micheli said. “I think the concern we should have is a potential lack of transparency and disclosure. Remember, the lawmaking process is being done on behalf of the people of California.”Following KCRA 3’s reporting, Republican Assemblyman Vince Fong recently introduced legislation prohibiting their use in legislative negotiations. The measure would also invalidate any laws that used them.

    OAKLAND, Calif. —

    The powerful labor group that helped lead negotiations in California’s landmark fast-food minimum wage law broke its silence for the first time Friday on its use of non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of that law.

    KCRA 3 first reported last week that the Service Employees International Union, also known as SEIU, required representatives from the fast food and franchise industry to sign non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of the law. The result of those negotiations was placed into a bill, AB 1228, on Sept. 11, 2023 and passed by state lawmakers on the final night of the legislative session three days later.

    In a statement Friday, Mike Roth, a spokesman for SEIU California said, “This story is a nothing burger made of innuendo and hype. KCRA’s reporting repeatedly, intentionally and inappropriately fails to distinguish between conversations taking place between private parties and the public process by which a bill becomes a law.”

    “California’s landmark law lifting 500,000 fast food workers out of poverty and strengthening their voice at work went through a full, transparent, and public process as required by law,” Roth said. “The suggestion that private parties cannot or should not have confidential discussions to resolve their differences is absurd.”

    Roth sent his statement as KCRA 3 has made repeated requests to interview Tia Orr, SEIU California’s leader, to answer questions about SEIU’s use of non-disclosure agreements.

    SEIU California released the statement halfway through the inaugural meeting of the fast-food council that was created by the law in question. The group’s representative on the council, Joseph Bryant, told KCRA 3 he was not aware of the statement or the reporting.

    When KCRA 3 asked if he was one of the signees of the non-disclosure agreement, Bryant would not comment.

    “We were at a place where we met impasse in the legislative process,” Bryant said. “We were asked by leaders at the state to say, ‘Hey figure this out.’”

    Bryant did not directly respond to many of KCRA 3’s questions but maintained that the law got a thorough review from lawmakers and the public.

    KCRA 3 learned about the use of non-disclosure agreements while trying to understand why a mysterious exemption was put into the law that exempts chains that make and sell their own bread as a stand-alone menu item. Multiple sources have said one of Gov. Newsom’s billionaire donors influenced him to push for the carveout. Those non-disclosure agreements prevent the negotiators from discussing how the exemption landed in the law.

    Gov. Newsom’s office has said no one in the office signed the NDAs. The office has not said if it was aware the NDAs were being used, and if it approved of their use in the policy making process.

    Long-time Capitol observer and McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli told KCRA 3 the use of NDAs between interest groups was surprising but not illegal.

    “It’s unprecedented in my mind because I’ve never heard of anyone using an NDA when it comes to legislative negotiations,” Micheli said. “I think the concern we should have is a potential lack of transparency and disclosure. Remember, the lawmaking process is being done on behalf of the people of California.”

    Following KCRA 3’s reporting, Republican Assemblyman Vince Fong recently introduced legislation prohibiting their use in legislative negotiations. The measure would also invalidate any laws that used them.

    Source link

  • California Republicans want investigation into Newsom’s ties to Panera franchisee, new fast food law

    California Republicans want investigation into Newsom’s ties to Panera franchisee, new fast food law

    Republican California lawmakers on Thursday called for an investigation into Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ties to a billionaire Panera franchisee and the restaurant’s exemption from a new state law that will require major fast-food chains to pay their workers $20 an hour. “He owes everybody an explanation,” Republican State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones said. Some Republican lawmakers said they had little faith in the ability of California’s Democratic Supermajority Legislature or other top Democrats in state government to investigate the issue. Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, went as far as to say the FBI should get involved. “Frankly, I don’t think the California Attorney General is capable of doing that,” Patterson said. “I think it has to be an outside agency that investigates this.” Multiple sources who spoke on condition of anonymity have confirmed to KCRA that billionaire franchisee and Newsom donor Greg Flynn influenced Newsom’s push to carve out chains that sell and break bread on-site from the new law in the final weeks of the legislative session in 2022. Newsom’s office has said that it was the result of two years’ worth of negotiations between him and the Legislature. The law goes into effect in April. “The Governor never met with Flynn about this bill & this story is absurd. Our legal team has reviewed and it appears Panera is not exempt,” Newsom’s spokesman Alex Stack said on Thursday. Newsom’s office said the exemption applies to those who produce bread on-site, and said some bakeries, including Panera, mix dough off-site at a centralized location before sending it to their restaurants for baking and sale. Experts note that appearance is up for interpretation, and stakeholders for years have understood it as an exemption. The legislation also does not define the word “produce.” KCRA 3 asked Newsom why the exemption was in there when he signed the law in September of 2023. He said it was “part of the sausage making … part of the negotiations.” Greg Flynn sent KCRA 3 a lengthy statement on Thursday night: “It is true that I opposed AB1228, as did thousands of other California restaurant owners. If the intent of the bill was to address alleged labor code violations in fast food restaurants, then the scope of the law should be limited to true fast food restaurants and not include fast casual restaurants like bakeries, bagel shops, delis, etc. I suggested the bill’s language defining “fast food restaurant” should be amended to exclude fast casual restaurants,” Flynn said. “To be clear, at no time did I ask for an exemption or special considerations. In fact, the idea never even occurred to me and I was surprised when the exemption appeared in the final legislation. Such a narrow exemption has very little practical value. As it applies to all of our peer restaurants in the fast casual segment, we will almost certainly have to offer market value wages in order to attract and retain employees,” Flynn said. “I also never met with Governor Newsom about this bill, though I did meet with his staff in a group meeting with other restaurant owners. And finally, although we attended the same high school, I never met him there and in fact didn’t meet him until decades later,” he said. Democratic Assemblyman Chris Holden, who wrote the law, said he did not know why the exemption was put into the bill. He told reporters on Thursday that despite being the author of the law, he was not part of the negotiation to include the carve-out for bakeries. “It’s my bill, but in terms of the negotiations, it was bringing together the business community and franchisees and franchisors and through the governor’s leadership, it came together and what came out of that came the amendments of the bill,” Holden said. Holden said he was not aware of the relationship between Flynn and Newsom. When KCRA 3 asked if, to the average Californian, Panera’s exemption from the law may appear questionable, Holden replied, “That’s a conversation you’ll have to have with others.”Neither Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas nor Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire have responded to a request for comment. Flynn has not responded to KCRA 3’s request for comment but told Bloomberg he was not involved in the crafting of the exemption. Campaign finance data show Flynn donated $100,000 to Newsom’s campaign to fight his recall in 2021. In 2022, Flynn donated $64,800 to Newsom’s reelection campaign. That includes a $32,400 contribution deposited three months before the law passed with the exemption in 2022, and a $14,800 donation that October after Newsom signed it. Flynn has donated to other state politicians individually, but the majority of his contributions have gone to Newsom. Since 2020, Flynn has made smaller contributions to State Treasurer Fiona Ma and State Sen. Steve Glazer. His most recent contribution was made to Attorney General Rob Bonta for $5,000 in June of 2023. Bonta did not respond to a request for comment. Flynn is the franchisee of dozens of Panera restaurants across Northern California. According to city records, Flynn opened another Panera restaurant within view of the state capitol in Sacramento in December. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app.

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    Republican California lawmakers on Thursday called for an investigation into Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ties to a billionaire Panera franchisee and the restaurant’s exemption from a new state law that will require major fast-food chains to pay their workers $20 an hour.

    “He owes everybody an explanation,” Republican State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones said.

    Some Republican lawmakers said they had little faith in the ability of California’s Democratic Supermajority Legislature or other top Democrats in state government to investigate the issue. Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, went as far as to say the FBI should get involved.

    “Frankly, I don’t think the California Attorney General is capable of doing that,” Patterson said. “I think it has to be an outside agency that investigates this.”

    Multiple sources who spoke on condition of anonymity have confirmed to KCRA that billionaire franchisee and Newsom donor Greg Flynn influenced Newsom’s push to carve out chains that sell and break bread on-site from the new law in the final weeks of the legislative session in 2022.

    Newsom’s office has said that it was the result of two years’ worth of negotiations between him and the Legislature. The law goes into effect in April.

    “The Governor never met with Flynn about this bill & this story is absurd. Our legal team has reviewed and it appears Panera is not exempt,” Newsom’s spokesman Alex Stack said on Thursday. Newsom’s office said the exemption applies to those who produce bread on-site, and said some bakeries, including Panera, mix dough off-site at a centralized location before sending it to their restaurants for baking and sale. Experts note that appearance is up for interpretation, and stakeholders for years have understood it as an exemption. The legislation also does not define the word “produce.”

    KCRA 3 asked Newsom why the exemption was in there when he signed the law in September of 2023. He said it was “part of the sausage making … part of the negotiations.”

    Greg Flynn sent KCRA 3 a lengthy statement on Thursday night:

    “It is true that I opposed AB1228, as did thousands of other California restaurant owners. If the intent of the bill was to address alleged labor code violations in fast food restaurants, then the scope of the law should be limited to true fast food restaurants and not include fast casual restaurants like bakeries, bagel shops, delis, etc. I suggested the bill’s language defining “fast food restaurant” should be amended to exclude fast casual restaurants,” Flynn said.

    “To be clear, at no time did I ask for an exemption or special considerations. In fact, the idea never even occurred to me and I was surprised when the exemption appeared in the final legislation. Such a narrow exemption has very little practical value. As it applies to all of our peer restaurants in the fast casual segment, we will almost certainly have to offer market value wages in order to attract and retain employees,” Flynn said.

    “I also never met with Governor Newsom about this bill, though I did meet with his staff in a group meeting with other restaurant owners. And finally, although we attended the same high school, I never met him there and in fact didn’t meet him until decades later,” he said.

    Democratic Assemblyman Chris Holden, who wrote the law, said he did not know why the exemption was put into the bill. He told reporters on Thursday that despite being the author of the law, he was not part of the negotiation to include the carve-out for bakeries.

    “It’s my bill, but in terms of the negotiations, it was bringing together the business community and franchisees and franchisors and through the governor’s leadership, it came together and what came out of that came the amendments of the bill,” Holden said.

    Holden said he was not aware of the relationship between Flynn and Newsom.

    When KCRA 3 asked if, to the average Californian, Panera’s exemption from the law may appear questionable, Holden replied, “That’s a conversation you’ll have to have with others.”

    Neither Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas nor Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire have responded to a request for comment. Flynn has not responded to KCRA 3’s request for comment but told Bloomberg he was not involved in the crafting of the exemption.

    Campaign finance data show Flynn donated $100,000 to Newsom’s campaign to fight his recall in 2021. In 2022, Flynn donated $64,800 to Newsom’s reelection campaign.

    That includes a $32,400 contribution deposited three months before the law passed with the exemption in 2022, and a $14,800 donation that October after Newsom signed it.

    Flynn has donated to other state politicians individually, but the majority of his contributions have gone to Newsom. Since 2020, Flynn has made smaller contributions to State Treasurer Fiona Ma and State Sen. Steve Glazer. His most recent contribution was made to Attorney General Rob Bonta for $5,000 in June of 2023. Bonta did not respond to a request for comment.

    Flynn is the franchisee of dozens of Panera restaurants across Northern California. According to city records, Flynn opened another Panera restaurant within view of the state capitol in Sacramento in December.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app.

    Source link