ReportWire

Tag: state lawmaker

  • California bill would force lawmakers to start talking about controversial capitol annex project

    [ad_1]

    California lawmakers will consider a bill that could force public conversations on the secretive California Capitol Annex project for the first time in years. Assemblyman Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, filed AB 2445 which would invalidate the non-disclosure agreements that have been shielding basic information from the public about the taxpayer funded project. The project includes a new office building and parking garage for state lawmakers and the governor that is expected to be complete by Fall of 2027. Non-disclosure agreements are contracts that legally force people to keep quiet. In September of 2024, KCRA 3 first reported project leaders forced more than 2,000 people and counting to sign them, including some state lawmakers, government officials and members of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s staff. “This comes after years working behind the scenes and across the aisle to get information on the capitol annex,” Hoover said in an interview with KCRA 3 Wednesday. He said those efforts didn’t gain a lot of traction, and project leaders continue to keep information not just from the public, but also lawmakers. “We need to have a public conversation,” he said. Hoover’s bill would also prohibit the construction of a visitor’s center on the state capitol’s iconic west side. Project leaders quietly decided to not move forward with that aspect of the plan but told no one until KCRA 3 pressed for information last summer. Hoover wants the decision put into state law. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee overseeing the project has not held a single hearing on it since 2021 and the group has not updated the estimated cost to taxpayers since 2022, which at the time was set at $1.1 billion. Nearly three months after project leaders Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco and State Senator John Laird promised to be more transparent, they have yet to update taxpayers on the price tag. They have also rejected KCRA 3’s repeated requests for an interview since the start of this year. Pacheco and Laird would not do an interview for this story and did not have an update on a cost estimate as of Wednesday night. A spokesperson for the project said the project’s new management company was still “crunching the numbers” and would provide an update as soon as possible. Project leaders have been saying this since December. “We are aware of the legislative proposal pending in the Assembly and will let the legislative process run its course,” Pacheco and Laird said in a joint statement. “I see a brave leadership doing the right thing and getting the issue behind them,” said Dick Cowan, the former leader of the now defunct Historic State Capitol Commission who was part of a group that sued over the project. “If the leadership ignores this bill, if they don’t refer it to a committee, if they don’t give it a hearing, that public trust is still at risk.” The projectBack in 2016, California lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to demolish the capitol’s 1950’s annex building and construct a new one citing safety issues. The plan included not just a new building but also a parking garage and visitor’s center on the west side of the state capitol. The 525,000 square foot office building will specifically house the offices of California’s 120 state lawmakers, governor and lieutenant governor. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis will no longer be in office once it’s complete. In 2021, a group named Save Our Capitol sued over the project citing environmental concerns. A state appellate court sided with the group, agreeing that project leaders did not provide the public with an accurate description of the project or a thorough analysis of how the demolition of the old annex would impact the environment. In 2024, California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom rushed a bill that exempted the project from the California Environmental Quality Act to halt the litigation. A year after that litigation ended, project leaders continued to use it as an excuse to not update taxpayers on the cost. Even with a price tag of about $1.1 billion, it would still be considered one of the most expensive buildings in the country and cost nearly as much as an NFL stadium. Project leaders said they’ve spent $573.8 million so far and that it was 50% complete as of December of 2025. The secrecy The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee has been keeping basic information about the project confidential since it started.In the fall of 2024 through a series of open records requests, KCRA 3 broke the story that more than 2,000 people signed the broad non-disclosure agreements including five state lawmakers, dozens of government officials, and a handful of people in the governor’s office. With the information protected under NDAs, the estimated price tag of the project doubled between 2018 and 2021. Various legal experts told KCRA 3 they were alarmed by the development noting taxpayers and voters are entitled to the information. While it is legal, some state lawmakers and experts said the use of NDAs like this should be banned. Hoover’s bill attempts to prohibit the use of NDAs in this manner moving forward. “I think when you’re going to spend over a billion dollars, you need to have more transparency than this,” Hoover said. The original legislative architect of the Capitol Annex Project and the establishment of the NDAs was then Assemblyman Ken Cooley, a Democrat from Sacramento. Hoover defeated Cooley in the 2022 election. Cooley has ignored years’ worth of KCRA 3’s requests for information surrounding the decision to use NDAs. Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco replaced Cooley as the leader of the Joint Rules Committee when Cooley lost his seat. She and Vice Chairman of the committee, State Senator John Laird, have defended the use of the NDAs stating they’re meant to protect security and bid information”The NDAs are for public safety. They exist to protect the physical integrity of the building and safeguard everyone – legislators, staff, journalists and the multitude of daily schoolchildren and visitors. Invalidating these standard safety protocols would be a serious security risk.” The project NDAs do not explicitly say the words security and bid information. They protect any and all information related to the project. When pressed about this in an interview in December, Pacheco said, “These were drafted by legal counsel, and I can’t say why legal counsel would draft it in such a manner. Sometimes legal counsel prefers to have broad language.” Cowan has said Hoover’s proposal to get rid of them will be the only way for project leaders to truly know what went wrong. “They have to talk to everyone involved, because at the moment those people are afraid to speak,” Cowan said. Longtime lobbyist and Adjunct McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli said if lawmakers were to pass the proposal, it could be challenged in court. “States can’t impair existing contracts,” Micheli noted. “However, if there were a legal challenge, how would the courts look at it? Is it reasonable? Is it necessary? Does it serve a significant public purpose? I think if those three tests are viewed favorable then the invalidation could occur.” Project leaders have been making a series of decisions behind closed doors and have a history of withholding public records. KCRA 3 reported in 2024 the secret stonework project leaders quietly approved that involved mining 2 million pounds of rock from Central California, shipping it to Italy to be finished into stone and shipping it back to the state to eventually be placed on part of the facade of the new building. Following the January 6 attacks on the nation’s capitol, project leaders also added millions in new security expenses. State law has given project leaders the ability to meet and decide aspects of the project outside of public view. In addition to the leaders of the Joint Rules Committee, public records show the meetings also include the governor’s Director of Operations, the director of the Department of General Services and a representative with the project’s management company. Neither the governor’s office nor Joint Rules Committee could provide records showing how long these meetings lasted and whether a vote took place.Records provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Request show this group met nine times in 2019, seven times in 2020, one time in 2023 and one time in 2025. The west side visitor’s center The state law that established the capitol annex also established the west side visitor’s center, which has yet to materialize. The west side is the capitol’s main public square where there are often protests, demonstrations, press conferences and major events. Hoover’s bill AB 2445 would change the annex law and prohibit the demolition of the West Steps for a visitor’s center and require any future visitor’s center to be placed anywhere else around the state capitol. The visitor’s center was also at the center of the environmental lawsuit. Project leaders confirmed to KCRA 3 last year that they did not intend to move forward with the visitor’s center. It’s not clear what they plan to do with the money that was meant for it. “During the legal process it was determined that the best path forward to finish the Annex on time, was to no longer pursue the Visitors Center on the West Steps. At this time, we are focused on finishing the Annex and a conversation about building a Visitor’s Center may begin at a later date,” Pacheco and Laird said in a joint statement. “Those words are not as comforting as the words I would want to hear, that ‘we commit, we’ll put in writing,’” Cowan told KCRA 3 in an interview. “Those are nice soft words but they don’t prevent work from starting later.” Records provided to KCRA 3 show on July 31, 2025, project leaders notified Plant Construction Company that the work had not been approved to proceed after stalling since 2023 because of the lawsuit. “We thank you for your work on the Visitor Center and look forward to a future opportunity to work with your team,” wrote the Chief Administrative Officers of the Senate and Assembly, Erika Contreras and Lia Lopez. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    California lawmakers will consider a bill that could force public conversations on the secretive California Capitol Annex project for the first time in years.

    Assemblyman Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, filed AB 2445 which would invalidate the non-disclosure agreements that have been shielding basic information from the public about the taxpayer funded project. The project includes a new office building and parking garage for state lawmakers and the governor that is expected to be complete by Fall of 2027.

    Non-disclosure agreements are contracts that legally force people to keep quiet. In September of 2024, KCRA 3 first reported project leaders forced more than 2,000 people and counting to sign them, including some state lawmakers, government officials and members of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s staff.

    “This comes after years working behind the scenes and across the aisle to get information on the capitol annex,” Hoover said in an interview with KCRA 3 Wednesday. He said those efforts didn’t gain a lot of traction, and project leaders continue to keep information not just from the public, but also lawmakers.

    “We need to have a public conversation,” he said.

    Hoover’s bill would also prohibit the construction of a visitor’s center on the state capitol’s iconic west side. Project leaders quietly decided to not move forward with that aspect of the plan but told no one until KCRA 3 pressed for information last summer. Hoover wants the decision put into state law.

    The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee overseeing the project has not held a single hearing on it since 2021 and the group has not updated the estimated cost to taxpayers since 2022, which at the time was set at $1.1 billion.

    Nearly three months after project leaders Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco and State Senator John Laird promised to be more transparent, they have yet to update taxpayers on the price tag. They have also rejected KCRA 3’s repeated requests for an interview since the start of this year.

    Pacheco and Laird would not do an interview for this story and did not have an update on a cost estimate as of Wednesday night. A spokesperson for the project said the project’s new management company was still “crunching the numbers” and would provide an update as soon as possible.

    Project leaders have been saying this since December.

    “We are aware of the legislative proposal pending in the Assembly and will let the legislative process run its course,” Pacheco and Laird said in a joint statement.

    “I see a brave leadership doing the right thing and getting the issue behind them,” said Dick Cowan, the former leader of the now defunct Historic State Capitol Commission who was part of a group that sued over the project.

    “If the leadership ignores this bill, if they don’t refer it to a committee, if they don’t give it a hearing, that public trust is still at risk.”

    The project

    Back in 2016, California lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to demolish the capitol’s 1950’s annex building and construct a new one citing safety issues. The plan included not just a new building but also a parking garage and visitor’s center on the west side of the state capitol.

    The 525,000 square foot office building will specifically house the offices of California’s 120 state lawmakers, governor and lieutenant governor. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis will no longer be in office once it’s complete.

    In 2021, a group named Save Our Capitol sued over the project citing environmental concerns. A state appellate court sided with the group, agreeing that project leaders did not provide the public with an accurate description of the project or a thorough analysis of how the demolition of the old annex would impact the environment.

    In 2024, California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom rushed a bill that exempted the project from the California Environmental Quality Act to halt the litigation.

    A year after that litigation ended, project leaders continued to use it as an excuse to not update taxpayers on the cost. Even with a price tag of about $1.1 billion, it would still be considered one of the most expensive buildings in the country and cost nearly as much as an NFL stadium.

    Project leaders said they’ve spent $573.8 million so far and that it was 50% complete as of December of 2025.

    The secrecy

    The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee has been keeping basic information about the project confidential since it started.

    In the fall of 2024 through a series of open records requests, KCRA 3 broke the story that more than 2,000 people signed the broad non-disclosure agreements including five state lawmakers, dozens of government officials, and a handful of people in the governor’s office.

    With the information protected under NDAs, the estimated price tag of the project doubled between 2018 and 2021.

    Various legal experts told KCRA 3 they were alarmed by the development noting taxpayers and voters are entitled to the information. While it is legal, some state lawmakers and experts said the use of NDAs like this should be banned. Hoover’s bill attempts to prohibit the use of NDAs in this manner moving forward.

    “I think when you’re going to spend over a billion dollars, you need to have more transparency than this,” Hoover said.

    The original legislative architect of the Capitol Annex Project and the establishment of the NDAs was then Assemblyman Ken Cooley, a Democrat from Sacramento. Hoover defeated Cooley in the 2022 election. Cooley has ignored years’ worth of KCRA 3’s requests for information surrounding the decision to use NDAs.

    Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco replaced Cooley as the leader of the Joint Rules Committee when Cooley lost his seat. She and Vice Chairman of the committee, State Senator John Laird, have defended the use of the NDAs stating they’re meant to protect security and bid information

    “The NDAs are for public safety. They exist to protect the physical integrity of the building and safeguard everyone – legislators, staff, journalists and the multitude of daily schoolchildren and visitors. Invalidating these standard safety protocols would be a serious security risk.”

    The project NDAs do not explicitly say the words security and bid information. They protect any and all information related to the project. When pressed about this in an interview in December, Pacheco said, “These were drafted by legal counsel, and I can’t say why legal counsel would draft it in such a manner. Sometimes legal counsel prefers to have broad language.”

    Cowan has said Hoover’s proposal to get rid of them will be the only way for project leaders to truly know what went wrong.

    “They have to talk to everyone involved, because at the moment those people are afraid to speak,” Cowan said.

    Longtime lobbyist and Adjunct McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli said if lawmakers were to pass the proposal, it could be challenged in court.

    “States can’t impair existing contracts,” Micheli noted. “However, if there were a legal challenge, how would the courts look at it? Is it reasonable? Is it necessary? Does it serve a significant public purpose? I think if those three tests are viewed favorable then the invalidation could occur.”

    Project leaders have been making a series of decisions behind closed doors and have a history of withholding public records.

    KCRA 3 reported in 2024 the secret stonework project leaders quietly approved that involved mining 2 million pounds of rock from Central California, shipping it to Italy to be finished into stone and shipping it back to the state to eventually be placed on part of the facade of the new building.

    Following the January 6 attacks on the nation’s capitol, project leaders also added millions in new security expenses.

    State law has given project leaders the ability to meet and decide aspects of the project outside of public view. In addition to the leaders of the Joint Rules Committee, public records show the meetings also include the governor’s Director of Operations, the director of the Department of General Services and a representative with the project’s management company. Neither the governor’s office nor Joint Rules Committee could provide records showing how long these meetings lasted and whether a vote took place.

    Records provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Request show this group met nine times in 2019, seven times in 2020, one time in 2023 and one time in 2025.

    The west side visitor’s center

    The state law that established the capitol annex also established the west side visitor’s center, which has yet to materialize.

    The west side is the capitol’s main public square where there are often protests, demonstrations, press conferences and major events.

    Hoover’s bill AB 2445 would change the annex law and prohibit the demolition of the West Steps for a visitor’s center and require any future visitor’s center to be placed anywhere else around the state capitol.

    The visitor’s center was also at the center of the environmental lawsuit.

    Project leaders confirmed to KCRA 3 last year that they did not intend to move forward with the visitor’s center. It’s not clear what they plan to do with the money that was meant for it.

    “During the legal process it was determined that the best path forward to finish the Annex on time, was to no longer pursue the Visitors Center on the West Steps. At this time, we are focused on finishing the Annex and a conversation about building a Visitor’s Center may begin at a later date,” Pacheco and Laird said in a joint statement.

    “Those words are not as comforting as the words I would want to hear, that ‘we commit, we’ll put in writing,’” Cowan told KCRA 3 in an interview. “Those are nice soft words but they don’t prevent work from starting later.”

    Records provided to KCRA 3 show on July 31, 2025, project leaders notified Plant Construction Company that the work had not been approved to proceed after stalling since 2023 because of the lawsuit.

    “We thank you for your work on the Visitor Center and look forward to a future opportunity to work with your team,” wrote the Chief Administrative Officers of the Senate and Assembly, Erika Contreras and Lia Lopez.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s role in the California Capitol Annex project?

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week. It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion. | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’ Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing. “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird. A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.” The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion. Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA. It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now. “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday. “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom. KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor. “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said. “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee. When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office. Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week.

    It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion.

    | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’

    Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing.

    “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.

    But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird.

    A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.”

    The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.

    All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion.

    Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA.

    It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now.

    “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday.

    “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom.

    KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor.

    “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said.

    “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee.

    When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”

    Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office.

    Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.

    The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California lawmakers approve bill to make it a crime for them to sign NDAs when negotiating state laws

    [ad_1]

    The California Legislature this week approved a bill that would ban state lawmakers from signing non-disclosure agreements when they decide how to use taxpayer dollars or create state laws. Non-disclosure agreements are legally binding contracts that force people to keep information secret. The California Assembly unanimously passed the measure in its final legislative vote Wednesday and sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide whether it becomes state law. The legislation is a direct result of KCRA 3’s reporting on how California’s government has either used them or allowed special interest groups to use them on a major public project and state laws.The bill, AB 1370, would make it a crime for California lawmakers to sign or force anyone to sign the secrecy agreements as they craft legislation. It would be enforced by local law enforcement and give prosecutors the power to charge lawmakers with either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances. “I think us as legislators and the governor should not be signing away the public’s right to know the deliberations of important things that will impact their lives,” said Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, who wrote the proposal. “This is one step to bringing more transparency but more trust in the government, more trust in the work we do here in the legislature.” No Democratic lawmakers have spoken publicly about the proposal this year. KCRA 3 was the first to report the use of NDAs in the California Legislature’s construction of a new $1.1 billion office building for state lawmakers. The Legislature directed 2,000 people, including five state lawmakers and dozens of government workers, to sign NDAs to keep broad information about the project secret. Democratic leaders haven’t given an update on the project in years.KCRA 3 also first reported last year that state lawmakers were entirely left out of the negotiations of California’s fast-food minimum wage law, which raised pay to $20 an hour for fast-food workers across the state but provided a mysterious exemption for bakeries that sell and bake their own bread.Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office oversaw the negotiations and allowed NDAs to cover the secret talks at the insistence of a major labor organization, SEIU California. Newsom’s office has said neither the governor nor his staff signed them. Since then, no one has been able to explain the bakery exemption, but multiple sources have told KCRA 3 it was for one of the governor’s billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee.Joseph Bryant, an SEIU official who is also a member of California’s Fast-Food Council, which is meant to set the wages and working conditions for the workers across the state, would not confirm or deny that he signed the NDA.Republican lawmakers twice last year tried to introduce legislation that would have broadly restricted the use of NDAs by lawmakers, staff, other government officials and lobbyists when crafting public policy. Democrats in the Assembly claimed the measure was too broad.California Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier this year would not confirm or deny if he would try to enforce the existing NDAs on the fast-food law and Capitol Annex project if anyone were to violate them. Gov. Newsom has until mid-October to sign or veto legislation. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    The California Legislature this week approved a bill that would ban state lawmakers from signing non-disclosure agreements when they decide how to use taxpayer dollars or create state laws.

    Non-disclosure agreements are legally binding contracts that force people to keep information secret.

    The California Assembly unanimously passed the measure in its final legislative vote Wednesday and sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide whether it becomes state law.

    The legislation is a direct result of KCRA 3’s reporting on how California’s government has either used them or allowed special interest groups to use them on a major public project and state laws.

    The bill, AB 1370, would make it a crime for California lawmakers to sign or force anyone to sign the secrecy agreements as they craft legislation. It would be enforced by local law enforcement and give prosecutors the power to charge lawmakers with either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances.

    “I think us as legislators and the governor should not be signing away the public’s right to know the deliberations of important things that will impact their lives,” said Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, who wrote the proposal. “This is one step to bringing more transparency but more trust in the government, more trust in the work we do here in the legislature.”

    No Democratic lawmakers have spoken publicly about the proposal this year.

    KCRA 3 was the first to report the use of NDAs in the California Legislature’s construction of a new $1.1 billion office building for state lawmakers. The Legislature directed 2,000 people, including five state lawmakers and dozens of government workers, to sign NDAs to keep broad information about the project secret. Democratic leaders haven’t given an update on the project in years.

    KCRA 3 also first reported last year that state lawmakers were entirely left out of the negotiations of California’s fast-food minimum wage law, which raised pay to $20 an hour for fast-food workers across the state but provided a mysterious exemption for bakeries that sell and bake their own bread.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office oversaw the negotiations and allowed NDAs to cover the secret talks at the insistence of a major labor organization, SEIU California. Newsom’s office has said neither the governor nor his staff signed them. Since then, no one has been able to explain the bakery exemption, but multiple sources have told KCRA 3 it was for one of the governor’s billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee.

    Joseph Bryant, an SEIU official who is also a member of California’s Fast-Food Council, which is meant to set the wages and working conditions for the workers across the state, would not confirm or deny that he signed the NDA.

    Republican lawmakers twice last year tried to introduce legislation that would have broadly restricted the use of NDAs by lawmakers, staff, other government officials and lobbyists when crafting public policy. Democrats in the Assembly claimed the measure was too broad.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier this year would not confirm or deny if he would try to enforce the existing NDAs on the fast-food law and Capitol Annex project if anyone were to violate them.

    Gov. Newsom has until mid-October to sign or veto legislation.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Psilocybin — the drug in ‘magic mushrooms’ — could see federal restrictions loosened

    [ad_1]

    Regulation of psilocybin — the “magic” substance in psychedelic mushrooms — has been a hot-button issue for Californians in recent years, but repeated attempts by state lawmakers to allow medical use of the substance have floundered.

    Now it seems change may come at the federal level.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is weighing a petition sent earlier this month by the Drug Enforcement Administration to review the scientific evidence and consider easing restrictions.

    Psilocybin is currently classified as a Schedule I narcotic, the most restrictive category under federal law, reserved for drugs “with a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use.” The DEA is considering moving psilocybin into the less restrictive Schedule II tier, which includes drugs that are considered addictive or dangerous — including fentanyl and cocaine — but also have medical value.

    Past efforts to allow for therapeutic use of psilocybin have largely stalled in the face of official intransigence and lack of political will, including in California, where state lawmakers’ efforts to decriminalize psilocybin and other psychedelic substances have failed multiple times.

    Despite strict prohibition under both state and federal law, psilocybin is widely available and growing in popularity for both recreational and therapeutic purposes.

    Illegal cannabis dispensaries across Southern California openly sell actual psilocybin mushrooms, as well as dodgy chocolates and gummies that often purport to contain the substance but instead contain only synthetic versions. In recent decades, a growing body of research has found that psilocybin can be beneficial in treating mental health conditions including depression, anxiety and substance use disorder.

    The issue of psychedelic access is high on the agenda of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s controversial and conspiracy-minded secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has signaled support in the past for expanding access to some hallucinogens in medical settings for treatment of mental health disorders.

    Kennedy’s agency directed all inquiries to the DEA, which said in an email that it is “unable to comment on or confirm scheduling actions.”

    The DEA sent the psilocybin petition after a drawn-out legal battle led by Dr. Sunil Aggarwal. For about five years, Aggarwal, co-director of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute in Seattle, has been seeking a means to legally obtain and administer psilocybin to ailing and aging patients for care during the final phases of their lives.

    Kathryn L. Tucker, a lawyer for Aggarwal, wrote a letter to the DEA this month that said he “continues to provide care to patients with advanced and terminal cancer who could benefit greatly from psilocybin assisted therapy, enabling them to experience a more peaceful dying process.”

    “The science supports movement to schedule II; such placement will enable access under Right to Try laws, which contemplate early access to promising new drugs for those with life-threatening conditions,” Tucker wrote.

    Aggarwal filed a lawsuit after his 2020 petition to reschedule psilocybin was denied. A federal panel dismissed the suit, but the move toward rescheduling continues now that the DEA has officially forwarded his petition to the Department of Health and Human Services.

    But some researchers and other experts caution against moving too fast to expand access.

    Dr. Steven Locke, a former Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor, wrote in an email that the question of whether psilocybin has any medical applications “remains controversial.” A past president of the American Psychosomatic Society, Locke has studied rare conditions such as Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder, which cause symptoms akin to long-lasting “bad trips” in a small percentage of people who use psilocybin mushrooms and other psychedelics.

    “There is little evidence from good-quality studies to support claims for the efficacy of the use of psilocybin for the treatment of any medical disorders,” said Locke. “The reclassification should be contingent on a careful review.”

    [ad_2]

    Connor Sheets

    Source link

  • California lawmakers can’t take lobbyist donations — unless they’re running for Congress

    California lawmakers can’t take lobbyist donations — unless they’re running for Congress

    [ad_1]

    State Sen. Susan Rubio has a powerful position in Sacramento. As chair of the Insurance Committee, the Baldwin Park Democrat can help pass or kill any legislation affecting that industry.

    Due to a law meant to prevent corruption, Rubio can’t accept campaign donations from insurance lobbyists — or any other lobbyists — as she raises money for her 2026 reelection to the Legislature. State law forbids California lobbyists from donating to the campaigns of state lawmakers.

    But there are no such restrictions on lobbyists donating to campaigns for federal office, even when the candidate is a state lawmaker. So as Rubio runs for Congress this year, she can take donations for her federal campaign from lobbyists who may seek to influence her votes in Sacramento.

    And she is.

    Rubio has received nearly $43,300 in contributions from registered state lobbyists in her campaign to replace retiring Rep. Grace F. Napolitano in California’s 31st Congressional District. It’s a sliver of her overall fundraising as of Feb. 14, but the most lobbyist money of any California lawmaker who is running for federal office. Many of those who donated to Rubio’s congressional campaign represent companies that lobby bills that are heard before committees she sits on as a state legislator, including the Insurance Committee and those that oversee policy related to healthcare, alcohol regulations and energy and utilities.

    Eight state legislators are running for Congress this year. Six have received lobbyist donations, in amounts that vary widely, adding up to $96,090.

    The donations are legal and make up a small portion of the candidates’ overall fundraising. Still, some watchdogs say they should be prohibited because of the risk that lobbyists’ money could shape lawmakers’ decisions in the work they are doing at the state level.

    “It doesn’t mean they’ll vote in their favor, but the possibility that could happen exists,” said Sean McMorris, a program manager at the government watchdog group Common Cause.

    His organization was part of the coalition that 50 years ago introduced California’s Political Reform Act, the law that bans lobbyist donations to state lawmakers.

    Bob Stern, co-author of the law, said the state prohibition was put in place because “legislators were receiving huge amounts from people who were lobbying them, and we thought there should be a disconnect between lobbying and campaign contributions.”

    In practice, Stern said, the prohibition’s impacts were limited, since the companies hiring lobbyists could still give directly to candidates, as can affiliated political action committees.

    But there was “symbolism” to the separation, he said.

    Rubio’s campaign manager, Giovanni Ruiz, said all contributions she had received from individuals were “solely based on mutually respectful relationships,” and she had opposed issues that donors lobbied for in the past.

    Ruiz also noted that Rubio was being massively outspent by her opponent Gil Cisneros, who has put $4 million of his own money into his campaign.

    Silicon Valley congressional candidate Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) received $21,650 from lobbyists, making up 2% of his fundraising. He joined the late-breaking race to replace retiring Rep. Anna G. Eshoo in early December, just months before the March primary.

    State Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who is running to replace Rep. Katie Porter in an Orange County seat, received about $16,500 in lobbyist donations, accounting for 1% of total fundraising since he launched his campaign at the beginning of 2023.

    Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who is vying to replace Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Los Angeles), received $4,000, and her opponent state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank) received $6,500 from lobbyists. Those totals account for less than 1% of each of their fundraising.

    Portantino and Friedman have both been running for the Los Angeles congressional seat for more than a year.

    Central Valley congressional candidate State Sen. Melissa Hurtado (D-Sanger) received about $4,000 from lobbyists — a sum that accounted for 6.1% of her fundraising since she launched her campaign in August 2023.

    Hurtado told The Times that lawmakers should be able to receive those donations but acknowledged that “money has the ability to corrupt people, it’s plain and simple.”

    Since August, Hurtado has raised less than $100,000; she said she is in debt from putting her own money into the race. The only money she doesn’t accept is from the cannabis industry, she told The Times.

    Friedman went further, saying she sees the potential issues would support a law that prevents federal campaigns from accepting money from state lobbyists.

    Friedman noted that her campaign was turning down all corporate PAC money and described that as a far more salient issue in races like hers. She characterized the lobbyist contributions she and her colleagues had received as small compared with the “avalanche of money out there” from clients of the lobbyists.

    Portantino, Low and Min did not respond to requests for comment.

    Two state legislators running for Congress have not received any lobbyist donations: Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera), who is also running for Napolitano’s San Gabriel Valley seat and launched his campaign last summer, and Assemblymember Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield), who is running for former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s vacant Bakersfield seat. Fong launched his campaign in December.

    Because of the limited disclosures required by the state, lobbyists are not required to publicly report which lawmakers they have attempted to influence on various bills, making it difficult to draw direct lines between their lobbying efforts and their donations. But campaign finance and lobbying records show that several of the candidates have received donations from lobbyists who work with companies seeking to influence policy in the areas in which they have power, based on committee positions.

    Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) is one of several state lawmakers running for Congress this year

    (Robert Gourley/Los Angeles Times)

    Sacramento lobbyist Mandy Lee gave $3,300, the maximum allowable donation, to Rubio. Her firm represents the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., a major trade group for home, auto and business insurers. The association lobbied on bills heard in the Rubio-chaired Senate Insurance Committee. Lee also donated $500 to Min.

    Rubio’s spokesperson noted that the senator’s relationship with Lee long predated her election to the Legislature.

    Rubio also received $2,000 from lobbyist Paul Gladfelty, whose firm represents the Travelers insurance company.

    “It is not uncommon for state lobbyists to make personal contributions to congressional candidates we know and believe in, which state law allows. Prior to the Senator running for Legislative office, I had the opportunity to establish a personal friendship,” Gladfelty said by text message, adding that his friendship with Rubio “exists regardless of her committee assignments.”

    Lobbyists Soyla Fernández and Kirk Kimmelshue, owners of Fernández Jensen Kimmelshue Government Affairs, both donated to the campaigns of Min and Rubio. Their firm’s client list includes the Regional Water Authority and Northern California Water Association, which both lobbied on bills that were heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water that Min chairs.

    Their firm also represents Southern California Edison, which routinely lobbies on bills in the Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee that Min and Rubio both sit on; the Anheuser-Busch beer company that lobbies the committee that regulates alcohol, of which Rubio is a member ; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which lobbies the health committee that Rubio sits on.

    Lobbyist RJ Cervantes, whose clients include trade associations for cryptocurrency and electronic payment companies, gave $3,300 to Low, who serves as co-chair of the Legislative Technology & Innovation Caucus, a group of lawmakers who want to foster a tech-friendly climate in California.

    Cervantes, Kimmelshue, Fernández and Lee did not respond to requests for comment.

    Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, saw the situation as less clear cut than Common Cause’s McMorris.

    She didn’t think it was unethical for state lawmakers to accept lobbyist donations to their congressional campaigns, since there was “a very real opening in the law” that allows such donations to federal campaigns.

    “It’s up to the voters to determine if this is something that bothers them,” Levinson said. “My guess is that for most voters, it’s pretty far down on the list.”

    [ad_2]

    Julia Wick, Anabel Sosa, Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee

    Source link