 |
 |
State lawmakers bend to pressure, reveal spending
By ROBERT DIGITALE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
For the first time, the Legislature on Friday released expense records for each individual senator and Assembly member.
Wes Chesbro; Jared Huffman
The data didn’t contain great revelations on the spending patterns of North Coast legislators. But the release was deemed a historic step forward for those seeking more transparency in government.
“This is really a watershed moment,” said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political scientist. Even so, he said, the legislative leaders released the data reluctantly in an effort to avoid a state ballot measure that would have forced greater disclosures.
“They went kicking and screaming,” McCuan said. And in the aftermath of the financial scandal in the city of Bell, he said, good government groups are going to keep pushing for more disclosures concerning the workings of the Legislature.
The data, released after 4 p.m. Friday, covers different time periods for state Senate and Assembly members. The Senate data covers Dec. 1, 2009 to Nov. 30, 2010. The Assembly records detail expenses from Dec. 1, 2010, to July 31.
As a result, the release contains no data on the spending of state Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, a legislator for six years. The Assembly data begins about the time she was leaving that body, while the Senate data covers a period that ends before she took office there in January.
Assembly Speaker John Perez and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg made available each lawmaker’s office budgets showing staff salaries, travel expenses and car leases, among other office items. It showed the Assembly, with 80 lawmakers, has spent more than $86 million so far this year, and the Senate, which has 40 lawmakers, has spent $69.3 million so far this year.
However, Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Cañada Flintridge who has been at the center of a debate over the accuracy of those office budgets, questioned whether the figures paint an accurate picture of each lawmaker’s spending.
“It’s a continuing effort to mislead the public on how the Assembly spends its money because it’s not releasing the actual spending of the members,” Portantino said. “Frankly, it’s an insult to the taxpayers.”
Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, on Friday evening had yet to view the financial data released for his office. But he said he strongly supported the release.
“I am relieved that they are finally releasing this stuff,” Huffman said. “I’ve been doing my part to urge the Assembly leadership to release this stuff.”
Asked for his views on the issue, Huffman said, “It’s the public’s money. I mean, how can you not have it be public? All our budgets should be available and transparent.”
According to the data, former Sen. Pat Wiggins, a Santa Rosa Democrat, ranked 10th in spending, at $1,055,688.11, among the 40 senators for the 12-month period. Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, ranked 17th at $955,183.64.
In the Assembly, Huffman ranked 52nd of the 80 members, at $208,514.59 for the eight-month period. Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata, ranked 57th, at $203,660.67.
Since lawmakers returned from summer recess last week, many from both parties have been embroiled in an internal debate over what spending records should be made public. Four Republican lawmakers broke ranks with legislative leaders and released their complete office budgets, defying a committee controlled by the Assembly speaker that has said such documents are not public records.
In response to the controversy, Perez asked Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, chairwoman of the rules committee, to lead a task force to modernize how the legislative body maintains and shares information with the public.
The task force will report back by January.
On Friday, Perez said the Assembly didn’t need to wait to post more recent expenditures. The Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times have filed a lawsuit seeking disclosure of up-to-date records.
“I believe that we can take steps now to increase the accessibility of information as to how the Assembly operates,” Perez said in a statement.
(This story contains information from the Associated Press. You can reach Staff Writer Robert Digitale at 521-5285 or robert.digitale@pressdemocrat.com.)
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@Jason Valez
You’re kidding right? Michael Allen’s job as District Director had nothing to do with his FPPC violations, that was city and county related. Previously reported by the PD The Assemblymember paid his fine and he has moved past his mistake.
And to your point about the money Wiggins spent, if you have ANY idea at all about how government offices work, the COS and member are the only staff members who are authorized to spend office budget money, this is customary in many political situations. And said money also has to go through the Rules Committee for authorization, and that money is then given with the absolute need for documentation of spending (receipts).
Mr. Valez says to do your “own research” and we should elect Democrats who support the “free market” and “small” business, since you decided to attack Mr. Allen directly I decided to do some of “my own reasearch” and look what I found on his website:
AB 1195: This bill looks at an existing ‘worker tax credit’ that was implemented as part of the 2009 budget compromise deal. SB 15 appropriated $400 million in tax credits to small businesses of 20 or fewer employees that added an additional full time position for the duration of the fiscal year. For each worker, the company received a $3,000 tax credit. However, to date, only a little over $45 million of the initial $400 million has been utilized. AB 1195 would expand the parameters of SB 15 to allow companies of 40 or fewer employees to claim the credit for up to three years. Additionally, it would provide a ‘shut off valve’, disallowing the credit if unemployment is below 7% in the state, or if the $400 million has been exhausted.
Looks like we already elected a Democrat who cares to help small business!!! using your favorite tool, TAX CUTS.
Does this make Michael Allen any better in your eyes?
@Dave Madigan Great points re: Pat Wiggins and Noreen Evans. Michael Allen was the field director for Pat Wiggins during that time and he was caught for conflicts of interest by the FPPC. Michael Allen was also running for his Assembly seat during that time. Was any of that million used for his campaign? This deserves some real scrutiny. Wiggins was obviously not competent to govern during that period.
I also want to see the expense records for Noreen Evans since she got a pass on the audit. These three are all members of the ‘Progressive’ caucus, all from Santa Rosa and have been playing musical chairs for seats in the State Legislature.
Don’t depend on the PD to get your questions answered but rather do your own research. It may be time to start electing some new people that are not part of the ‘progressive’ caucus. Progressive is just another name for socialist, it’s no wonder California is in the shape it’s in. Democrats should vote for more traditional democrats that still support the free market and small businesses. Let’s give some less known candidates our votes and see if they can do a better job of governing our state.
This is old news, politicians are known to suck billions in freebies our pockets, it’s the only reason they went into public office in the first place. It is legalized theft of our money and we’ve enabled these no good for nothing pathetic lazy pathetic liars to suck off us for too many years. It time to go back to basics and hold these criminals accountable and put them in prison where they belong.
Big deal! I’ll be impressed about this release of information when the Press does an in-depth analysis of the information. Unfortunately, they’ll just accept the information as accurate, print a few highlights out of context and sell a few extra papers.
Oh! And the parameters of the dates fall so conveniently for Noreen Evans? How did that happen folks? Don’t expect the Press Democrat to investigate and find out for you.
Now that the PD has successfully invaded the privacy of thousands of county retirees, will they make the same efforts to uncover local millionaires who collect public funds for home care of their elderly parents. Will they sue to invade the privacy of welfare recipients.
Will they disclose their own private financial information? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think everyone needs to read the book Animal Farm again…if anytime it rings the truth, it is now.
Why would the reluctance of the legislators to reveal their expenditures surprise anyone. Their arrogance is so typical.
An auditor’s report revealed the latest ways California public employees have squandered thousands of taxpayer dollars – starting with the state Mental Health Department executive who contended that attending the Golden Globe Awards and a Julio Iglesias concert was essential to his job.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/25/BA7N1KS151.DTL#ixzz1WGmgWC9S
The County Supervisors and each City Council person should be releasing their own office budgets which shows every detail down to the last dollar of our money that they are spending and on what.
But, of course, the voters are nothing but an ATM machine for the government. Don’t expect them to change their attitude so long as you actually voluntarily allow them to rob you through “taxes.”
As always, I wish to be sensitive to Pat Wiggins medical situation. With that in mind, how did she spend just over a million dollars in her last year in office? How many votes did she show up for in that period of time?
As for Noreen Evans, I call on her to release her budget information. There is no reason that she should be excluded from this release.
The PD is slightly wrong on one thing. The legislature has always made this information available, but in the past they’ve released a year or two after the spending actually happened. This is the first time they are releasing it in a fairly timely manner.