 |
 |
By DEREK MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
State Sen. Noreen Evans, who has expressed frustration publicly with how much lawmakers are compensated, resumed practicing law two years ago and in that time generated thousands of dollars in extra income, records show.
Noreen Evans
The Santa Rosa Democrat won’t say how much extra money she earned on top of her $95,291 annual state salary, not including a per diem and other benefits.
The senator, who was an attorney prior to being elected to office, reported earning between $20,000 and $200,000 last year from the Santa Rosa firms of Edgar Law and O’Brien, Watters & Davis, LLP.
For 2010, Evans reported earning as much as $10,000 from the Edgar firm, records show.
But Tom Roth, the senator’s chief of staff, said Tuesday that Evans “over-reported” her outside income for 2011. He characterized it as a clerical error and said the senator is planning to file amended reports after she returns from vacation today.
Lawmakers generally aren’t prohibited from earning outside income so long as they don’t vote on matters that directly affect the companies or organizations they are working for. But they are forbidden under state conflict-of-interest laws from representing clients who have business before the Legislature.
Evans could not be reached for an interview this week but in an early-morning voice mail message she left for a reporter on Saturday she addressed her legal work.
She did not identify her clients but gave assurances that none of them has business in Sacramento.
She said she needs to work as an attorney because she anticipates being termed out of office in 2018, assuming voters re-elect her in two years.
“I can’t start a new career in my early 60s, which is how old I’ll be when I term out,” Evans said. “I need to maintain my legal skills and my relationships so that I have a law practice when I’m done.”
Outside work performed by legislators was more common in Sacramento before a series of scandals involving lawmakers who were getting paid for work they didn’t do or who had questionable relationships with people who had them on the payroll led to a tightening of political reform laws in 1994.
Dan Walters, the Sacramento Bee’s longtime political columnist, said he recalls a time when lawmakers with legal backgrounds maintained law practices out of their district offices.
He said most lawmakers today earn income solely from their legislative work. He also said there are relatively few lawyers still serving in the Legislature.
“The basic assumption is that you’re getting paid to be a full-time legislator,” Walters said. “But it gets bent this way and that.”
State records show that Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, remained on the payroll of two unions after he took office last year.
Neither Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata, or Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, reported being paid outside income in 2011, records show.
The Fair Political Practices Commission requires that lawmakers submit economic interest forms annually under the state’s political laws.
The commission this week requested that Evans file amended financial disclosure forms for 2010 and 2011 to accurately reflect that she was paid for legal services through a law practice that she owns, and not as an employee of the firms who paid her for the work.
That will require Evans to provide more detailed financial information, including how much her business is worth and how much gross income she has earned from it. She also will have to report each individual source of income greater than $10,000.
“The statute requires that it be reported that way so that the public has a full picture and the most truthful picture of the business arrangement,” said Lynda Cassady, division chief of the FPPC’s Technical Assistance Division.
Evans said she has continued to maintain a part-time law practice since 1982. However, since her time in elected office, she did not report paid income as an attorney until 2010, six years after she began serving her first term in the state Assembly, records show.
Evans also has submitted an application to become a justice on the California Courts of Appeal.
The senator’s extra income coincided with a state commission slashing lawmakers’ pay by 18 percent in 2009. In addition to the pay cut, Evans publicly complained about lawmakers losing their leased vehicles and about threats to dock their pay if they did not deliver a state budget on time.
Evans took some flak for that stance, and may take more over her decision to work as an attorney while still in office, said David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University.
“She is entitled to make an income on top of her salary, but it doesn’t help in the broader scheme of things that California legislators are only slightly more popular than members of Congress,” he said.
Mike Watters, who is a partner in one of the Santa Rosa firms that paid the senator for work last year, said he gave Evans her first job as an attorney, and that Evans was an equity partner and trial lawyer with the firm until 1990.
The firm’s clients include those in the Sonoma County wine and agricultural industries, manufacturing and high-tech fields, according to the company’s website.
Watters said Evans’ work for the firm in 2011 involved a single client and took about a week of her time. He declined to identify the client or say what kind of case it was.
“I can tell you this has nothing to do with any state business of any kind. This is simply a personal matter related to a local client,” he said.
An attorney for the Edgar Law Firm, which specializes in personal injury cases, did not return several messages seeking comment.
McCuan said Evans should disclose the full roster of her clients because the public demands that kind of transparency. “It’s not just what is legal or required,” he said.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Dan Walters is well known for his very conservative bias with his coverage of the legislature. He always advocates for fiscal conservatism and how the Republicans can do no wrong. He is not an unbiased source and I never take his ‘reporting’ seriously because it is obviously slanted and biased.
As to Noreen Evans and her law practice, it is ludicrous to say Legislators now never work outside the Leg. Almost every Republican Rep is a businessperson or a lawyer. This article is nothing more than a blatant biased attack piece on our local Democratic lawmaker. That’s also ridiculous given how conservatives would defend any Republican having an outside source of income in the legislature as proof the free market works and that nothing is wrong with making money, unless of course it’s someone they disagree with politically.
Im sure she never used her government issued car to go to meetings for her other job, Im sure she paid for her own lunches and returned her Per Deim on the days when she was working on her other job.
“PD at it again: another bogus headline”
OK, you guys really should space out the hit pieces so that it doesn’t look so obvious. The PD never misses a chance to fabricate a story about Michael Allen and Noreen Evans. This transparent abuse of the public trust by printing misleading, tendentious “news” stories that serve as hidden campaign gifts to their political opponents are why the PD is held in such low regard. This piece is another “where’s the beef?” job. The headline hints at scandal, and then the article circles around and ends up with no conclusion. Please, you’re insulting our intelligence.
We know that the PD money guys want reliable corporate Democrats like Marc Levine and Joe Nation, but the progressive voters of the North Bay like real progressives like Michael Allen and Noreen Evans. Get used to it. We like them because they represent our values.
Buying and selling influence happens frequently with elected officials. An investigation should be undertaken by the FPPC questioning what the money Evans received was for. Just saying it was for legal work doesn’t explain much. The question should be were the law firms involved in funneling money to Evans on behalf of some special interest for her influence in the State Senate? These questions must be answered to make sure her income was for doing legitimate work.
Remember when Michael Allen got paid for a report that he plagiarised? He got away with that. The Supervisors decided it was OK because his contract didn’t prohibit him from plagiarising. Ridiculous. He did get fined for selling influence though. Unfortunately, he’s now in the State Assembly. Noreen Evans and Michael Allen are very closely associated politically. For this reason, Noreen Evans should be carefully scrutinized.
The photo published above this column is a campaign head shot taken many years ago for use on Evans campaign brochures and website.
If you saw her in person you wouldn’t recognize her. The hair is shoulder length now, a different color, and well…her appearance has matured.
Maybe the PD should assign a photographer to get a photo of her that is at least from 2012?
The photos of both Allen and Evans are slick with flattering lighting and touch ups and are not recent.
Let’s get real, PD.
We all know how hard the political parasites work on our behalf.
The entire federal health care program nicknamed “Obama-care” was passed without the political parasites even reading and understanding what they were passing.
Nancy Pelosi admitted that in her well publicized comments that they would get a better understanding of its mechanisms once it was passed into law.
The same goes for local political “talent.” lol.
Well at least she’s doing something. Especially as she has no decisions to make while she’s in Sacramento. All her decisions are made for her by the prison guards and state employees unions. She gets their list of how to vote and follows it accordingly.
Real piece of something she is
Will: I wouldn’t call someone “greedy” because they hold a full time and a part time job.
Most of us call that an admirable effort.
But since we cannot watch what she is actually working on behind her closed office door which has government security guarding it… we can safely assume she is collecting her public paycheck for working at least some of the time on the time on her private practice.
Why can we safely assume that? Just look at the Federal employees who are now being exposed as having gone to Hawaii for FIVE DAYS on our tax money when the entire purpose of them going was to be present at a ONE hour ribbon cutting ceremony. Government is all the same. Parasitic upon the hard working private sector workers.
Mockingbird: You are right. Many people do engage in both a full time job & part time job at the same time.
But not everyone is able to perform well at both. So the first question: is she performing her public job less effectively by devoting herself to the more demanding private effort?
We all know, behind her closed door which is protected by government security, that she is working on her private job while she is being paid to do her public job.
Don Quixote: It would be tough to prove in a corruption charge, but I’d bet my lotto ticket that she engages in her private legal work while sitting in her government office.
Yep. Using government owned equipment and government office equipment to work on her private legal practice.
GREEDY,GREEDY,GREEDY.
HYPOCRIT,HYPOCRIT,HYPOCRIT.
“Outside work performed by legislators was more common in Sacramento before a series of scandals involving lawmakers who were getting paid for work they didn’t do”
How exactly is this different from the role Michael Allen played at the Sonoma County Water Agency? He got paid with money from ratepayers to do what exactly? The PD has never bothered looking into the phony work he “performed” while the Water Agency was raising everyone’s water rates. The SCWA paid Allen to “meet” with labor officials when he was the President of the North Bay Labor Council. The SCWA paid Allen to “meet” with community leaders when he was a candidate for Santa Rosa City Council. The SCWA paid Allen to “meet” with Santa Rosa City officials when he was a Santa Rosa Planning Commissioner. They called it “PR” but Political Payoff is much closer to the mark.
What are the chances that Assemblyman Michael Allen will through her a little work from his union cronies in gratitude for her “co-chairing” his campaign in 2010? Maybe the Sonoma County Water Agency will throw her a bone and pay her for nonexistant work and influence peddling like they’ve done for Allen in the past. These birds of feather formed a pact years ago to handpick candidates for office and control local politics. Allen funneled a lot of money into Evans campaigns and she helped Allen get a job with her colleague Pat Wiggins after Allen retired from SEIU in 2006.
Now this political sleeze machine is pushing south and both are moving into Marin County districts…Watch Sonoma County, Watch Marin County, Watch out voters. Throw these bums out.
Those who drink from the public trough should not be able to drink from the fine wine barrel too.
How does this brain trust have time to be a full-time legislator and earning something between $20,000 and $200,000 a year as a private attorney?
Lots of people have a full time jobs and also work part time. I have several friends who do this.
It appears only to be wrong when our progressive legislators do it. I will bet lots of the Republican legislators do it also, but the PD isn’t naming names. I will bet if they did name names most of the posters on this blog wouldn’t see anything wrong with it.
First Michael Allen and now Noreen Evans. All within one week. Neither one doing anything wrong working outside. Neither a conflict of interest. The article clearly states that this isn’t unusual. But the way the articles are written are clearly to bash both legislators.
Shame.
I just found out that Michael is still in my district and I’m as happy as a clam. Can’t wait to vote for him. Will be out talking to my neighbors about him AND Susan Gorin.
Well I’m glad to hear she can hold down a regular job. Most of our elected servants, once they got their mouth on the public teat can’t let go.
Evans is another “enemy of the people” who simply needs to go away.
She should practice law full-time and get out of Sacramento so the people of California no longer need to listen to her whining or put up with her idiotic politics.
At least in private practice Evans won’t as easily leech off the “over-taxed” payers.
It’s nice when the state’s legislatures themselves show that there’s no need for them to be full time.
So $95,000+ plus a pile of perks isn’t enough? Isn’t she one of the anti-rich party? I don’t understand how this plays well for her supporters. Oh wait, yes I do. No further comment.