MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — School District Races (#9 – #1) — October 13, 2018

This is the third of three Voter Guide editions for Orange County’s 27 school districts (for the first, see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — School District Races (#27 – #19) — October 11, 2018 and for the second, see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — School District Races (#18 – #10) — October 12, 2018).

This is the top third of school districts based on their Unrestricted Net Deficits in the county and the state. It’s the piece below (see MOORLACH UPDATE — LAUSD vs. OC School Districts — September 18, 2018).

The first column is the ranking within the county on a per capita basis. The second column is the statewide ranking, out of 940 districts reviewed, on a per capita basis. The fourth column is the ranking of just the Unrestricted Net Position (UNP). The fifth column provides you with the population that the district serves. The sixth column is the actual UNP according to the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. And the seventh column is the sum of the prior two columns, providing the actual cost per resident if they were to bring the district to a zero UNP.

Because we’re focusing on the finances, for this grouping it is an opportunity for you to thank the incumbents and to encourage them to continue improving the situation. Accordingly, I’ve provided the names of the incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. One asterisk (*) signifies that the candidate is a registered Democrat. No asterisk means they are a registered Republican, and should be a safe vote. If the name is in bold, I have endorsed. If in italics, they are a good vote for the position.  This group has two districts with no candidates this cycle.

For city voter guides, see the following:  

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 6.12.52 PM.png

MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — School District Races (#18 – #10) — October 12, 2018

This is the second of three Voter Guide editions for Orange County’s 27 school districts (for the first, see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — School District Races (#27 – #19) — October 11, 2018). This is the middle third of school districts based on their Unrestricted Net Deficits in the county and the state. It’s the piece below (see MOORLACH UPDATE — LAUSD vs. OC School Districts — September 18, 2018).

The first column is the ranking within the county on a per capita basis. The second column is the statewide ranking, out of 940 districts reviewed, on a per capita basis. The fourth column is the ranking of just the Unrestricted Net Position (UNP). The fifth column provides you with the population that the district serves. The sixth column is the actual UNP according to the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. And the seventh column is the sum of the prior two columns, providing the actual cost per resident if they were to bring the district to a zero UNP.

Because we’re focusing on the finances, this is one opportunity for you to ask the incumbents what they’ve been doing to improve the situation. Accordingly, I’ve provided the names of the incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. One asterisk (*) signifies that the candidate is a registered Democrat. No asterisk means they are a registered Republican, and should be a safe vote. If the name is in bold, I have endorsed (which I have not done in this grouping). If in italics, they are a good vote for the position.

This group has four districts with no candidates this cycle. The blanks for areas means there are no Republican candidates.

Letters to the Editor in support of Proposition 6 and giving me a polite shout out continue to appear around the state. The second piece is from the Los Angeles Daily News. The third is from Calaveras County’s The Pinetree.net.

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 2.23.44 PM

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 2.24.00 PM

 

LA-Daily-News

OPINION

Vote yes on Proposition 6:

Letters

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

https://www.dailynews.com/2018/10/11/vote-yes-on-proposition-6-letters/

Vote yes on Proposition 6. For years, politicians in Sacramento have been raiding existing gas-tax revenue to pay for pet projects and general fund spending — not to fix our terrible roads and infrastructure.

State Senator (and CPA) John Moorlach released a report showing that only 20 percent of existing gas tax funds go to roads, and Caltrans wastes half a billion dollars annually on extra staffing.

And as with most supplemental taxes, we can’t help but suspect this one indirectly offsets debt accumulated from unsustainable public-employee pensions.

Don’t be fooled by the misleading ballot title: “Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding.” The Prop. 6 title should read: “Gas tax repeal initiative that sends a message to our state government: it’s time for fiscal accountability.”

— Kathy Bence, South Pasadena

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 2.25.16 PM

Vote Yes on 6 to Repeal an Unfair, Regressive Tax ~ Al Segalla

http://thepinetree.net/new/?p=68424

Copperopolis, CA…The cost of living is already too high in California, and the Gas and Car Tax hikes hurts working families that already struggle to pay bills. Estimates suggest the new increase in Gas Tax total will cost a typical family of four $779.20 or more per family, per year. This is about what a family spends on Christmas and two years of school lunches at a public school, or a year of college textbooks.

• The tax also hits business owners who rely on transporting goods, raising the cost of everything from apples to bread and everything in between.

• On Nov 1, 2017, Californians became subject to an additional tax of 12.5 cents more per gallon of gasoline (and 20 cents more for diesel), also increasing auto registration fees as much as $175 a year – striking the wallets of hard-working families across the state.
The gas tax hike will NOT fix our roads – because politicians will continue to fraudulently raid and divert gas tax funds. This latest gas tax increase contains NO GUARANTEE that even a penny will go to roads.

• For years, the Sacramento politicians have been raiding the existing Gas Tax funds to pay for their pet projects and general fund spending rather than fixing our terrible roads and infrastructure.

• By voting Yes on 6, you send a message to the Sacramento politicians that Californians want raids of our existing gas tax funds stopped immediately.

• Prop 69 did not end the raids of existing gas tax funds and allows the governor to spend gas tax money to fund budget shortfalls.

State Senator John Moorlach – a CPA – released a stunning report showing that only 20% of existing gas tax goes to roads and Caltrans wastes half a billion dollars annually on extra staffing.

• A 2016 study by the Reason Foundation shows that California spends 2.5x national average on roads.

• All the road projects that the politicians are claiming are being paid for by this most recent Gas Tax could be paid for if the politicians used the existing gas tax revenue for doing what it was supposed to do – repairing California’s infrastructure.

• Nobody is denying that California’s roads are crumbling, but there’s plenty of money to repair the roads if the politicians put 100% of the existing gas tax revenue into doing the right thing.

But that’s not all, our present state budget surplus provides plenty of money to fix our roads.

Please vote Yes on Prop 6.

Al Segalla
Calaveras County Taxpayers Association

If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with the request to do so.

MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — City Council Races (#13 – #7) — October 9, 2018

Group 4 of Orange County’s cities provides the following council candidate recommendations below. The cities are provided in the order of their fiscal status according to their Unrestricted Net Positions. The final, and the top six cities, will be provided in the next grouping.

For the details, the candidates provided below are registered Republicans. There seems to be just a handful of races where you may need to do a little extra research on the candidates.

If you do not see your city below, the first three groupings can be found at:

* MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — City Council Races (#34 – 28) — October 2, 2018

* MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — City Council Races (#27 – #14) — October 6, 2018

For the ballot measures, see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — 2018 Ballot Measures — September 21, 2018.

For statewide races, see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — Statewide Voter Guide — September 24, 2018.

For local Federal, State and Countywide races, see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — Federal/State/OC Races — September 26, 2018.

 

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-09 at 10.01.11 AM

Screen Shot 2018-10-09 at 10.00.27 AM

 

If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with the request to do so.

MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — City Council Races (#27 – #14) — October 6, 2018

The piece below is the second and third groups of seven Orange County cities, #27 – #14, in my city council Voter Guide series. Since I was interrupted with news stories the last couple of days, I’m doubling up.

For the first group, #34 – #28, go to MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — City Council Races (#34 – 28) — October 2, 2018. Please note, there was an editing error on the last UPDATE e-mail which left off the remainder of the races in the city of Anaheim.

The Voter Guide screening and selection process is simple. I first provide those candidates that are registered Republicans. For positions with no Republican candidates, in this group of 14, I either have no recommendations or indicate the sole Democrat candidate with an asterisk (*). I do mention an American Independent Party candidate (***) as it is a conservative party and it endorsed me in my races for State Senate. Candidates who are “Declined to State” or “No Party Preference” are noted with two asterisks (**). Those in bold are endorsed. Those in italics are a good first or second choice.

Smaller groupings allow me to provide more color, so here is the second of the five.

Orange — There are a number candidates. Those I endorsed contacted me early in the game. For the two in italics, let me note that Jon Dimitru is a former council member and we enjoyed a great working relationship in our prior roles. Zachary Collins was an incredible volunteer on my March 2015 Senate campaign.

For the ballot measures, see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — 2018 Ballot Measures — September 21, 2018.

For statewide races, see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — Statewide Voter Guide — September 24, 2018.

For local Federal, State and Countywide races, see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — Federal/State/OC Races — September 26, 2018.

Screen Shot 2018-10-06 at 2.32.44 PM

Screen Shot 2018-10-06 at 2.33.01 PM

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-06 at 2.22.55 PM

Screen Shot 2018-10-06 at 2.23.03 PM

Screen Shot 2018-10-06 at 2.24.33 PM

Screen Shot 2018-10-06 at 2.24.43 PM

If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with the request to do so.

MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — City Council Races (#34 – 28) — October 2, 2018

The first piece below is a Voter Guide for seven of Orange County’s wonderful 34 cities. The question was how to recommend council candidates. Instead of doing it in alphabetical order or those within my Senate District first, I decided to do it in reverse order according to Unrestricted Net Positions and in five groups.

The first seven cities below need strong fiscal leadership. How Costa Mesa is in 34th place has me baffled. With South Coast Plaza and the Harbor Boulevard of Cars, it should be one of the strongest in the rankings.

The Voter Guide screening is simple. I first provide those candidates that are registered Republicans. For positions with no Republican candidates, I have no recommendation or I mention the Democrat (*) with whom I have a relationship. Those in bold are endorsed. Those in italics are a good first or second choice.

Smaller groupings allows me to provide more color, so here is the first of five.

Costa Mesa — Sandy Genis and I go back more than three decades as fellow Mesa Verde residents. We served as officers of the Homeowners Association back then. We have not always agreed on a number of issues, but we have enjoyed a good relationship. As a city planning professional, she brings the best skill set to the Mayoral position.

Newport Beach — I know all of the candidates personally, but one, Joy Brenner. I’m not sure about her party registration, as her publicly disclosed personal political contributions to Democrats are confusing. Although I’ve decided to stay neutral in all four districts, I am thankful for the fine relationships I enjoy with the incumbents, including their resolve on addressing the city’s pension issues.

Anaheim — Over the years I’ve built a rapport with Cynthia Ward. She knows the city and does excellent research. She has no elected experience, but she would bring a down to earth approach to this critical job. In District 6 there are two candidates who will do a great job. Patty Gaby brings a fresh citizens approach to the seat.

Huntington Beach — The easy road is to endorse all four of the incumbents. But, Ron Sterud is a financial planner who would bring these badly needed skill sets to the Council. Billy O’Connell is a friend, but this time consuming role interferes with his focus on his critical nonprofit organization.

The second piece is a recent letter to the editor in the Santa Maria Times.

Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 12.28.29 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 12.28.38 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 12.28.49 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 12.56.42 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 12.40.41 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 12.40.47 PM

Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 12.40.53 PM

Vote yes on Prop. 6

https://santamariatimes.com/opinion/letters/letters-to-the-editor-bill-ostrander-on-ag-policy-take/article_307c601c-b150-5751-9f0f-520fe165c5d0.html

On Nov. 1, 2017, the tax on California gas increased another 12.5 cents per gallon (20 for diesel) plus increased our auto registration fees — up to $175. Even this latest increase contains no gaurantee our money will go to roads. State senator and CPA John Moorlach released a stunning report, only 20 percent of existing gas tax goes to roads.

The Yes on Prop. 6 campaign qualified to be on the ballot with nearly a million signatures (nearly double what is required) and has an alternative solution to fixing roads without a tax hike. Yes on 6 would save a typical family of four more than $700 a year.

The Yes on 6 campaign has over 25,000 donors statewide and over 20,000 volunteers working throughout California. It is wise to research: Why has the opposition raised $28 million from big corporate donors including more than $3.9 million from out- of-state special interests to raise our taxes? This means the Yes on 6 campaign is being outspent 28-to-1.

Kitt Jenae

Nipomo

If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with the request to do so.

MOORLACH UPDATE — LAUSD vs. OC School Districts — September 18, 2018

When I shared our research concerning the Unrestricted Net Positions (UNPs) of the 940 school districts around the state of California on the Senate Floor during the last few days of this year’s Session, I recall receiving only one comment on the Floor from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

“I thought there were 1,005 school districts?”

Other than that, crickets.

The districts we reviewed found that a few had combined their balance sheets for auditing purposes. I also intentionally did not include the 58 County Departments of Education, as they are administrative in nature.

To give you the full portfolio of California’s school related districts (with exceptions for a few unique agencies), I have provided the 58 DOEs in the first piece below. They are ranked in order of the highest to lowest UNP per capita. If the actual UNPs were ranked, then the third column provides the placement. The fourth column provides the population of the county. The fifth column provides the actual UNP from the DOE’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). And the sixth divides the UNP by the population for the per capita. As you can see, Orange County placed well in both categories. San Francisco has one unified school district that includes the DOE.

Of the 58 counties, at least 51 of them have manageable per capita unrestricted net deficits of $159 or less. Obviously, with a few exceptions, the DOEs are not an area of severe fiscal anxiety.

The second piece below is the rankings for the Orange County school districts. The sequencing of the columns is the same, except we have both the Orange County rankings and the California rankings in the first two columns.

I’ve also provided a bonus at the very bottom of the second piece. We hear so much about Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in the local news about its board, its superintendent, and its teachers union wanting to go on strike for pay raises.

Totaling the number of students in all of Orange County’s school districts, the population is lower, but comparable, to that of just the LAUSD. But, the LAUSD has a negative UNP 234% higher than the negative UNP when we combine all the UNPs of OC’s 27 districts. LAUSD’s UNP per capita is three times that of the average for the entire OC! That’s how massive LAUSD’s fiscal hole is. So, this CPA doesn’t know where the union demanded pay raises are going to come from.

The third and final piece is from the OC WEEKLY on our Top 20 worst bills for the Governor to veto (see MOORLACH UPDATE — 2018 Top 20 Veto Worthy Bills — September 13, 2018).

1 Sierra 9 3,207 $1,577,053 $492
2 Alpine 12 1,151 $512,215 $445
3 Siskiyou 6 44,688 $9,003,498 $201
4 Mendocino 5 89,134 $12,296,835 $138
5 Marin 3 263,604 $21,049,100 $80
6 Modoc 10 9,580 $665,142 $69
7 Mono 11 13,713 $648,512 $47
8 San Benito 8 56,854 $2,100,167 $37
9 San Mateo 2 770,203 $27,472,679 $36
10 San Diego 1 3,316,192 $38,758,618 $12
11 Lassen 13 30,918 $245,495 $8
12 Inyo 14 18,619 $140,423 $8
13 Orange 4 3,194,024 $17,573,424 $6
14 San Joaquin 7 746,868 $2,528,230 $3
15 Sacramento 16 1,514,770 ($868,045) ($1)
16 Alameda 29 1,645,359 ($7,986,633) ($5)
17 Riverside 47 2,384,783 ($27,154,755) ($11)
18 Fresno 43 995,975 ($18,864,868) ($19)
19 Los Angeles 56 10,241,278 ($195,881,054) ($19)
20 Stanislaus 33 548,057 ($11,634,171) ($21)
21 Sonoma 36 505,120 ($12,618,749) ($25)
22 Ventura 44 857,386 ($22,269,861) ($26)
23 Yolo 24 218,896 ($6,211,159) ($28)
24 Santa Cruz 28 276,603 ($7,933,136) ($29)
25 Santa Barbara 37 450,663 ($13,127,872) ($29)
26 San Bernardino 53 2,160,256 ($71,759,024) ($33)
27 Solano 39 436,023 ($14,625,433) ($34)
28 Santa Clara 52 1,938,180 ($69,190,829) ($36)
29 Lake 19 64,945 ($2,323,693) ($36)
30 Contra Costa 51 1,139,513 ($43,909,435) ($39)
31 San Luis Obispo 35 280,101 ($11,719,764) ($42)
32 Shasta 27 178,605 ($7,589,514) ($42)
33 Trinity 15 13,628 ($717,619) ($53)
34 Yuba 20 74,577 ($4,172,000) ($56)
35 Placer 45 382,837 ($22,636,042) ($59)
36 Napa 31 142,408 ($8,453,816) ($59)
37 Mariposa 17 18,148 ($1,108,289) ($61)
38 Tulare 48 471,842 ($30,052,109) ($64)
39 Butte 40 226,404 ($14,715,601) ($65)
40 Plumas 18 19,819 ($1,305,638) ($66)
41 Imperial 38 188,334 ($13,767,069) ($73)
42 Tehama 22 63,995 ($5,092,842) ($80)
43 Tuolumne 21 54,707 ($4,698,833) ($86)
44 Nevada 32 98,828 ($8,996,066) ($91)
45 El Dorado 41 185,062 ($16,936,207) ($92)
46 Kern 54 895,112 ($103,519,447) ($116)
47 Sutter 34 96,956 ($11,707,823) ($121)
48 Kings 42 149,537 ($18,595,053) ($124)
49 Merced 49 274,665 ($36,520,205) ($133)
50 Madera 46 156,492 ($24,785,793) ($158)
51 Calaveras 26 45,168 ($7,177,756) ($159)
52 Glenn 23 28,731 ($5,812,763) ($202)
53 Amador 30 38,382 ($8,006,786) ($209)
54 Colusa 25 22,043 ($7,122,875) ($323)
55 Monterey 55 442,365 ($157,829,599) ($357)
56 San Francisco 58 874,228 ($769,634,620) ($880)
57 Del Norte 50 27,124 ($38,578,454) ($1,422)
58 Humboldt 57 136,953 ($200,656,339) ($1,465)
1 102 Fountain Valley Elem 10 56,680 $ 4,442,293 $ 78
2 180 Laguna Beach Unified 417 30,473 $ (6,788,067) $ (223)
3 239 Fullerton Joint Union 814 263,036 $ (90,589,885) $ (344)
4 242 Huntington Beach Un 839 329,030 $ (115,027,881) $ (350)
5 357 Huntington Bch City 696 87,348 $ (44,366,541) $ (508)
6 375 Centralia Elementary 640 58,162 $ (30,967,215) $ (532)
7 384 Orange Unified 848 229,379 $ (126,605,490) $ (552)
8 403 Garden Grove Unified 877 289,419 $ (165,866,377) $ (573)
9 408 Savanna Elementary 551 30,815 $ (18,157,779) $ (589)
10 423 Cypress Elementary 627 45,853 $ (27,831,436) $ (607)
11 426 Los Alamitos Unified 643 51,313 $ (31,761,922) $ (619)
12 463 Anaheim Union High 920 407,353 $ (275,086,177) $ (675)
13 505 Magnolia Elementary 711 65,387 $ (48,436,096) $ (741)
14 507 Fullerton Elementary 816 124,400 $ (92,384,118) $ (743)
15 517 La Habra City Elem 685 54,112 $ (40,700,535) $ (752)
16 530 Saddleback Valley 882 216,853 $ (168,874,907) $ (779)
17 557 Ocean View 795 96,613 $ (78,587,392) $ (813)
18 573 Tustin Unified 841 139,222 $ (116,529,487) $ (837)
19 579 Anaheim Elem 887 207,135 $ (174,109,858) $ (841)
20 605 Brea-Olinda Unified 648 36,778 $ (32,674,279) $ (888)
21 612 Buena Park Elem 698 50,423 $ (45,271,021) $ (898)
22 662 Placentia-Yorba Lda 874 166,393 $ (160,733,330) $ (966)
23 663 Capistrano Unified 924 361,468 $ (349,462,462) $ (967)
24 679 Westminster 808 88,390 $ (87,333,440) $ (988)
25 729 Newport-Mesa Unif 914 205,879 $ (224,251,945) $(1,089)
26 743 Irvine Unified 911 196,209 $ (218,735,844) $(1,115)
27 901 Santa Ana Unified 934 268,905 $ (485,362,423) $(1,805)
Totals 4,157,028 $ (3,252,053,614) $ (782)
922 Los Angeles Unified 940 4,688,889 $(10,855,983,000) $(2,315)

SoCal Conservatives List Proposed “Noxious” Veto-Worthy California Laws

R. SCOTT MOXLEY

https://www.ocweekly.com/socal-conservatives-list-proposed-noxious-veto-worthy-california-laws/

Calling the state legislatures current session in Sacramento “over-the-top with noxious legislation,” Orange County-produced The FlashReport this month published a list of the “Top 20” proposed new state laws conservatives view contemptuously.

The list is the work of state Senator John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) and assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore), both known in their political circles as hardcore budget watchdogs over the plans of the Democratic Party majority, which controls both houses of the legislature as well as the governor’s mansion.

For example, hoping for Gov. Jerry Brown’s extensive use of his veto powers, Moorlach and Melendez lambast the following pending bills:

–Exempting the troubled and wild spending California High-Speed Rail Authority from thorough financial audits;

–Fining already poorly-paid restaurant employees for giving customers plastic straws unless requested;

–Raising the age to legally purchase handguns from 18 to 21 while the draft age for military combat service remains 18;

–Banning smokeless e-cigarettes smoking at all parks, public campgrounds, state beaches, monuments and historical markers; and

–Requiring gender-based quotas on board of directors for private California corporations, including a statutory-mandated 2021 benchmark of hiring at least three female directors if a company has slots for six directors.

You can see the rest of the list at Jon Fleischman’s FlashReport site.

image18.png?w=660&h=165

This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — California School District Rankings, Group 5 — August 17, 2018

Group 5 gets us to the one-third mark. The joy of using a simple metric is that the school districts are falling in ranges that allows for comparisons. This group of 67 has an unrestricted net deficit per capita between $385 and $474 and their total UNP is a negative $1,854,490,530. Unfortunately, our February review of Orange County cities, the seven bottom cities were found in this range

(see MOORLACH UPDATE — City CAFR Rankings, Vol. 10 — February 27, 2018). This means that the bottom two-thirds of school districts have balance sheets that are in poorer fiscal shape than Orange County city #34 out of 34!

One observer wondered why there are so many elementary districts and encouraged more merging into “unified” school districts, which cover elementary, middle and senior high schools. The answer is that this would take serious leadership, as some board members would have to give up their coveted seats. And I don’t have to explain the politics of this conundrum.

268 Pioneer Union Elem Berry Creek Butte 198 1,564 $ (602,317) $ (385)
269 Lemoore Union High Lemoore Kings 510 37,967 $ (14,642,623) $ (386)
270 Dunsmuir Elementary Dunsmuir Siskiyou 218 2,079 $ (802,021) $ (386)
271 Igo, Ono, Platina Union Igo Shasta 173 1,026 $ (395,927) $ (386)
272 Shasta Union Elem Shasta Shasta 228 2,304 $ (890,508) $ (387)
273 S. Monterey County Jt King City Monterey 514 38,715 $ (15,087,649) $ (390)
274 Southside Elementary Hollister San Benito 215 1,922 $ (759,763) $ (395)
275 Briggs Elementary Santa Paula Ventura 244 2,796 $ (1,110,745) $ (397)
276 El Monte Union High El Monte Los Angeles 780 178,188 $ (70,851,452) $ (398)
277 Soquel Union Elem Capitola Santa Cruz 470 27,440 $ (10,913,860) $ (398)
278 Pacific Elementary Davenport Santa Cruz 168 873 $ (348,029) $ (399)
279 Loleta Union Elementary Loleta Humboldt 200 1,537 $ (615,347) $ (400)
280 Rancho Santa Fe Elem Rancho Santa Fe San Diego 309 6,343 $ (2,541,400) $ (401)
281 Dos Palos Oro Loma Jt Dos Palos Merced 364 10,979 $ (4,404,245) $ (401)
282 Princeton Joint Unified Princeton Glenn 178 1,097 $ (441,547) $ (403)
283 Tulare Joint Union High Tulare Tulare 650 81,778 $ (33,037,350) $ (404)
284 Piner-Olivet Union Elem Santa Rosa Sonoma 414 16,523 $ (6,690,090) $ (405)
285 El Dorado Union High Placerville El Dorado 741 140,168 $ (56,919,364) $ (406)
286 Placer Hills Union Elem Meadow Vista Placer 402 14,928 $ (6,096,674) $ (408)
287 Central Union High El Centro Imperial 601 59,926 $ (24,534,032) $ (409)
288 Fallbrook Union High Fallbrook San Diego 623 67,081 $ (27,550,406) $ (411)
289 Dehesa Elementary El Cajon San Diego 235 2,361 $ (970,636) $ (411)
290 Mt. Shasta Union Elem Mount Shasta Siskiyou 325 7,028 $ (2,896,167) $ (412)
291 Vallecito Union Avery Calaveras 360 10,212 $ (4,219,754) $ (413)
292 Kashia Elementary Stewarts Point Sonoma 124 81 $ (33,528) $ (414)
293 Big Oak Flat-Groveland Groveland Tuolumne 290 5,185 $ (2,146,454) $ (414)
294 New Hope Elementary Thornton San Joaquin 210 1,677 $ (694,690) $ (414)
295 Wasco Union Elem Wasco Kern 479 27,717 $ (11,524,898) $ (416)
296 Willow Creek Elem Montague Siskiyou 159 631 $ (262,457) $ (416)
297 Gold Oak Union Elem Placerville El Dorado 349 8,544 $ (3,553,936) $ (416)
298 Bellflower Unified Bellflower Los Angeles 660 83,965 $ (35,081,892) $ (418)
299 Pioneer Union Elem Somerset El Dorado 296 5,528 $ (2,309,818) $ (418)
300 Santa Rita Union Elem Salinas Monterey 463 23,650 $ (9,884,078) $ (418)
301 Shasta Union High Redding Shasta 691 102,590 $ (42,896,757) $ (418)
302 Wheatland Union High Wheatland Yuba 374 11,411 $ (4,815,000) $ (422)
303 Trinidad Union Elem Trinidad Humboldt 234 2,246 $ (959,993) $ (427)
304 Montague Elementary Montague Siskiyou 222 1,944 $ (848,465) $ (436)
305 Petaluma City Schools Petaluma Marin 705 107,902 $ (47,459,466) $ (437)
306 Elk Hills Elementary Tupman Kern 139 292 $ (127,636) $ (437)
307 Howell Mountain Elem Angwin Napa 273 3,825 $ (1,673,400) $ (437)
308 Galt Joint Union High Galt Sacramento 547 40,262 $ (17,623,552) $ (438)
309 Alhambra Unified Alhambra Los Angeles 790 174,842 $ (76,551,460) $ (438)
310 Solvang Elementary Solvang Santa Barbara 314 6,015 $ (2,638,437) $ (439)
311 Placerville Union Elem Placerville El Dorado 418 15,662 $ (6,895,538) $ (440)
312 Santa Clara Unified Santa Clara Santa Clara 773 154,453 $ (68,109,374) $ (441)
313 Stanislaus Union Elem Modesto Stanislaus 501 31,460 $ (14,046,178) $ (446)
314 Auburn Union Elem Auburn Placer 529 35,991 $ (16,148,968) $ (449)
315 Liberty Union High Brentwood Contra Costa 722 113,832 $ (51,174,316) $ (450)
316 Modesto City Schools Modesto Stanislaus 890 401,202 $(180,486,682) $ (450)
317 Vallecitos Elementary Rainbow San Diego 239 2,317 $ (1,043,900) $ (451)
318 Mountain Elementary Soquel Santa Cruz 199 1,349 $ (613,483) $ (455)
319 Santa Rosa City Santa Rosa Sonoma 858 292,990 $(133,713,506) $ (456)
320 Oak Valley Union Elem TULARE Tulare 203 1,446 $ (661,363) $ (457)
321 Salinas Union High Salinas Monterey 799 179,447 $ (82,176,736) $ (458)
322 Johnstonville Elem Susanville Lassen 186 1,075 $ (494,104) $ (460)
323 Chaffey Joint Union High Ontario San Bernardino 901 416,543 $(192,305,483) $ (462)
324 Buena Vista Elementary Tulare Tulare 151 449 $ (207,660) $ (462)
325 Alta Loma Elementary Alta Loma San Bernardino 618 57,161 $ (26,574,508) $ (465)
326 Bennett Valley Union Santa Rosa Sonoma 369 9,890 $ (4,613,773) $ (467)
327 Grossmont Union High El Cajon San Diego 915 485,521 $(227,706,617) $ (469)
328 San Mateo Union High San Mateo San Mateo 838 239,971 $(112,587,612) $ (469)
329 Pollock Pines Elem Pollock Pines El Dorado 361 8,998 $ (4,222,790) $ (469)
330 Clay Joint Elementary Kingsburg Fresno 155 525 $ (246,390) $ (469)
331 Sequoia Union High Redwood City San Mateo 843 259,183 $(122,052,351) $ (471)
332 Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Santa Clara 692 91,599 $ (43,233,595) $ (472)
333 Leggett Valley Unified Leggett Mendocino 163 587 $ (277,168) $ (472)
334 Julian Union High Julian San Diego 292 4,810 $ (2,271,928) $ (472)
335 Calipatria Unified Calipatria Imperial 380 10,776 $ (5,106,240) $ (474)

image18.png?w=660&h=165

This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — California School District Rankings, Group 3 — August 15, 2018

Group 3 of 14 provides the last of the top 20 percent of the school districts in the state of California. They are ranked in order of their unrestricted net positions (UNP) divided by the populations they serve.

Orange County has another school district represented with Laguna Beach Unified, which is in position #180. It is a basic aid district and it is in my Senate District. A basic aid district keeps the money from local property taxes and still receives the constitutionally guaranteed state basic aid funding. Out of California’s nearly 1,000 elementary, high school, and unified school districts, approximately 80 are basic aid districts. The joys of being located in a coastal area with very high property values.

This group also includes three school districts that represent more than 100,000 constituents. This means larger districts can be managed as adeptly as those providing services to smaller populations. All three have substantial negative UNPs, ranked #551, #676 and #746, but their larger constituencies provide for a lower per capita amount.

Again, the first column is the district’s ranking. Therefore, the lower the better. The next three columns provide the district’s name, city and county. The fifth column is the ranking of the district’s UNP compared to the other districts. Again, the lower the better. The sixth column is the population for the District. The seventh column is the UNP from the District’s most current available audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the eighth and final column is the per capita amount (UNP divided by population). For this column, the higher the better.

132 Chowchilla Elementary Chowchilla Madera 274 22,462 $ (1,712,027) $ (76)
133 Santa Ynez Valley Un High Santa Ynez Santa Barb. 277 22,130 $ (1,776,749) $ (80)
134 Happy Valley Elementary Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 136 1,465 $ (118,533) $ (81)
135 Susanville Elementary Susanville Lassen 219 10,291 $ (844,337) $ (82)
136 Big Springs Union Elem Montague Siskiyou 143 1,752 $ (149,923) $ (86)
137 Ballard Elementary Solvang Santa Barb. 141 1,510 $ (136,461) $ (90)
138 McCloud Union Elementary McCloud Siskiyou 137 1,314 $ (120,950) $ (92)
139 Cinnabar Elementary Petaluma Marin 156 2,693 $ (252,556) $ (94)
140 Shaffer Union Elementary Litchfield Lassen 226 9,230 $ (869,686) $ (94)
141 Feather Falls Union Elem Oroville Butte 126 409 $ (39,913) $ (98)
142 Foresthill Union Elementary Foresthill Placer 204 6,613 $ (668,174) $(101)
143 Raymond-Knowles Union Raymond Madera 140 1,292 $ (135,126) $(105)
144 El Nido Elementary El Nido Merced 146 1,767 $ (194,069) $(110)
145 Death Valley Unified Shoshone Inyo 132 748 $ (83,039) $(111)
146 Kit Carson Union Elem Hanford Kings 162 2,402 $ (270,581) $(113)
147 Lassen Union High Susanville Lassen 318 24,917 $ (2,857,616) $(115)
148 Sequoia Union Elementary Lemon Cove Tulare 160 2,166 $ (263,551) $(122)
149 Jamestown Elementary Jamestown Tuolumne 241 8,791 $ (1,070,099) $(122)
150 Millbrae Elementary Millbrae San Mateo 334 25,996 $ (3,287,439) $(126)
151 Traver Joint Elementary Traver Tulare 145 1,260 $ (164,802) $(131)
152 Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified Loyalton Sierra 192 3,543 $ (519,581) $(147)
153 Julian Union Elementary Julian San Diego 200 4,324 $ (637,581) $(147)
154 Anderson Union High Anderson Shasta 392 38,887 $ (5,770,353) $(148)
155 Knights Ferry Elementary Knights Ferry Stanislaus 134 640 $ (95,279) $(149)
156 San Marcos Unified San Marcos San Diego 551 122,661 $(18,412,624) $(150)
157 Nevada City Elementary Nevada City Nevada 295 15,467 $ (2,327,434) $(150)
158 Tres Pinos Union Elem Tres Pinos San Benito 138 811 $ (122,684) $(151)
159 Atwater Elementary Atwater Merced 385 35,507 $ (5,421,961) $(153)
160 Winton Winton Merced 273 10,975 $ (1,683,858) $(153)
161 Peninsula Union Samoa Humboldt 130 479 $ (75,596) $(158)
162 Big Valley Joint Unified Bieber Lassen 158 1,612 $ (256,856) $(159)
163 Chicago Park Elementary Grass Valley Nevada 148 1,208 $ (194,900) $(161)
164 Campbell Union High San Jose Santa Clara 676 237,306 $(40,200,067) $(169)
165 Chualar Union Chualar Monterey 171 2,215 $ (385,079) $(174)
166 Curtis Creek Elementary Sonora Tuolumne 266 8,901 $ (1,566,273) $(176)
167 Sonora Elementary Sonora Tuolumne 265 8,648 $ (1,558,025) $(180)
168 Sonora Union High Sonora Tuolumne 418 38,795 $ (7,027,442) $(181)
169 Sierra Sands Unified Ridgecrest Kern 419 37,163 $ (7,216,186) $(194)
170 Columbia Union Columbia Tuolumne 247 6,019 $ (1,176,787) $(196)
171 Bolinas-Stinson Union Bolinas Marin 184 2,415 $ (475,671) $(197)
172 Warner Unified Warner Spgs San Diego 187 2,462 $ (495,684) $(201)
173 Surprise Valley Joint Uni Cedarville Modoc 153 1,156 $ (234,850) $(203)
174 Evergreen Union Cottonwood Shasta 280 9,344 $ (1,907,136) $(204)
175 Arcohe Union Elementary Herald Sacramento 237 4,927 $ (1,025,162) $(208)
176 Manchester Union Elem Manchester Mendocino 142 638 $ (137,578) $(216)
177 Earlimart Elementary Earlimart Tulare 296 11,042 $ (2,383,832) $(216)
178 Kernville Union Elementary Lake Isabella Kern 309 12,048 $ (2,611,047) $(217)
179 Hanford Joint Union High Hanford Kings 509 68,327 $(14,966,314) $(219)
180 Laguna Beach Unified Laguna Bch Orange 414 30,473 $ (6,788,067) $(223)
181 Yreka Union High Yreka Siskiyou 351 17,270 $ (3,857,307) $(223)
182 Sausalito Marin City Sausalito Marin 302 11,019 $ (2,483,861) $(225)
183 Oak Grove Union Elem Santa Rosa Sonoma 246 5,188 $ (1,176,588) $(227)
184 Penn Valley Union Elem Penn Valley Nevada 325 12,937 $ (2,979,902) $(230)
185 Sebastopol Union Elem Sebastopol Sonoma 319 12,164 $ (2,858,065) $(235)
186 Valley Home Joint Elem Valley Home Stanislaus 177 1,754 $ (418,716) $(239)
187 Merced River Union Elem Winton Merced 150 846 $ (203,769) $(241)
188 Old Adobe Union Petaluma Marin 405 26,703 $ (6,448,003) $(241)
189 Oroville Union High Oroville Butte 489 54,687 $(13,238,974) $(242)
190 Chowchilla Union High Chowchilla Madera 395 24,294 $ (5,901,580) $(243)
191 Fremont Union High Sunnyvale Santa Clara 746 241,047 $(58,921,212) $(244)
192 Jefferson Elementary Daly City San Mateo 589 92,377 $(22,824,994) $(247)
193 South Bay Union Imperial Bch San Diego 565 81,290 $(20,094,408) $(247)
194 Liberty Elementary Tulare Tulare 185 1,973 $ (489,222) $(248)
195 Fortuna Elementary Fortuna Humboldt 343 13,699 $ (3,464,715) $(253)
196 Brawley Union High Brawley Imperial 424 29,638 $ (7,508,725) $(253)
197 Latrobe Shingle Spgs El Dorado 208 2,718 $ (693,115) $(255)
198 Delano Joint Union High Delano Kern 555 73,816 $(18,955,630) $(257)
199 Pacific Union Elementary Fresno Fresno 218 3,152 $ (810,867) $(257)

image18.png?w=660&h=165

This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — California School District Rankings, Group 2 — August 14, 2018

The second of 14 editions of California’s school districts finds us finishing up those that have unrestricted net assets, versus unrestricted net deficits.

Only two school districts have not made their comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) available. This is a very small segment, considering we’ve obtained the information for nearly 1,000 districts.

We have shown these two districts at a zero unrestricted net position (UNP), but actual numbers may vary depending on some disclosure by Big Sur Unified and Linns Valley-Poso Flat Union. Based on the percentages, casting them at zero may not be a charitable gesture, as those serving a small constituency have fared better in this ranking.

We just found, in looking for a third missing audited financial statement, that another two districts have paired up for their CAFR, so we’re now focused on 935 reporting entities.

We also have our first Orange County school district, which is the only one in County to have a positive UNP. It is Fountain Valley Elementary and it is in 102nd place. Rankings 67 to 132 are provided below first.

I wouldn’t want to leave you without an interesting update discussion of SB 1421, which is provided by the Daily Bulletin and the OC Register at the very bottom below (see MOORLACH UPDATE — SB 1421 and SB 828 — May 31, 2018 and MOORLACH UPDATE — California Cop Culture — June 19, 2018).

66 Belleview Elementary Sonora Tuolumne 45 1,711 $ 697,730 $ 408
67 Wheatland Wheatland Yuba 16 7,531 $ 3,062,000 $ 407
68 Montgomery Elementary Cazadero Sonoma 63 881 $ 354,783 $ 403
69 Hart-Ransom Union Elem Modesto Stanislaus 23 4,453 $ 1,783,705 $ 401
70 Mark West Union Elem Santa Rosa Sonoma 7 14,858 $ 5,900,143 $ 397
71 Firebaugh-Las Deltas Uni Firebaugh Fresno 14 8,998 $ 3,352,744 $ 373
72 Semitropic Elementary Wasco Kern 92 368 $ 129,145 $ 351
73 Douglas City Elementary Douglas City Trinity 69 831 $ 290,410 $ 349
74 Elkins Elementary Paskenta Tehama 100 270 $ 91,495 $ 339
75 Bogus Elementary Montague Siskiyou 93 358 $ 118,339 $ 331
76 Garfield Elementary Eureka Humboldt 96 331 $ 107,899 $ 326
77 Jefferson Elementary Paicines San Benito 107 203 $ 65,049 $ 320
78 Trinity Center Elementary Trinity Center Trinity 91 424 $ 131,760 $ 311
79 Gazelle Union Elementary Gazelle Siskiyou 102 290 $ 89,235 $ 308
80 Kenwood Kenwood Sonoma 29 4,276 $ 1,291,001 $ 302
81 South San Francisco Unif So San Francisco San Mateo 2 82,935 $ 22,830,283 $ 275
82 Flournoy Union Elementary Flournoy Tehama 104 267 $ 72,816 $ 273
83 Cuddeback Union Elem Carlotta Humboldt 79 892 $ 220,293 $ 247
84 Indian Diggings Elementary Somerset El Dorado 110 164 $ 39,078 $ 238
85 Waukena Joint Union Elem Tulare Tulare 75 1,021 $ 235,246 $ 230
86 Stone Corral Elementary Visalia Tulare 83 745 $ 170,096 $ 228
87 Lake Elementary Orland Glenn 101 418 $ 90,128 $ 216
88 Happy Camp Union Elem Happy Camp Siskiyou 72 1,304 $ 270,429 $ 207
89 Pine Ridge Elementary Auberry Fresno 84 897 $ 168,329 $ 188
90 Di Giorgio Elementary Arvin Kern 82 967 $ 180,048 $ 186
91 Browns Elementary Rio Oso Sutter 89 975 $ 135,317 $ 139
92 Klamath River Union Elem Horse Creek Siskiyou 109 470 $ 60,376 $ 128
93 Robla Elementary Sacramento Sacramento 19 20,773 $ 2,656,403 $ 128
94 Paradise Elementary Modesto Stanislaus 94 936 $ 118,285 $ 126
95 Rockford Elementary Porterville Tulare 85 1,344 $ 164,825 $ 123
96 Caliente Union Elementary Caliente Kern 95 964 $ 115,753 $ 120
97 Junction City Elementary Junction City Trinity 103 695 $ 81,391 $ 117
98 Twain Harte Twain Harte Tuolumne 48 5,468 $ 626,757 $ 115
99 Wasco Union High Wasco Kern 13 31,543 $ 3,357,016 $ 106
100 Round Valley Joint Elem Bishop Inyo 98 1,047 $ 104,672 $ 100
101 Kneeland Elementary Kneeland Humboldt 113 337 $ 26,881 $ 80
102 Fountain Valley Elementary Fountain Valley Orange 10 56,680 $ 4,442,293 $ 78
103 Indian Springs Elementary Big Bend Shasta 114 220 $ 16,282 $ 74
104 San Lucas Union Elem San Lucas Monterey 112 417 $ 28,309 $ 68
105 Raisin City Elementary Raisin City Fresno 87 2,129 $ 140,090 $ 66
106 Green Point Elementary Blue Lake Humboldt 115 233 $ 14,007 $ 60
107 North County Joint Union Hollister San Benito 80 3,668 $ 219,029 $ 60
108 Big Pine Unified Big Pine Inyo 99 1,820 $ 103,599 $ 57
109 Summerville Union High Tuolumne Tuolumne 51 9,824 $ 552,045 $ 56
110 Strathmore Union Elem Strathmore Tulare 70 5,820 $ 281,596 $ 48
111 Bonny Doon Union Elem Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 90 3,069 $ 134,295 $ 44
112 Alta-Dutch Flat Union Elem Alta Placer 105 1,950 $ 66,099 $ 34
113 Monte Rio Union Elem Monte Rio Sonoma 108 2,292 $ 60,948 $ 27
114 Oak Run Elementary Oak Run Shasta 117 608 $ 7,541 $ 12
115 Orchard Elementary San Jose Santa Clara 78 19,431 $ 223,597 $ 12
116 Modoc Joint Unified Alturas Modoc 106 5,941 $ 65,541 $ 11
117 Palo Verde Union Elem Tulare Tulare 116 2,810 $ 12,295 $ 4
118 Three Rivers Union Elem Three Rivers Tulare 118 2,363 $ 1,506 $ 1
119 Big Sur Unified Big Sur Monterey 119 465 $ – $ –
120 Linns Valley-Poso Flat Un Glennville Kern 120 642 $ – $ –
121 Fieldbrook Elementary McKinleyville Humboldt 121 876 $ (1,390) $ (2)
122 Somis Union Somis Ventura 123 3,295 $ (29,603) $ (9)
123 Lucerne Elementary Lucerne Lake 129 3,388 $ (58,603) $ (17)
124 Lassen View Union Elem Los Molinos Tehama 131 2,816 $ (79,639) $ (28)
125 Armona Union Elementary Armona Kings 149 6,533 $ (196,891) $ (30)
126 Golden Feather Union Elem Oroville Butte 135 2,756 $ (103,750) $ (38)
127 Big Lagoon Union Elem Trinidad Humboldt 122 462 $ (25,973) $ (56)
128 Vineland Elementary Bakersfield Kern 157 4,428 $ (253,793) $ (57)
129 Whitmore Union Elementary Whitmore Shasta 127 736 $ (45,336) $ (62)
130 Cutten Elementary Eureka Humboldt 166 5,307 $ (331,869) $ (63)
131 Bridgeville Elementary Bridgeville Humboldt 125 564 $ (36,684) $ (65)
132 Chowchilla Elementary Chowchilla Madera 274 22,462 $ (1,712,027) $ (76)

California bill takes aim at secrecy surrounding police officer personnel records

By tsaavedra |
Orange County Register

https://www.dailybulletin.com/2018/08/13/california-bill-takes-aim-at-secrecy-surrounding-police-officer-personnel-records/

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/08/13/california-bill-takes-aim-at-secrecy-surrounding-police-officer-personnel-records/

More than 40 years of police secrecy could begin to crumble if California lawmakers pass a new bill allowing the public release of personnel records for law enforcement officers involved in deadly force, on-duty sexual assaults and falsifying evidence.

Senate Bill 1421, by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, is the latest effort to open police records in the name of transparency. Since 1976, California law enforcement officers have been protected by statutes and court rulings — the strictest in the nation — that make it illegal to release virtually all police personnel records, including those involving wrongdoing and disciplinary action.

Past efforts to undo those protections have been rejected under withering opposition by law enforcement unions, which argue that releasing confidential personnel information would endanger police lives, fuel lawsuits and make it more difficult for officers to do their jobs.

However, Skinner said her bill is more narrow than past efforts and focuses on only the most serious of offenses. Details such as home addresses, names of family members and telephone numbers would remain exempt from disclosure. Additionally, under Skinner’s proposal, the release of information could be delayed when there is an open investigation.

“I believe the bill really balances the rights of law enforcement with the right of the public to know,” Skinner said. “(The public) will have the ability to see the agency took (its concerns) seriously. … Until we have access, we won’t be able to determine that.”

Supporters of the SB 1421 say police transparency is key to gaining the trust of the community.

Current law “allows bad officers to perpetuate and bad supervisors to continue their behavior without it ever being known,” said James Chanin, a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who practices in San Francisco. “The quality of policing goes down.”

For example, an off-duty Buena Park police officer in March pulled his gun on a man he mistakenly thought had stolen a roll of Mentos from a convenience store. A video of the police gaffe went viral on the internet. Yet, under current law, it is highly unlikely the public will ever know whether the officer was disciplined or retrained. Even his name remains secret, though his face has been seen by a million viewers.

When a Cleveland officer in 2014 shot and killed 14-year-old Tamir Rice, a letter was released from his previous employer saying that agency had found him unfit to be an officer and allowed him to resign.

The release of that kind of information is a crime in California.

“The public has a right to know what’s going on with their taxpayer money, but not in this state,” Chanin said.

Existing law has become a safety net for bad cops, critics say.

In 2006, Berkeley police officers refused — citing state protections — to cooperate with a civilian probe into the theft of heroin, methamphetamines and other drugs from 286 envelopes in the evidence locker. Without police participation, the probe was unable to determine the extent of the security breach.

The Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights was passed by the Legislature in 1976 as a way to keep police supervisors from framing the rank-and-file in the heat of scandal. Before then, officers could be bullied into taking polygraph tests or face losing their jobs. Police brass, according to some stories, would lean on wives and families to get confessions from officers when politically expedient.

The bill of rights basically makes it difficult to fire police officers.

That bill was coupled with a 1978 statute that prohibited disclosure of police disciplinary files to the public without court approval. Those provisions are codified in Penal Codes sections 832.7 and 832.8.

Supporters were worried that criminal defendants were using police disciplinary records to fish for evidence that would help their cases.

California’s protections were made virtually impenetrable in 2006, when the California Supreme Court ruled in Copley Press v. Superior Court of San Diego County that civilian police commissions could not publicly disclose their findings on police misconduct. As a result, some commissions could no longer gain access to personnel files. Lobbyists for the police said these protections were necessary for officer safety.

Specifically, Skinner’s bill would allow for the disclosure of reports, investigations or findings for incidents involving the discharge of a firearm or electronic control weapons, strikes by weapons to the head or neck area or deadly force; incidents of sustained sexual assault by an officer; and findings of dishonesty by an officer.

The proposal is scheduled to be heard Thursday by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. It already has been passed by the Senate.

The Peace Officers Research Association of California opposes the bill because of what it believes are damaging side effects to police. Among the concerns, the group says, is that officers fearing their names might be disclosed might hesitate in the field before acting, creating a police safety issue.

State Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, co-authored the bill and believes the benefits outweigh the risks.

“I’m trying to assist to getting to the truth and getting to the truth faster,” Moorlach said. “I think there has been a credibility concern about whether we are being told the truth.”

image18.png?w=660&h=165

This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — California School Rankings, Group 1 — August 13, 2018

Summer is just about over and school is about to start. So, how is/are the school districts that you live in doing?

Today is the first of 14 editions on the Unrestricted Net Positions (UNP) of the 939 school districts (as three pairings are combined, we will show 936). We are not including the 58 County Departments of Education or Special Districts.

We have ranked them by the Unrestricted Net Position divided by the district’s population for the per capita amount. This is your asset or, in the case of a deficit, your liability.

This year, we have already provided you with the Per Capita UNP rankings of the 50 states, 58 counties, 72 community college districts and 482 incorporated cities.

We were unable to find any repository of this particular temperature gauge of a California school district’s finances. So, we’ve compiled it ourselves. Now that defined benefit pension plan liabilities must be included in the audited financial statements, comparisons are a little more reliable. However, the financial reports for June 30, 2018, which will be released around the end of this year (hopefully), will also reflect a liability that is currently off of the books, the retiree medical unfunded liability (Other Post Employment Benefit or OPEB). If you think the numbers are disappointing for your district now, just wait until next year.

The first column indicates the position. Therefore, the lower the better. The next three columns provide the District’s name, city and county. The fifth column is the ranking of the UNP in total compared to the other Districts. Again, the lower the better. The sixth column is the population for the District. The seventh column is the UNP from the District’s most current available audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the eighth is the per capita amount (UNP divided by population). For this column, the higher the better.

Group 1 has mostly smaller school districts, with the largest having a population of less than 29,000. For perspective, Orange County does not have any school districts with this small of a population. Of these districts, 44 of them, two-thirds of the 66, have less than 1,000 constituents.

The last few weeks of the Session are the busiest. So my life will be nuts between now and the end of August. But, I’ll try to get these out on a regular basis. Along with my staff, I also want to thank Marc Joffe from Reason Foundation for his assistance in providing access to numerous audited financial reports during this and other projects. His efforts expedited our research and I am thankful for his help.

I couldn’t leave you without an article. This one comes from the Daily Republic and also addresses the concerns about California’s Department of Transportation. It is at the bottom.

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 5.45.33 PM

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 5.45.44 PM

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 5.45.58 PM

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 5.46.08 PM

 

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 5.46.19 PM

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 5.46.33 PM

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 5.46.42 PM

The Right Stuff: Who really benefits from higher road tax?

By Jim McCully

https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/good-news-8/

I believe most folks who drive realize the outsized amount we pay for fuel in our state. In fact, according to State Sen. John Moorlach of Orange County, Californians pay one of the highest fuel taxes and fees (a euphemism for tax), including hidden cap and trade “fees.” Thanks to the Democrat/Socialists/ Progressive majority party in Sacramento. Also, despite the huge taxes paid, we rank among the lowest ranked roads in our nation.

We saw our taxes go up this year but if you look at the legislation this is only a preview of coming attractions. Think voters, we pay a huge fuel tax which any logical person would believe should go to repair and maintain our extensive road and bridge system. Yet we have among the worst rated road and bridge maintenance in the nation. Why? Because we trusted current legislators.

But wait! Where did the money go? Recently I told you the seven Bay Area state bridges took in, according to the most recent available fiscal year 2016-2017, $720 million-plus in tolls, which is apparently not enough! So, we were gifted with Measure 3 which will double that amount, assuming a constant rate, in five years to $1.4 billion-plus. WOW! Can our dear leaders in Sacramento figure out how to maintain the bridges with that amount of our hard-earned tax dollars?

Our Solano County Economic Development Corporation (EDC) which, by the way, does a terrific job promoting Solano County, reported 110,000 people per day commute in and out of Solano County for work; 50,000 leave here and a large amount cross one or more bridges; and 60,000 drive into Solano. Many of these cross one or more bridges. Do you think this mismanagement impacts our economic recovery and expansion? Getting the picture?

Remember every tax dollar taken unnecessarily out of your wallet is a dollar you don’t spend on your family’s benefit. Should we all pay our fair share of taxes for the common good? Sure, we should and gladly as they benefit us all. Taxes are necessary for a civil society to function. However, the issues are how many, how much, how spent, and decided by whom?

Now after decades of mis-rule by our majority party in Sacramento, suddenly these wizards of smartness have found out the roads need to be fixed. Who knew? Now we have a sense of urgency after years of broken axels and damaged tires. Why? Simple: elections. Time to crank up the propaganda machine.

Well our Democratic Assemblyman Jim Frasier is the head of the Transportation Committee in the Assembly. Surely, he, of all legislators, has known the scope of the problem. After all, his committee oversees Caltrans.

Let’s look at one fiscal year 2015-2016: we paid the 4th highest transportation tax in America, we took in $10.4 billion (a billion is a thousand million), and Caltrans spent just 20 percent on road repair and new construction? Huh? Where did the other 80 percent go? Good question. Caltrans wasted half a billion annually on extra staffing, The Legislative Analyst’s Office reported. Caltrans was over staffed by 3,500 positions at a cost of $500 million per annum (salaries, health insurance, dental, eye, and the Public Employee Retirement System contributions).

This does nothing to improve roads but sure gets public employee union money to Democrat politicians. Always follow the money folks. If you think Solano County is immune from this stuff, guess again. California ranked 46 in rural road repair, 49 in urban interstate road condition and 46 in urban interstate congestion. Poor road conditions cost taxpayers $17 billion. Yes, voters $17 billion. That equals $702.88 per motorists. How do you like your majority party’s money management now?

Voters nothing will change unless we change it. Our infrastructure should be non-partisan but it isn’t.

Remember there is a choice about this awful waste. Our own Fairfield resident Lisa Romero is running against Frasier.

Jim McCully is the northwest regional vice chairman of the California State Republican Party and a member of the Solano County Republican Central Committee.

image18.png?w=660&h=165

This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach