May 2009 Archives

Sports fans and union members may have plenty to debate with President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a self-proclaimed Yankees fan, she starts with two strikes against her.

But, given that her decision that ended the 1994-95 strike, a brush-back may not be in order.

Sotomayor quickly rejected the arguments of baseball owners after players offered to end the strike in April 1995 and clear the field of replacement players. The owners held out for punitive new work rules that were rejected by the National Labor Relations Board, including an end to anti-collusion rules.

"This strike has placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial," she said at the time.

Early reports on Sotomayor say, that like retiring Justice David Souter, she's hard to predict. On sports and unions, that appears to be true.

Five years after siding with baseball players, she rejected arguments by the NFL Players Association, which tried to block Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett from leaving school early for the NFL draft.

"That's what unions do every day -- protect people in the union from those not in the union," she said.

Her wisdom, no doubt, will be debated, especially if she keeps rooting for the Yankees. But try finding anyone who thinks Clarett helped himself by leaving Ohio State ...

-- Jim Sweeney

No particular surprises in Tuesday's vote. I do like looking at the county results after state elections, and I've never seen one quite like this. Propositions 1A, 1C, 1D and 1E failed in all 58 counties. Proposition 1F passed in all 58 counties. Only 1B had any split whatsoever, carrying small majorities in San Francisco, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. Call those the true strongholds of the California Teachers Association ...

-- Jim Sweeney

Most of the state may boycott but it is Election Day for the state budget deal. It seems pretty clear that all but one of the six ballot measures will fail. As we've written on the editorial page, we think that's a worse scenario than if they pass. But the debate is done, so here are my predictions for today:

Prop. 1A: Fails with 58 percent opposed.

Prop. 1B: Fails with 52 percent opposed (and couldn't pass without Prop. 1A anyway).

Prop. 1C: Fails with 52 percent opposed.

Prop. 1D: Fails with 55 percent opposed

Prop. 1E: Fails with 55 percent opposed

Prop. 1F: Passes with 75 percent in favor.

Turnout will be less than 25 percent statewide, slightly above 30 percent in Sonoma County. I wouldn't wager on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop. 1B carries in Sonoma County. Maybe Prop. 1C, too.

What do you think?

-- Jim Sweeney

Cooped up

In an editorial this spring, we endorsed Assemblyman Jared Huffman's bill prohibiting the import of any eggs to California that aren't raised under the standards of Proposition 2, the initiative passed last November to require larger cages for hens.

The San Rafael Democrat's bill passed its first committee hurdle last week. It picked up support from Republican legislators who opposed Proposition 2 and the Humane Society of the United States, which sponsored the initiative.

Questions remain about whether the measure would violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution and the legislative arm of the state's $648 million egg industry so far is neutral.

Huffman and other supporters argue that it's unfair to California egg producers if only they must comply with restrictions, including a requirement that cages be large enough for hens to extend their wings.

"I think there's a general consensus out there that if our industries have to do certain things for the housing of poultry, then we don't think it's too much to ask the rest of the country to adhere to the same rules that we do, just to keep our folks competitive," Assemblyman Tom Berryhill told the Riverside Press Enterprise.

Berryhill, R-Modesto, is a co-author of Huffman's bill. He opposed Prop. 2.

The Humane Society, of course, favors anything that would extend the requirements of its initiative.

I keep thinking back to our editorial board meeting last summer with Arnold Riebli of Sonoma, one of two major egg producers in Sonoma County. He pointed out that we already have the option of buying cage-free eggs. But, voting with our dollars, 90 percent of us choose not to.

-- Jim Sweeney

How do you feel about big box stores? More specifically, what's your opinion about Lowe's proposal to build a new store at Santa Rosa and Yolanda avenues? What are your thoughts about Lowe's and/or Friedman's opening a new store in Petaluma?

These are some of the questions we post in our latest Press Democrat Editorial Department survey. Click here to take it yourself and see the results of the survey so far.

To read our Sunday editorial on the results of the survey (as of Friday afternoon), click here.

To be included in future surveys, please send me your e-mail address at paul.gullixson@pressdemocrat.com.

- Paul Gullixson

So, as my colleague Nathan Halverson reported today, Santa Rosa Junior College is threatening legal action against anyone putting srjc in their e-mail address.

Let me get in line, and I hope you might line up right behind me.

You can now contact me at srjcisoutofline@hotmail.com. For the uninitiated, hot mail accounts are free. Gmail, too. And I'm sure there are many others providing e-mail addresses at no cost. So start one. Or several. And don't forget to get that s-r-j-c in the address.

Of course, before SRJC (am I allowed to type that?) sics its lawyers on us, they'll probably need to deal with all the people at the other SRJCs. I located two with a quick Internet search: The Shelter Rock Jewish Center in Nassau, N.Y. and Serangon Junior College in Singapore. Imagine that, another college called SRJC.

But, a word of advice to the lawyers. Check out Singapore's copyright laws carefully. I wouldn't be surprised if a frivolous lawsuit filed there could result in a caning. Just in case, don't chew gum in the courtroom.

-- Jim Sweeney

A familiar name from Sonoma County political circles surfaced this week in the New York attorney general's investigation of bribery and corruption in the placement of public pension fund money.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is looking into the seven-figure "finder's fees" paid to intermediaries who arrange deals with multi-billion pension funds.

The Sacramento Bee reported this week that Cuomo is now looking at Golden Bridge Capital, which is 75 percent owned by Darius Anderson of Kenwood.

Anderson, who grew up in Santa Rosa and briefly considered a state Assembly bid here 10 years ago, is an insider's insider in California Democratic politics. He has ties to former President Bill Clinton, former Gov. Gray Davis and former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown among others. Anderson's lobbying firm, Platinum Advisors, represents A-list clients in San Francisco and Sacramento. Anderson also briefly played a role in the Graton Rancheria's effort to build a casino at Sear's Point and a separate proposal for a casino at Konocti Harbor in Lake County. As my colleague Pete Golis pointed out last week, Anderson was one of the few locals to make Capitol Weekly's list of the 100 most influential figures in state politics.

His firm reportedly received a fee for helping to arrange a $400 million investment of New York pension funds into a California-based real estate equity fund. Anderson has not been charged with a crime.

He hasn't commented on the New York investigation, which already resulted in several arrests, including that of political consultant Hank Morris, who has worked on past campaigns for Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

In California, Treasurer Bill Lockyer has proposed that the intermediaries - known as placement agents - be required to register like lobbyists.

There's huge money in public pension funds and recent news reports intimate that generous finder's fees are there for well-connected brokers, so it will be interesting to see where Cuomo's ongoing investigation of the industry leads.

-- Jim Sweeney