Jim.Sweeney: August 2009 Archives

We twitted CHP officers in an editorial last month because they were poised to collect a pay raise while other state employees were being furloughed, effectively cutting their pay 15 percent. Well, credit where credit is due, the union representing CHP officers has reached an agreement to forgo pay raises over the next two years, according to a report on the Sacramento Bee's state worker blog.

CHP officers benefit from a provision of state law that ties their pay to the average wage paid by five of the state's largest law enforcement agencies. From their perspective, it beats negotiating. For those picking up the bill, it means that the state's means aren't a factor in setting pay scales. The law still ought to be changed, but I'll try to stick to the speed limit more often in recognition of CHP officers doing the right thing.

- Jim Sweeney

I was part of the press pack trailing Ted Kennedy a number of times, and I'm not sure I've seen another politician with such celebrity presence. I understand Ronald Reagan had it too, but he was president and deep inside the bubble the few times I covered him.

I claim no special insights into Kennedy, who was an out-of-town pol on a California campaign swing whenever I encountered him, but he's today's headline, and a couple of anecdotes stand out in my mind.

In 1986, my first year as full-time political correspondent, Kennedy came to California to stump for Alan Cranston, a fellow liberal who was at peril of losing his Senate seat to a moderate Silicon Valley congressman named Ed Zschau after running poorly in a presidential bid two years earlier.

Following an early morning appearance in Los Angeles, we caught a commercial flight to Oakland for another rally. Practically every head turned and there was an audible buzz, "Hey, wasn't that Ted Kennedy?" as he headed down the aisle of the crowded PSA jet, trailed by a couple aides and about a dozen reporters.

During the flight, we pinned Kennedy near the restrooms in the rear of the plane for a short press conference. Someone asked him about a comment by political consultant Bob Shrum that's become my favorite description of California elections: "A campaign rally in California is three people sitting around a TV set."

Shrum is a former Kennedy staffer, and when the question came, Kennedy guffawed and shouted across the plane in his Boston brogue, "Can you believe it? These guys want me to comment on my press secretary."

The last time I saw Kennedy was at Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles nine years ago, when he sang "Guadalajara" with a Mariachi band at a closing-day rally for California delegates who were beginning to seem more enthusiastic about Green party nominee Ralph Nader than fellow Democrat Al Gore, perhaps foreshadowing the outcome of the election.

That, coincidentally, was the last news article I wrote for this newspaper before moving full-time to the night city desk, where I worked for eight years before becoming an editorial writer last spring.

- Jim Sweeney

A recurring theme of recent letters is the failure of Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Mike Thompson to hold local town hall meetings on health care. We joined the chorus in an editorial last week, prompting Thompson's staff to complain that he had one in Covelo (with signs posted on the street to announce it) and Woolsey defenders noting that she attended one at The Sea Ranch (though she wasn't the sponsor).

Woolsey's office just announced that she will host a town hall meeting on health care at 6 p.m. Monday at the Petaluma Veterans Building, 1094 Petaluma Blvd. S. The announcement said she'll take questions for about two hours.

"We have been talking about health care with voters at numerous public events across the 6th District, in a telephone town hall meeting, and in many of the 5,000 e-mail, letter and phone inquiries our office answers every week," Woolsey said in a written statement. "A town hall, which has been requested by some constituents, is another way to continue the dialogue on this important issue."

Will Thompson follow for the portion of Sonoma County that he represents?

- Jim Sweeney

Charles Krauthammer writes today about the "death panel" issue, shooting down the worst invective while insisting that if docs were reimbursed for end-of-life discussions, they would have an incentive to press patients to skip treatment and die sooner.

On Sunday, we'll have an op-ed from a local lawyer about his experience with a couple who prepared advanced directives before encountering a potentially terminal illness.

So, let me tell you about my experience.

My father was diagnosed as terminally ill in April, and my family went through five weeks of fear, confusion, unity and grief. Well, the grief has lasted more than five weeks.

But during those five weeks, we had several sessions that certainly would fall within the scope of the "death panel" debate - and they were among the most humane moments in a situation that no one is adequately prepared for.

I don't know if the doctors, case managers, nutritionists and nurses we met with were reimbursed or not; my dad was covered by Medicare.

Three different doctors who were involved in his care explained treatment (and non-treatment) options, answered all our questions and made themselves available by phone for further questions, or for family members who weren't able to be present for the appointments. I don't think any of felt as if we were directed toward a particular option.

We also met twice with a team at the convalescent hospital to go over his condition and care. Again, we got all the time we needed. Our questions were answered. Information was provided, and our wishes were followed.

Of course, it helped that we understood my dad's wishes.

So, have other people had different, less satisfactory experiences? Sure.

Do I believe for a minute that ensuring doctors were reimbursed for this time would lead to death panels, mandatory euthanasia and Soylent Green? No. I wish I believed this was all cynical political posturing, but there are some gullible people out there.

- Jim Sweeney

Since the story broke about Sonoma State University making development loans from its academic foundation, I've wondered about Santa Rosa Junior College.

The disclosure and the subsequent uproar came as SRJC was asking for donations to its "Bridge the Doyle" program, which aims to make up for some of the Doyle Scholarships lost when Exchange Bank cut off its stock dividends last year.

The dividends funded the Doyle program, which handed out about 4,000 scholarships annually, each worth $1,000 - about $76 million altogether over 58 years.

SRJC President Robert Agrella hosted our editorial board for lunch today, and he told us that his school's foundation doesn't make loans and only recently began dabbling in anything riskier than stocks. The board adopted a policy last year allowing investments of up to 5 percent of its money in hedge funds, Agrella said..

The foundation, by the way, lost 18 percent of its value in the past year - an ugly number but better than many investment funds.

Agrella said some donors have asked about the foundation's investment policy, but he doesn't think the SSU situation has had any impact. As for the "Bridging the Doyle" program, it has brought in a little more than $200,000.

Agrella said it may fund 400 scholarships worth $500, or 500 scholarships worth $400.

You can donate via the school's Web site, www.santarosa.edu/bridging-the-doyle.

- Jim  Sweeney

If you've been around politics for more than a nanosecond, you've heard Jesse Unruh's oft-quoted line, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." Well, if mid-year fund-raising reports are any guide, state Sen. Pat Wiggins may have been orphaned.

The Santa Rosa Democrat opened a re-election account for 2010, but records filed with the secretary of state show that she raised less money than any other state senator eligible to run for re-election next year, in most cases considerably less money. She also raised less money than all but one of the senators eligible to seek re-election in 2012.

In fact, her $49,014 haul for the first six months of 2009 is less than the $51,500 raised by Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, for a state Senate committee she has formed for the 2014 election.

The obvious question is whether Wiggins is serious about seeking re-election.

Unfortunately, she's been hard to find and harder to talk to since her outburst in a legislative committee hearing a year ago. Her erratic behavior was the subject on an editorial in The Press Democrat last August. A similar editorial appeared last week in the Napa Valley Register.

Wiggins has declined interview requests, and staffers have blocked reporters seeking to questions her on the Senate floor on in Capitol hallways, so it's hard to know what her intentions really are. I called Wiggins for this report. Her husband - and campaign treasurer - called back and brushed off questions about her fund-raising, while saying she plans to run for another term next year.

Wiggins once was a prodigious fund-raiser, banking $200,000 without the benefit of incumbency to scare off any challengers in the Democratic primary in 2006, effectively winning the seat, given the political realities of Northern California. As recently as last year, she raised $191,000, pumping more than half of that money into the campaigns of other Democrats.

If Wiggins is serious about raising money for re-election, she not only is an incumbent but she's a member of the Government Organization Committee, which despite its innocuous name has jurisdiction over alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

Perhaps a better question is whether local Democrats will allow her to run unchallenged once again.

-- Jim Sweeney

A gift, even if it's unwanted

A federal court order to free 40,000 inmates from California prisons may be a gift to state lawmakers.

The state budget package approved last week includes $1.2 billion in unidentified savings from the prison system, but the deal nearly blew up when details leaked that 27,000 inmates would be released early to achieve the savings. Republican lawmakers insisted they weren't party to the agreement and threatened to withhold their votes if the budget meant early releases.

The potential stalemate was broken by a last-minute deal to postpone any formal decisions on the prison savings. Of course, that just meant putting off the fight until lawmakers return from their summer recess. Then, if the votes weren't there to cut prison spending, the budget would be thrown out of balance (which could very well happen anyway).

But on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of federal judges gave the state two years to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates - about 50 percent more than the scuttled budget plan. The judges are presiding over a constitutional challenge to health care provided for the state's 168,000 prison inmates. The state's prisons are designed to hold about 80,000 inmates.

Appeals are likely, but releasing parole violators and non-violent offenders early is bound to be a lot less expensive than the new prison hospitals and related health facilities previously ordered by the federal judges.

They won't admit it, but saving big money without taking a tough vote will look good to legislators in both parties.

-- Jim Sweeney