Sacramento City Hall on Dec. 27, 2011

Article 2 of the California Constitution gives voters of cities and counties the right to exercise initiative powers. Article 2 begins with the statement that “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

Unions and their political friends hold this right of the people in contempt.

During the six-month campaign to put the Fair and Open Competition charter amendment on the ballot, signature gatherers were repeatedly harassed and physically assaulted by individuals with apparent ties to local construction unions. Eleven reports were filed with the Sacramento police in response to these incidents. An article in the December 22 Sacramento News & Review reports on union operatives gloating about getting a signature gatherer removed from a public area. In addition, advertisements sponsored by a construction union front group during the summer claimed to listeners of news and talk radio that their identify could be stolen if they signed petitions to place measures on the ballot. Governor Brown signed a bill (Senate Bill 202) that requires initiatives to be on the November ballot, apparently based on the idea that the union political machine will be more effective in the November 2012 election than in the June 2012 election. Finally, Governor Brown signed a last-minute gut-and-amend bill in September (Senate Bill 922) that nullified Fair and Open Competition policies for counties and general law cities (where the state legislature has full authority over contracting policies). This bill derailed the simultaneous signature-gathering campaign for a Fair and Open Competition charter amendment for the County of Sacramento.

Note that these incidents occurred in California, not in Venezuela.

As a charter city, Sacramento is able to establish its own contracting policies for city construction, so the governor and the legislature were unable to use their new anti-democratic law to suppress the will of the people there. If the enthusiasm of the public for signing these petitions is a reliable indicator, politicians in the City of Sacramento will soon lose their coercive power to force construction contractors to sign costly Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with union leaders for proposed projects such as the $387 million arena for the Sacramento Kings professional basketball team. Taxpayers will get the best quality work at the best price.

MEDIA
The campaign’s submission of the petitions to the Sacramento City Clerk was reported in www.CalWatchdog.com on December 27: Effort to Nix Sacto’s Union-Only Contracts

Is it right for a government to require contractors to make employee fringe benefit payments to union-managed trust funds and obtain their workers from a union hiring hall? What kind of thinking leads a representative of the People to require workers to pay initiation fees and dues to a union as a condition of working on a public project? What kind of community leader wants to build four taxpayer-funded schools for the cost of five, in order to curry favor with a special interest group?

Project Labor Agreements are associated with fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, internal corruption, and lack of accountability to the people who pay taxes for the government to provide services. Citizens abdicate their responsibilities to oversee their local governments. As a result, unions fill the resulting political vacuum and attract ambitious people who see unions as a vehicle to attain personal power and position.

Arguments based on reason and common sense have no power in this kind of environment, where only scandals earn public attention.

Today’s Exhibit A is the City of San Fernando, near Los Angeles.

The City of San Fernando was the first municipality in California to require a PLA for all public works projects. On September 19, 2005, the San Fernando City Council voted 5-0 to require all construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions for prime contracts worth $150,000 or more and specialty contracts worth $25,000 or more. These project cost thresholds are unusually low, indicating that representatives of the city made little effort to engage in credible negotiations with union leaders to develop the PLA.

Voting for the PLA in 2005 were council members Julie Ruelas, Nury Martinez, Steven Veres, José Hernández, and Maribel De La Torre. So what happened to them?

San Fernando voters recalled José Hernández and Julie Ruelas on January 13, 2009.

Nury Martinez was elected in 2009 to the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District, with endorsements from the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Steven Veres was elected in 2011 to the board of the Los Angeles Community College District, with endorsements from the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Only Maribel De La Torre remains on the San Fernando City Council. At the November 21, 2011 city council meeting, she was entangled in a spectacle that is bizarre, even by California standards.

Meanwhile, the city continues to require its contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement to work on taxpayer-funded city construction. Business as usual.

Postscript: Today’s Exhibit B on Project Labor Agreements and Moral Breakdown…

Inquiry Targets Two Contractors on L.A. Community Colleges Project – Los Angeles Times – December 1, 2011

“The D.A.’s probe centers on Los Angeles Community College District allegations that the firms submitted fraudulent billings for Mission College work, part of a $5.7-billion construction program.”

Not surprisingly, the article mentions how construction unions use CEQA to block permits for projects until the developers agree to force their contractors to sign project labor agreements (PLAs): “It also has become a weapon in battles between rival developers or builders and labor unions… One coalition of labor groups that advocates for environmental improvements in projects has drawn criticism because it also seeks agreements that developers employ union members.”

That “coalition of labor groups” is California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), which is notorious for blocking permits at the California Energy Commission for power plants and other energy infrastructure projects until the developer agrees to require its construction contractors to sign a project labor agreement.

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) has introduced a bill (Assembly Bill 598) that would limit standing to file and maintain an action or proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exclusively to the state’s elected Attorney General, thus giving accountability and authority to the executive branch to implement the law for its original intent of legitimate environmental protection.

This is the most dramatic attempt to date by unions and their political cronies to suppress the Fair and Open Competition movement that started in California and is sweeping the country. The bill was signed one day before the San Diego City Council was expected to place a measure on the June 2012 ballot for voters to enact a Fair and Open Competition measure in the City of San Diego. The Escondido City Council is also considering a model charter that includes a Fair and Open Competition provision. Well ahead of schedule, the Fair and Open Competition Sacramento campaign is 75% of the way toward its signature collection goal to qualify Fair and Open Competition ballot measures in the City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento.

Already people are responding with disbelief. An editorial in the Monday, October 3 San Diego Union-Tribune (Brown Signs a Dubious ‘Gut and Amend’ Bill) has this to say:

So Brown had three good reasons to veto SB 922: It is an assault on local governments’ authority; it was never truly debated or reviewed by the Legislature; and it was badly crafted. Nevertheless, he signed the bill Sunday, noting it isn’t as sweeping as critics have said and saying it will allow for further debate on PLAs. “Seems fair to me – even democratic,” the governor wrote.

Really? We doubt “democratic” is the adjective most observers would use to describe SB 922.

Created through a gut-and-amend action on September 2, Senate Bill 922 attempts to nullify local government “Fair and Open Competition” measures that establish a policy principle that the government shall not require its contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of winning contracts to work on taxpayer-funded construction projects. It also attempts to interfere with charter cities’ local home rule authority for municipal affairs by trying to cut off state funding for projects in charter cities with such a policy.

Governor Brown Signs a Second Bill to Encourage Project Labor Agreements: On Friday, September 30, Governor Jerry Brown also signed Assembly Bill 436, which exempts certain local governments from paying labor compliance fees to the state if they require contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions for construction. The California Department of Industrial Relations has already issued draft proposed regulations reflecting this policy.

Media coverage:

Governor signs law barring blanket bans on labor friendly deals – San Diego Union-Tribune – October 3, 2011

Triumphant, threatening statement from the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council warning citizens about the power of SB 922 to cut off state funding and jeopardize local construction projects  – October 3, 2011

Coverage in the Los Angeles Times (link to story) and Bay Area News Group (San Jose Mercury-News/Oakland Tribune/Contra Costa Times) (link to story) – October 3, 2011.

But taxpayers had a second chance on September 12 when the Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) District Board of Directors debated the repeal or amendment of a 2009 resolution requiring construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with unions to build a $270 million planned extension of the South Sacramento Corridor light rail line.

The RT board consists of three Sacramento County supervisors, four Sacramento City Council members, and one city council member from Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Citrus Heights, and Elk Grove. RT board members are appointed by their respective local elected boards.

To vote on RT business, the board uses an unusual weighted voting system established by a state law enacted in 2006. The power of each board vote is based on a formula that includes the percentage of funding that the local government contributes to RT. All votes total to 100, even with absences, as long as there is a quorum.

On December 14, 2009, with the support of union lobbyists, the RT board narrowly voted 54 to 46 to negotiate and implement a PLA with the Sacramento-Sierra Building and Construction Trades Council for the South Line extension.

RT staff subsequently developed a draft PLA that is a bonanza for the unions. It requires contractors to obtain workers from the union hiring halls and pay workers’ fringe benefits exclusively into union programs. Workers must pay union dues and fees if they want a job.

But in the meantime, the RT board changed because of new appointments from the local governments. In addition, some RT board members read the draft PLA (exposed through a public records request) and realized taxpayers would not be getting the best quality construction at the best price. RT staff were even advertising for a consultant (cost not to exceed $50,000) to help them negotiate with stubborn union officials.

So on September 12, the RT board considered rescinding or amending the original PLA resolution. After some exciting and passionate public comments and debate among the RT board members, Elk Grove Councilman Pat Hume proposed amending the original resolution to require fair terms in the PLA and to direct staff to bring the negotiated PLA back to the board for a final vote.

The vote was going to be razor-close between the fair and open competition faction and the union-at-all-costs faction. The board and audience stared at the screen as the computer began calculating the weighted votes.

The motion lost, 52-48. Despite the fact that the board majority voted in support of the motion, Big Labor will keep control of $270 million in taxpayer-funded construction.

In the meantime, local business owners are 75% toward their goal of collecting enough signatures to comfortably qualify Fair and Open Competition measures for the City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento on a future ballot. These would prohibit the city, the county, and its affiliates from forcing contractors to sign PLAs with unions.

If there was any doubt these measures are needed, consider the 52-48 vote of the RT board on September 12.

No local news media in the Sacramento area reported on this vote. To ensure that elected officials are accountable to voters, www.TheTruthaboutPLAs.com presents the vote record for the PLA. (A YES vote means make the PLA fair; a NO vote means keep the PLA as the unions want it.)

1. Angelique Ashby, Sacramento City Council Member – Absent
2. Steve Cohn, Sacramento City Council – No
3. Darrell Fong, Sacramento City Council – No
4. Pat Hume, Elk Grove City Council – Yes
5. Roberta MacGlashan, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors – Yes
6. Steve Miller, Citrus Heights City Council – Yes
7. Andy Morin, Folsom City Council – Yes
8. Don Nottoli – Sacramento County Board of Supervisors – Yes
9. Bonnie Pannell, Sacramento City Council – No
10. David Sander, Rancho Cordova City Council – Yes
11. Phil Serna, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors – No

But at an Escondido City Council meeting on September 28, the bill was already state law, as far as union officials and their allies were concerned.

Escondido City Hall, first location where unions threatened a California local government with Senate Bill 922.

Escondido is a city of 144,000 in San Diego County, about 20 miles southeast of the coastal city of Oceanside. City council members had circulated a draft of Oceanside’s city charter (approved by voters in June 2010) as a possible model for Escondido’s charter. It contains a Fair and Open Competition provision similar to the ordinance enacted in the City of Fresno.

At this September 28 workshop, the Escondido City Council scheduled three formal presentations about the proposed charter. Representatives of the San Diego-Imperial County Building and Construction Trades Council were given ten minutes for a presentation in support of government-mandated Project Labor Agreements.

Union representatives declared that if Escondido voters approve a charter with a Fair and Open Competition provision, voters will “jeopardize millions of dollars in funding under Senate Bill 922” and “jeopardize money coming down from Sacramento.” For a while, the unions were able to manipulate city council members and city staff into discussing the charter under the presumption that Senate Bill 922 was already the law of the land. It is not.

If signed into law, Senate Bill 922 will be the unions’ primary tool to discourage California local governments from adopting their own Fair and Open Competition public contracting policies that prohibit government mandates for contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements. Union lobbyists can resume their demands for monopoly control of taxpayer-funded construction, and lawyers can resume their “greenmail” of blocking projects with environmental objections until getting a Project Labor Agreement. The power of the state to collect and distribute taxpayer money will be used to punish voters who enact policies that discourage those practices.

As shown by various local ballot initiatives throughout the state, voters clearly oppose Project Labor Agreements. Ordinary citizens want the best quality construction at the best price when their money is spent.

In response, union lobbyists turned to the politicians in the state legislature to bail them out by passing a bill stopping local voters (and their elected officials) from adopting Fair and Open Competition policies. Will Governor Brown use the state government to suppress local control? Or will he veto Senate Bill 922?

News Media Coverage

Charter city forum features name-calling, emotional outbursts – North County Times – September 29, 2011

Here is the controversial language, tacked on to the very end of the 22-page bill:

Nothing in this division prohibits payments pursuant to an agreement authorized by the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.), or payments permitted by the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Secs. 173, 175a, and 186). Nothing in this division restricts any use permitted by federal law of money paid pursuant to these acts.

Several newspapers have published editorials urging Governor Brown to veto SB 790 because of the sneaky provision. But other than TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, few news outlets have attempted to dig deep with an investigation into the implications of the language in Senate Bill 790. One exception is a September 8 exposé entitled Legislation Boosts Union Trust Fund by Katy Grimes of CalWatchdog.com. Excerpts from that article appeared in the September 11 San Francisco Examiner: ‘Gut and amend’ bills help fill union coffers.‘

In response, State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) had an opinion piece in the September 16, 2011 San Francisco Examiner (Claims Against CCA Bill Unfounded) claiming that criticism of Senate Bill 790 is based on “falsehoods and innuendo” and a “fanciful theory, a fantasy.” In another opinion piece in the September 21 Oakland Tribune and associated Bay Area News Group newspapers (Bill Was Not Hijacked and Deserves to be Signed), two local elected officials in the San Francisco Bay Area and a lobbyist for the Sierra Club declare that “The Tribune has wrongly charged that SB790 ‘was hijacked’ and that it ‘authorizes payments in PLAs (project labor agreements) covering utility infrastructure projects to slush funds managed by construction union officials.’”

This morning (September 22, 2011), the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction released the most comprehensive analysis yet of “a genuine union conspiracy” involving Senate Bill 790, Project Labor Agreements, and Labor Management Cooperation Committees. Peppered with links to documentary evidence, the “Investigative Report” examines step-by-step how unions exploit the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to browbeat power plant developers into signing a Project Labor Agreement, which requires the developer or its contractors to make payments to trust funds authorized by the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978, which in turn these union-affiliated trust funds use to finance political activity for unions.

See the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction’s “Investigative Report: A Genuine Union Conspiracy” here.

Considering that San Diego County voters approved a Fair and Open Competition charter amendment with 76 percent of the vote in November 2010, it was no surprise that signature collection for this ballot measure was easy. Project labor agreements have been a familiar issue of concern to citizens in San Diego County since the notorious union extortion of Gaylord Entertainment in 2007 and 2008 for a project labor agreement using the threat of objections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the end, Gaylord abandoned its proposal to build a $1.2 billion hotel and conference center on the bayfront of the City of Chula Vista, and unions solidified a reputation in San Diego for underhanded tactics in pursuit of monopoly control of work.

In June 2010, 56 percent of voters in the City of Chula Vista approved a Fair and Open Competition ordinance, and 54 percent of voters in the City of Oceanside approved a charter containing a Fair and Open Competition provision.

Ban on Labor-Friendly Contracts Will Be on 2012 Ballot – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 21, 2011 (breaking news)

New Initiative Sets Stage for Latest Labor, Business Battle – www.voiceofSanDiego.org – September 21, 2001

‘Fair and Open Competition’ initiative qualifies for San Diego ballot – San Diego Daily Transcript – September 22, 2011 (Article notes that the Fair and Open Competition measure is the first qualified by San Diego citizens for the city ballot since 1998 – thirteen years ago.)

Receiving the most attention is Senate Bill 922, a bill created on September 2 as a “gut and amend” bill and authored by the Assembly Speaker and Senate Pro Tem. This bill terminates local government policies that prohibit mandates for contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements. To compel California’s 120 charter cities (cities with full authority over their purely municipal affairs) to end their policies, the bill deprives these cities of state funding for projects if they maintain or enact policies that prohibit mandates for contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements.

Votes on this bill were strictly on party lines. Other than the few legislators who did not vote on SB 922 for unknown reasons, every Democrat in the legislature voted for SB 922 and every Republican voted against SB 922. No Democrat was willing to buck the political power of the unions and defy the caucus leaders in the Assembly and Senate, even if some recognized the inappropriate interference of the state government in the affairs of local governments. Realize that many Democratic state legislators were recently serving themselves in local government and complaining about state mandates and the state’s manipulation of local government policies.

Not surprisingly, numerous construction trade associations representing both union and Merit Shop contractors are asking Governor Jerry Brown to veto of SB 922, along with broader business organizations. But the brazen usurpation of local government authority by the state under SB 922 has also upset local government officials, even those who are neutral or even supportive of Project Labor Agreements.

“SB 922 is an unnecessary interference in local community decision making,” states a veto request from the California State Association of Counties. The League of California Cities also opposes SB 922: “Regardless of your position on PLAs, SB 922 is a bad bill and should be opposed. This is one more example of state legislative interference in what should be a local issue.” Numerous individual local elected officials have also sent veto requests to the governor.

Eight local governments have enacted policies to ban Project Labor Agreements, including three where voters solidly approved ballot measures to ensure Fair and Open Competition.

PROPOSITION G for CITY OF CHULA VISTA – JUNE 8, 2010
YES: 18783 55.75% (56%)
NO: 14906 44.25%

PROPOSITION K for CITY OF OCEANSIDE – JUNE 8, 2010
YES: 14951 53.79% (54%)
NO: 12846 46.21%

PROPOSITION A for SAN DIEGO COUNTY – NOVEMBER 2, 2010
YES: 614744 75.80% (76%)
NO: 196315 24.20%

As confirmed by these votes (as well as by polling), most California voters recognize that Project Labor Agreements are a costly scheme engineered by union lobbyists and politicians to give unions monopoly control over taxpayer-funded construction projects.

With ballot measures soon to qualify for the June 2012 ballot to establish Fair and Open Competition policies in the City of San Diego (Ban on labor-friendly contracts targeted for ballot – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 7, 2011), in the City of Sacramento, and in the County of Sacramento, union lobbyists have turned to the California legislature to bail out their unpopular strategy of using government-mandated Project Labor Agreements to cut competition and gain market share.

Learn more about these bills here.

News Media Coverage of Senate Bill 922 Since Passage in the California Legislature:

1.      Raft of labor-backed bills are a challenge for Jerry Brown– Sacramento Bee – September 12, 2011; in Fresno Bee – September 13, 2011

2.      Bills that Need to be Vetoed – Modesto Bee (editorial) – September 12, 2011

3.      EDITORIAL: Meet the boss – North County Times (editorial) – September 13, 2011

4.      Not every bill warrants that signature – Merced Sun-Star (editorial) – September 13, 2011

5.      Four bills need Gov. Brown’s veto– Oakland Tribune, Contra Costa Times, other San Francisco Bay Area local newspapers (editorial) – September 13, 2011

6.      Brown Ought to Use His Veto Pen Without Mercy – Sacramento Bee (editorial) – September 13, 2011

7.      Follow the Yellow Brick Road – www.CalWatchdog.com – September 14, 2011

8.      FORUM: Legislature cares little about local control – North County Times (powerful opinion piece by Oceanside City Councilman Jerry Kern about his personal experience at the state capitol opposing Senate Bill 922) – September 15, 2011

9.      Late amends leave advocates punched in the gut – Capitol Weekly – September 15, 2011

10.   Proposed legislation could cost cities millions – North County Times – September 11, 2011

11.    California Legislators: Gut and Amend is Gutless and Abusive – California Political Review – September 14, 2011

12.     Brown would be wise to veto many of the bills before him – Fresno Bee (editorial) – September 15, 201

13.     600 bills on Jerry’s desk – Sacramento Bee – September 17, 2011

14.     Senseless Bills – Riverside Press-Enterprise (editorial) – September 17, 2011

15.    Four Bills the Governor Should Veto – Woodland Daily Democrat – September 16, 2011

16.    Four for Brown’s veto pen – Vallejo Times-Herald – September 18, 2011

Despite the gutting and amending of this bill immediately before Labor Day weekend, numerous construction trade associations, business groups, taxpayer organizations, local government associations, and local government officials went on record in opposition to the bill, starting with a hastily-scheduled Assembly Business and Professions Committee hearing on Tuesday, September 6.

State Senator Michael Rubio (D-Bakersfield), who plans to run for Congress, appeared before the committee to cheerlead for this sloppy last-minute creation of the State Building and Construction Trades Council and its affiliate construction unions. Senate Bill 922 passed this committee and then passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on September 7 on party-line votes. (All Democrats supported the bill; all Republicans opposed it).

Meanwhile, faxes began pouring into legislators’ offices from contractors, business owners, and ordinary California taxpayers objecting to Senate Bill 922 and its union-backed partners, Assembly Bill 436 (gutted and amended on Wednesday, August 30) and Senate Bill 790.

Assembly Bill 436 requires certain local governments to pay fees to the state for labor compliance, unless these governments require their construction contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements, in which case they don’t have to pay the fees to the state. The state leaves those contractors (and the unions) to do whatever they do when no one with official authority is watching. It passed on the Senate floor on a party-line vote (Democrats in support, Republicans opposed) on September 7.

Senate Bill 790 includes an unrelated tack-on provision that allows utilities to pass through to ratepayers the costs of mandatory payments in Project Labor Agreements to Labor-Management Cooperative Committees, mysterious and unaccountable slush funds authorized by an obscure federal law from 1978. The bill (about community choice aggregation programs for electric consumers) was uncontroversial and headed toward unanimous approval until this provision (inserted at the request of union lobbyists) tainted the bill. It passed the Assembly floor on September 8, after the presiding chairman of the Assembly denied the request of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) to show physical evidence of such payments and then cut off her oral statement. See the video here: Assemblywoman Grove tries to discuss a controversial provision of SB 790 and is shut down by opposing leadership before being able to speak.

Then the news media became aware of these bills. Here are articles and editorials about at least one of these bills (and in some cases, all three bills):

1. Editorial: Gut-and-amend bill needs to be stopped – Sacramento Bee – September 7, 2011

2. Legislature moves to overturn bans on local labor friendly agreements – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 7, 2011

3. Kevin Dayton: Construction Unions Set Up State Legislature to Crush Fair and Open Competition Policies at Local Governments – www.FlashReport.org (op-ed) – September 7, 2011

4. Union Bias – Riverside Press-Enterprise (editorial) – September 8, 2011

5. Legislature’s Rhetoric on Jobs is Empty – San Diego Union-Tribune (editorial) – September 8, 2011

6. Labor bills introduced as session nears end – Orange County Register (editorial) – September 8, 2011

7. Banning Project Labor Agreement Bans in California – www.PublicSectorInc.com – September 7, 2011

8. Opinion: SB 922 Undermines Basis of State/Local Government Relationship – www.PublicCEO.com – September 8, 2011

9. Unions attempt to push through Senate Bills by going to puppet legislators – San Diego Daily Transcript (op-ed) – September 6, 2011

10. Dan Walters: Fun, games mark California Legislature’s final week – Sacramento Bee (columnist, run in numerous state newspapers) – September 8, 2011

11. Legislation Boosts Union Trust Fund – www.CalWatchdog.com – September 8, 2011

12. Dan Walters: New legislative bills grow in the dark – Sacramento Bee (columnist, run in numerous state newspapers) – September 9, 2011

13. Union ‘Gut and Amend’ Bills Slice Open California – www.FoxandHoundsDaily.com – September 9, 2011

14. A Bad Bill Sneaks through Legislature – Modesto Bee (editorial) – September 8, 2011

15. Bill OK’d that could expedite stadium (also reports on SB 922 moving through legislature) – San Diego Union-Tribune – September 10, 2011

 16. Senate approve bill boosting NFL stadium in L.A. (also reports on SB 922 moving through legislature)  – Orange County Register – September 10, 2011

UPDATE: All three bills passed the California legislature and wait for Gov. Brown’s approval.

Fax Gov. Brown TODAY and urge him to VETO all three bills.