The hearing was an opportunity for the committee to discuss how certain parties, particularly labor unions, exploit public participation in the CEQA process to achieve objectives unrelated to environmental protection. Assemblywoman Grove cited four specific recent examples of different unions (the Teamsters, the California Nurses Association, the United Food and Commercial Workers, and the Service Employees International Union) filing CEQA lawsuits to delay projects as leverage to extract labor concessions from businesses. She also noted that some businesses use CEQA to try to block potential competition.

Testifying on behalf of the sponsor, ABC of California Government Affairs Director Kevin Dayton discussed how certain construction trade unions abuse CEQA as a weapon to delay projects until the owner agrees to require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions. The Western Electrical Contractors Association (WECA) and the Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura & Santa Barbara were the other public supporters of the bill.

Assemblywoman Linda Halderman (R-Fresno) cited a specific example of a union using CEQA to try to force a contractor to sign a Project Labor Agreement to install solar panels at Fresno-Yosemite International Airport. Assemblyman Steve Knight (R-Palmdale) adeptly exposed the Attorney General’s double standard of opposing the additional responsibilities assigned in AB 598 while remaining silent about adopting additional responsibilities through other legislation.

Legitimate environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League opposed the bill. The Teamsters and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union opposed the bill in writing but did not speak at the hearing. Democrats on the committee opposed the bill, but some of them (along with the Attorney General’s office) acknowledged that some parties abuse CEQA. Assemblyman Bill Monning (D-Santa Cruz) said nothing about how the Carpenters union used CEQA in a recent high-profile campaign to delay and ultimately derail the proposed La Bahia Hotel in Santa Cruz.

The committee defeated the bill on a 5-3 party-line vote: Democrats opposed, Republicans in support.

You can thank the following state legislators at these email addresses:

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove: Contact

Assemblywoman Linda Halderman: Contact

Assemblyman Steve Knight: Contact

Background on Assembly Bill 598: text, committee analysis

Some Recent News Media Coverage of CEQA Abuse: Bad Environment for Development? (Los Angeles Business Journal, July 18, 2011, via Central City Association of Los Angeles); Firms Turning to Environmental Law to Combat Rivals (Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2011).

As the release goes onto say, one of the mandates hindering job growth in the construction industry in New York is government-mandated project labor agreements (PLA).  PLA mandates on both state and local projects have been a regular problem for the construction industry in New York – particularly for the 72.5 percent of the workforce that chooses not to join a labor union.

These mandates have also been a problem for New York taxpayers.  A blatant example of how these Big Labor handouts hurt taxpayers occurred in the spring of 2011, where the NYS Department of Transportation tried and was ultimately successful in implementing a PLA mandate on an infrastructure project that disqualified a qualified contractor’s bid and cost taxpayers an addition $5 million in unnecessary construction costs.

As America climbs out of recession, it is vital that government entities use taxpayer funds as wisely as possible.  As far as we are concerned, rewarding union bosses for their political support by giving union contractors a leg up against their nonunion counterparts doesn’t seem like the best use of public money.

Like the ABC Empire State Chapter, we urge Gov. Cuomo to support the Public Construction Savings Act and put an end to government-mandated PLAs in New York.

The ABC Empire State Chapter press release from January 5 is below.

STATEMENT FROM ABC PRESIDENT STEPHEN LEFEBVRE ON GOV. CUOMO’S STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS

I want to applaud the governor on his first year in office and wish him the best on the start of the 2012 Legislative Session. The plan he laid out today in his annual State of the State provided some bold initiatives to enhance government and improve the economy through investment in many areas that the construction industry is sure to help build. With any discussion of development I encourage the governor to seek out the best value possible for the money paid by New York’s hard-working taxpayers.

I urge Gov. Cuomo to unshackle the full economic potential of any government funded construction work from the unnecessary use of restrictive measures such as mandatory Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) that time and again have driven up the cost of public work projects in the Empire State. The governor should seek construction mandate relief in the form of the Public Construction Savings Act (S.4121/A.7855) which would allow government entities to bid public construction in a way that promotes unfettered competition among contractors seeking public work to the benefit of taxpayers.

-30-

The Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (“ABC”) represents over 550 merit-shop construction contractors and subcontractors employing thousands of workers throughout the State of New York.

Update 1/1/12: Sen. Mark Obenshain introduced companion legislation in the Virginia Senate, SB 242 (pdf). It is cosponsored by all 20 Senate GOP members. The Virginia Senate has 20 GOP and 20 Democrat Senators. Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling (R) casts deciding votes. 

Click here to write your legislators and encourage them to support HB 33/SB 242.

HB 33/SB 242 ensures Virginia taxpayers get the best construction project at the best price and 96 percent of Virginia’s construction workforce (those who choose not to belong to a labor union) have a real shot at working on taxpayer funded projects.  It will also help stretch scarce tax dollars to meet Virginia’s transportation and infrastructure needs.

In 2011, Michigan, Maine, Tennessee, Arizona,  Louisiana, Iowa and Idaho enacted similar legislation and executive orders ensuring taxpayers get the best possible product at the best possible price. 

In July, 2011, the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Herald editorial boards applauded states for enacting fair and open competition measures that end “sweetheart deals with labor unions,” and “limit bids on construction projects to contractors that agree to union representation.”

State budget deficits and a 2009 President Obama executive order encouraging PLAs on federal projects and allowing their use on federally-assisted projects pushed states to take steps at preventing waste and discrimination in public contracting.

A total of 11 states have enacted legislation or executive orders prohibiting government-mandated PLAs on state and state-assisted projects to some degree.

This year, Democrats controlling Illinois and California state government enacted legislation encouraging the use of government-mandated PLAs. New Jersey and New York have existing laws enacted by Democrat legislatures and administrations encouraging anti-competitive and costly PLA mandates, while Washington has a pro-PLA executive order.  

If enacted, HB 33/SB 242 will prevent special interst handouts like the mandated PLA on Phase 2 of the $2.8 billion Dulles Metrorail Silver Line project Virginia is partially financing. TheTruthAboutPLAs.com covered this controversial project in great detail yesterday. It will increase competition, reduce costs and create job for Virginia’s construction industry.

The measure prevents the state and those procuring projects with state dollars from MANDATING PLAs.  Contractors would be free to voluntarily enter into PLAs, as is permitted by the National Labor Relations Act.

Update 12/15 and 12/19:
The Virginia Chamber of Commerce issued this press release Dec. 14 in support of HB 33.

Del. Comstock and Del. Hugo issued a Dec. 19 press release on HB 33.

Virginia Construction Industry Supports Legislation Ensuring Fair and Open Competition On Public Construction Contracts

Contact:      Angie Gutenson, Vice President, ABC-VA (703) 968-6205                     For Immediate Release
                     Ben Brubeck, PLA Expert, ABC National (703) 812-2042                        December 13, 2011

DULLES, VA – On behalf of its 660 Virginia merit shop employers, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC-VA) supports the Fair and Open Competition in Government Contracting Act (HB 33) introduced on Monday by Virginia Delegate Barbara Comstock (R-34^th) and GOP Caucus Chairman Virginia Delegate Tim Hugo (R-40^th). HB 33 prohibits Virginia and recipients of state funding or assistance from requiring or prohibiting contractors to enter into union agreements, such as a project labor agreement (PLA), as a condition of winning state and state-assisted construction contracts. 

“This commonsense legislation will reduce costs, increase competition and create jobs for qualified Virginia businesses and their skilled local employees on state and state-funded construction projects,” said ABC-VA President Patrick Dean. “It will ensure Virginia’s infrastructure dollars are spent wisely and support projects subject to fair and open competition, which ultimately will benefit taxpayers by funding more construction projects and creating more jobs for Virginians.

“Unfortunately, unaccountable political appointees controlled by special interests have been steering taxpayer-funded construction contracts to their political supporters by mandating union-favoring PLAs on projects funded by the state,” said Dean. “This special interest favoritism has no place in Virginia.

“If enacted, this measure would prohibit state-assisted construction projects, such as Phase 2 of the multi-billion dollar Dulles Metrorail Silver line project, from mandating unwanted anti-competitive and costly PLAs on contractors,” said Dean. “Why should Virginia’s financial stakeholders pay for the majority of this project when the PLA mandated on the prime contractor by MWAA ensures discrimination against 96 percent of Virginia’s construction workforce – those who have freely decided not to join a union? Local workers will lose jobs to out-of-state union members given hiring priority via the PLA.”   

“HB 33 simply ensures the government remains neutral with respect to a qualified contractor’s relationship with labor unions and gets the government out of the business of picking winners and losers through cronyism,” said Ben Brubeck, ABC National’s Director of Labor and Federal Procurement. “To date, 11 states have enacted similar measures, resulting in reduced costs, increased job creation and a level playing field encouraging robust competition from qualified nonunion and union contractors.

“HB 33 allows contractors to voluntarily enter into union agreements like PLAs,” said Brubeck. “Unlike a government-mandated PLA, it gives contractors a real choice, which can only increase competition and help taxpayers get the best possible product at the best possible price.”

Learn more about anti-competitive and costly PLAs and the Silver Line Metrorail controversy at www.TheTruthAboutPLAs.com.

###

About ABC — Associated Builders and Contractors is a national association with 75 chapters representing more than 23,000 merit shop construction and construction-related firms with nearly two million employees. Founded in 1972, the ABC Virginia Chapter is the only association in Virginia dedicated to representing the interests of merit shop contractors. ABC VA represents all firms in the commercial construction industry equally. Membership represents the full range of contractors, from small family-owned subcontractors to global general contracting firms, as well as, materials suppliers and industry professionals. The ABC Virginia Chapter has offices in Chantilly, Richmond and Hampton Roads. 

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.

Government-mandated PLAs have a negative impact on local construction workers and taxpayers.  These special interest handouts to Big Labor line the pockets of union bosses at the expense of average Americans.

Californians throughout the state have learned about PLA mandates and said “No Thanks” time and again.  Despite Gov. Jerry Brown and the California Legislature’s attempt to slow down the fight against PLA mandates, merit shop contractors, their workers, taxpayer advocates and ordinary citizens are gearing up to bring the message of fair and open competition to the people of Sacramento!

Visit www.fairandopencompetitionsacramento.com to learn more about the effort to ban government-mandated PLAs on projects funded by the city of Sacramento.

This ballot initiative will be similar to those passed by overwhelming majorities in Chula Vista, Oceanside and San Diego.  By putting an end of PLA mandates, citizens can be sure they are getting the best construction at the best price.  Always.

After sailing through the California legislature via a deceptive gut and amend legislative vehicle originally about tuberculosis screening, Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed SB 922 on Sunday to “prohibit” measures passed by local governments that ban government-mandated PLAs.

Local governments in California like the City of Fresno, Orange County, City of Chula Vista, City of Oceanside, Placer County, Palmdale Water District, San Diego County and Stanislaus County have passed measures prohibiting government-mandated PLAs on construction projects partially or completely funded by their government’s funds.  The measures permit contractors to voluntarily execute PLAs on local projects, as is permitted by the National Labor Relations Act and are intended to increase competition and deliver taxpayers the best possible construction project at the best possible price.

Popular ballot initiatives like San Diego County’s Proposition A, which voters overwhelmingly passed in November 2010 by a 75-24 margin, demonstrate that local taxpayers have had enough with these costly crony contracting PLA schemes. Faced with a threat that the people would put an end to union-favoring government-mandated PLAs, Big Labor called in a favor with Gov. Brown and Sacramento Democrats to pass SB 922.

Today the Wall Street Journal editorial board blasts Gov. Brown and Sacramento Democrats for trampeling the political will of local voters and supporting schemes that steer taxpayer-funded construction projects to prominent donors of the Democrat party (“Shovelling for Labor: California tries to raise the cost of construction projects,” 10/5/11):

We keep hearing that the U.S. needs better roads, bridges and other public works. But then why do politicians keep making it so much more expensive to build them? In the latest example, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill on Sunday that attempts to prevent California cities from banning government-mandated project labor agreements, or PLAs.

PLAs are pre-hire agreements that contractors negotiate with labor unions. Construction firms must generally agree to play by union work rules, pay workers union wages, and contribute to union health and retirement funds—whether or not the employees they hire belong to a union. Non-union workers usually then have to join the union and pay union dues. According to some studies, PLAs raise costs by 12% to 18%, which explains why cash-strapped governments and tapped-out taxpayers are moving against them.

Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan and Tennessee have enacted laws in the last year prohibiting local governments and agencies, which often play into the hands of unions, from mandating PLAs. Voters in San Diego County and the San Diego suburbs of Chula Vista and Oceanside approved bans on government-mandated PLAs last November. The cities of San Diego and Sacramento are planning similar ballot measures next year.

Unions hate this trend, so they, er, encouraged Democrats who run the state legislature in Sacramento to pass the bill that Mr. Brown so obligingly signed. Democrats know that the National Labor Relations Act, a federal law, already prevents local governments from banning PLAs altogether. But what states and cities have been trying to do is prevent governments from requiring PLAs. Democrats hope the new law will deter cities from passing laws that keep the doors open to non-union contractors. Cities that ban government-mandated PLAs could face legal challenges and harassment from unions. The state could also refuse to fund their projects.

The California law is the first of its kind, and non-union construction firms fear that other labor-friendly state legislatures will follow Sacramento’s lead. If that happens, taxpayers will lose the limited ability they have to constrain costs and expedite construction. The result? Public projects that cost more and create fewer jobs, though they’ll be the kind of jobs that Democrats prefer—unionized, and thus with dues payable into campaign funds to elect more Democrats.

As usual, the Wall Street Journal editorial board’s analysis is correct.

It is unclear how SB 922 will impact current government-mandated PLA bans enacted by charter cities as well as the progress of ballot initiatives in the City of San Diego and City of Sacramento already underway.

What’s clear is that Big Labor’s chums in Sacramento have no qualms about choking free enterprise, soaking taxpayers with added construciton costs and smothering the will of the people in order to feed their campaign coffers with Big Labor’s campaign contributions.

Expect some legal wrangling, requests for legal opinions and lots of press in the coming weeks.

Update: Fox News covered Jerry Brown’s signing of this disastrous legislation on the October 7 edition of Fox and Friends:

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 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.

This is also a good opportunity to review the numerous times that California media availed itself of the opportunity to can the entire package.

For those not following this issue, California State Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez changed two bills unrelated to construction or labor issues and through a “Gut and Amend” process, transformed them into vehicles to overturn the will of both local elected officials and taxpayers in a number of communities throughout the state.

The legislative leadership took a bill about tuberculosis screening (Senate Bill 922) on the Friday before Labor Day and turned it into a bill that nullifies current and future bans on PLA mandates by local governments and cuts off state funds for charter cities that ban government-mandated PLAs.

Two other bills were amended at the last minute and without much public scrutiny to meet Big Labor’s demands.  The first, A.B. 436, requires certain local governments to pay fees to the state for labor compliance, unless these governments require their construction contractors to sign a PLA, in which case they don’t have to pay the fees to the state.

Another, S.B. 790, includes an unrelated tack-on provision that allows utilities to pass through to ratepayers the costs of mandatory payments in PLAs to Labor-Management Cooperative Committees, mysterious and unaccountable slush funds authorized by an obscure federal law from 1978.

These bills are designed to undercut the eight California communities to ban PLA mandates on taxpayer funded projects.  Several of these communities adopted these bans through ballot initiatives that were overwhelmingly approved.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we urge Gov. Brown to veto these bills.  That is pretty obvious.  But we aren’t the only ones.  State and local media has covered these, and other bad bills on their way to the governor’s desk, extensively.  It turns out that other people are concerned about some of the garbage coming from the California Legislature also.

(Cartoon Credit: Bakersfield Californian)

Here is a round-up of media coverage on this issue:

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

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