Fabian Nunez

A Health Reform Initiative Next Year in California?

Joe Mathews — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:52:00 -0400

I've spent the past 24 hours in Sacramento. The main piece of scuttlebut, from several sources: that Gov. Schwarzenegger, as part of the special election he's expected to call next year (likely fall), will pursue an initiative that would put in place the health care compromise he reached with then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez in late 2006.

This raises all kinds of questions. One is a practical question: how to turn massive legislation into an initiative short enough that signature gatherers won't hurt their backs carrying it around California? Others are: 1. how the initiative might be structured to reduce the budget impact, given the international economic crisis and the state's budget woes. 2. And what kind of counter-initiatives might liberal groups such as the California Nurses Assn. (advocates of single payer) or more conservative groups (who don't like the fees or the mandates in Schwarzenegger's plan) pursue on the same ballot?

And The Award For Most Deceptively Named Legislation Of The Year Goes To....

Joe Mathews — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:04:00 -0400

... AB 2386, the legislation sponsored by former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and called "The Secret Ballot For Farmworkers" bill. The legislation passed the Senate Monday, 23-15. It's headed to the governor's desk, where it could face a veto. There is a strong argument for the legislation, but the bill's name is highly deceptive. Or to put it another way, the bill would do the opposite of what the legislation's name might suggest.

California farmworkers already have the right to decide via secret ballot whether they want to be represented by a union or not. This has been true since the Agricultural Labor Relations Act passed in 1975. And while federally supervised secret ballot elections are the law for almost all workers, farmworkers in the Golden State have a better set-up for these elections than almost anyone else. Loose deadlines and language in the National Labor Relations Act have permitted companies in most industries to delay such elections for months if not years. Companies often use that time to fire workers who are leading the organizing or otherwise intimidate workers. In California, the ALRA guarantees farm workers -- once union cards are in and certified -- only a seven-day wait before the election is held. Farmworkers face sophisticated anti-union campaigns like other workers, but these campaigns are shorter because of ALRA. The law governing farmworkers is the envy of union organizers in other industries.

Nunez's legislation actually would move the law away from that secret ballot system. Here's how the new system would work. Unions seeking to organize farmworkers would have the power -- without workers even expressing interest in a union, via secret ballot or otherwise -- to request a list of all workers at a particular company, complete with contact info. Then the state would send out ballots -- which would not be secret ballots -- to farmworkers, who could choose either to join the union or to have the secret ballot election they currently have. By my reading, unions could even pick up the ballots themselves, fill them out for workers, and mail them for workers. (Employers wouldn't be able to do that). Such a system would give a boost to union organizers. But it also could make it easier for unions to intimidate workers.

There are strong arguments for the Nunez legislation. There is considerable evidence that the secret ballot election regime is broken. And there is a whole industry of law firms and consultants to fight off union organizing and intimidate workers in secret ballot elections. One could say that Nunez's bill is necessary to counter that intimidation and give unions a better chance. One could argue that there's no better protection than representation in the workplace. But to call this is a "secret ballot" bill is just wrong.

The need for a secret ballot should be the subject of debate, but in the case of this legislation, it's actually not the heart of the question. UFW, despite the special place it holds in the hearts of so many, has not proven particularly effective at organizing workers or representing them in recent years. The Nunez legislation is based on the belief that these failures are the result of the law not providing enough protections. But that assumption may be wrong. There's considerable evidence that the organizing failures are the result of poor stewardship of the union itself. That's an uncomfortable topic for many California legislators, for whom the support of the UFW is akin to loving your mother and apple pie. But if UFW is going to receive special powers, the conduct of its leadership needs to be the subject of scrutiny and hearings.

Bottom line: before the governor signs this legislation, California needs more honest debate, free of dishonest labeling.

Nunez Hearts Gov's Lottery Plan

Joe Mathews — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:32:00 -0400

Former speaker Fabian Nunez, a Democrat, shows up on today's Sacramento Bee editorial page to make the argument for Schwarzenegger's plan to borrow/securitize lottery revenues in order to reduce the deficit and fund a new rainy day fund. the lottery plan would require voter approval. Nunez continues to oppose the spending limitations in the governor's budget reform proposal.

The former speaker's take may explain the governor's recent behavior. He seems detached from the budget, leaving any talks to legislative players. He has sounded very confident publicly that lawmakers ultimately will have to adopt something like his plan. He speaks as a man who has looked at all the other options, and found none.

California Political Reform Round Up

Joe Mathews — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:29:00 -0400

BASS EXPANDS ON TAX REVIEW: The incoming California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass explains her plans for a tax reform commission in an interview with the Associated Press. Aaron McLear, a spokesman for the governor, is quoted as saying that the governor is interested in tax reform but it's "not a substitute for reforming our broken budget system." Yes, and no. Clearly, the state budget process needs procedural changes, and there are strong arguments for establishing a real reserve and an ability to respond more effectively to changes in revenue. But the main failed attempts at spending-side budget reform suggests that budget reform may not be possible without tax reform.

NUNEZ PROPOSES COUNTER-MEASURES: Speaker Fabian Nunez, at his final news conference in that job, rolled out his three part plan of ballot measures. But there's considerable cynicism about the measures, particularly a redistricting one that looks like it has little purpose than as a weapon against Gov. Schwarzenegger's initiative, which appears headed for the November ballot. Nunez's reapportionment reform would create a 17-member commission to handle redistricting; 8 of the members would be appointed by legislators. Schwarzenegger's plan calls for a 14 member panel of citizens, chosen at random. Nunez's other proposals include a ban on fundraising at certain points in the legislative calendar and a measure nearly identical to the term limits initiative he unsuccessfully backed in February.

ANGELIDES BACKER GIVES TO ARNOLD REDISTRICTING: The Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, a major donor to the 2006 gubernatorial campaign of Democrat Phil Angelides, has given $25,000 to the redistricting reform initiative backed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. Opponents of the measure have been harping on the long list of Republicans backing it. So the backing of a prominent Democrat is worth more than the amount of cash. In other redistricting news, signatures were submitted on Tuesday.

Nunez Says He's Working on Political Reforms for Ballot

Joe Mathews — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:28:00 -0400

Given the last several years' experience, redistricting supporters should take this with a Mt. Wilson of salt, but California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez says he's working with Republicans on a package of constitutional reforms -- redistricting, a term limits extension, and a fundraising ban during certain parts of the legislative calendar -- that could go on the November ballot. Legislative leaders have had several chances in recent chances to support redistricting -- including last year, when they might have gained more support for a term limits extension if they had paired with redistricting -- but couldn't do it. A redistricting ballot initiative, backed by the governor and good government groups, is on the street gathering signatures, and Democrats have been criticizing it. One wonders if this isn't a trial balloon designed to hurt that measure.

Why Nunez Needs That Money

Joe Mathews — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:54:00 -0400

It shows more than a little chutzpah for the California Labor Federation to demand that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez return a pile of campaign cash he is sitting on: $4 million that came from the state Democratic Party. Labor interests, as much as any interests in California, have helped create the governing system in which achieving any difficult policy requires politicians to defend their policies at the ballot. Politicians without a store of cash soon find it difficult to govern, because it's hard for them to credibly go to the ballot without a big, scary pile of greenbacks. It would be wrong if Nunez used the money for his own political career, as labor leaders say they fear. But he needs the money -- and ought to use it -- not for politics, but to govern.

Labor is really angry at Nunez because they don't like the way he's governed recently -- particularly in two policy areas. But the story of those policy areas shows precisely why he needs the cash.

1. Health care. Most of California labor opposed Nunez's compromise on health care legislation with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The legislation passed the Assembly but died in Senate committee. But if it had survived, the financing provisions could not have passed the legislature, which requires 2/3 for tax increases, because of the opposition of Republicans. So Nunez would have had to sponsor and campaign for a ballot initiative to establish the financing. That would have required campaign cash.

2. Indian gaming. Nunez supported new compacts for Indian tribes that labor unsuccessfully opposed -- via four referenda on the February ballot -- because the agreements didn't include promised protections for union organizing. The Indian tribes took care of supporting Nunez's position in that case, but it shows again how a speaker needs campaign money to support his governmental decisions. And this year, even the budget may be on the ballot. With Schwarzenegger seeking budget and redistricting reform that will require voter approval as part of his budget push, it's quite possible that the state budget will be negotiated as part of a legislative package that includes ballot measures that will go to voters in November. Nunez will need campaign money not only for Democratic Assembly candidates but also to defend whatever budget lawmakers negotiate.

Labor's real frustration is that Nunez, who comes out of the labor movement, has dared to cross the unions in a handful of cases. Nunez's defiance is rare (he has aggressively protected worker interests on nearly every issue as speaker), and labor has grown accustomed to getting almost everything it wants from legislative Democrats -- which is a big part of the argument for a redistricting reform that would weaken the hold of interest groups in both parties. But it is no sin -- in fact, it is good politics AND good governance -- to keep a lot of cash on hand if you intend to make policy in California's blockbuster democracy.