State lawmakers plan to require that all students be tested for dyslexia and other reading challenges, but the hurdles ahead point to a bigger problem with how California’s public schools teach reading.

Before teachers can screen their students, they themselves need to be trained both in how to use the screening tests and how to help the students who get identified as struggling readers. Many experts and educators say most public school teachers in California weren’t adequately trained to teach students how to read.

“Nobody goes into teaching to mess up a kid’s life,” said Leslie Zoroya, a teacher coach specializing in literacy at the Los Angeles County Office of Education. “Teachers do think they’re teaching kids to read. But when you look at the data, it’s telling us that is not the case.”

Across the state, only about 42% of third-graders met or exceeded English language arts standards last year.

“Teachers do think they’re teaching kids to read. But when you look at the data, it’s telling us that is not the case.”
— Leslie Zoroya, teacher coach specializing in literacy at the Los Angeles County Office of Education

The mandatory dyslexia screening policy was a part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s revised budget proposal released last week, which allocated $1 million to form a panel of experts who would compile a list of reliable screening tools as well as determine the types of training needed for teachers. The proposal seeks to screen all students between kindergarten and second grade starting in the 2025-26 school year.

The policy proposal comes after several legislative efforts, spanning multiple years, to require dyslexia screening in California’s public schools. They failed largely due to opposition from the California Teachers Association. The statewide teachers union argued the practice of screening all students would disproportionately push English learners into special education and said the legislation needs to provide more resources for teachers.

The union did not respond to questions for this story about the types of support and training teachers need. But for some experts, the fact that teachers even need training to help students who struggle with reading illustrates just how far behind California is in literacy instruction.

“We’re going to need a lot more training,” Zoroya said. “This needs to be a statewide effort.”

The problem is twofold, according to experts. First, most of California’s public school districts use reading curricula based on “balanced literacy,” an approach to reading instruction based on the idea that children are natural readers. It relies on exposure to books and the enjoyment of reading with less of an emphasis on sounding out words. Second, the experts say, teacher preparation programs don’t train teachers enough in “structured literacy” or “the science of reading,” which focuses heavily on phonemic awareness and phonics — the practice of matching letters to sounds and sounding out words.

Betina Hsieh, the chair of the teacher education program at Cal State Long Beach, said balanced literacy curricula do include some phonics and argued that the balanced literacy approach works for most students.

“No one is saying that phonics and phonemic awareness is not important,” she said. “The thing is, it only gets you so far.”

But Hsieh agrees that all younger students should be screened for dyslexia and reading challenges and that teachers need to be trained. But she expressed frustration that there’s already so much material squeezed into teacher credentialing programs.

Zoroya argues that if teachers had been better trained in phonics instruction, dyslexia screeners would be a natural extension of their instruction. Because screeners test students’ ability to pair letters to sounds, a teacher who is adept in phonics will have an easier time navigating not just screening but helping students overcome their reading challenges.

“This work is too important for adults to be out here arguing,” she said. “We have too many kids coming out of elementary school not being able to read well.”

Too little phonics

Zoroya, who trains teachers across the 80 school districts in Los Angeles County, said most elementary school teachers don’t know how to teach reading through “structured literacy.” The approach’s focus on phonics enables students to sound out unfamiliar words.

Across California, students typically learn reading by being exposed to text and being read to in the classroom. Teachers focus on cultivating a love of reading as opposed to a more systematic instruction in letter sounds. While most students are able to learn reading through the former method, many are left behind. Dyslexia, a neurological condition that causes difficulty reading, affects about 1 in 5 people across the country.

According to experts, the fact that California is one of 10 states that doesn’t screen all students for dyslexia is a symptom of the broader problem of how public schools in the state teach reading. For educators, reading instruction remains hotly debated.

“It reminds me a bit of politics right now,” Zoroya said. “Even reading is very polarized.”

The debates over reading instruction have a deep and contentious history, which some refer to as “the reading wars.” In California, the “balanced literacy” approach came out on top in the reading wars. But teachers and parents across the country have spoken out against it, calling it a well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided way to teach reading.

Santiago Cuevas, a first grade teacher at San Francisco Unified’s Lafayette Elementary, said he received hardly any training in phonics instruction while earning his credential at San Francisco State University. He had to study the concepts of the “science of reading” on his own to pass the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment, one of the requirements for a teaching credential. The assessment tests prospective teachers’ ability to develop a reading curriculum, ranging from phonics to reading comprehension.

Cuevas said he was lucky to get hired at a school that happened to be committed to teaching phonics. But for most other teachers, the material they studied to pass the reading instruction assessment becomes an afterthought because their districts use balanced literacy.

“The RICA is just one of the things on the checklist to becoming a teacher,” Cuevas said. “It’s kind of strange how we didn’t talk about the science of reading at all at SF State.”

“In some ways, it feels very comfortable to primary grade teachers who say their students will catch up later. So it can be very uncomfortable when we put a universal screening measure in place.”
— Margaret Goldberg, literacy coach in West Contra Costa Unified

Margaret Goldberg, a literacy coach in West Contra Costa Unified, said not only are most teachers using faulty curricula, they’re also not assessing their students enough between kindergarten and second grade. Statewide literacy data is only available starting in third grade. But because students show signs of reading challenges as early as kindergarten, teachers need to take reading instruction seriously as early as age 5, she said.

“In some ways, it feels very comfortable to primary grade teachers who say their students will catch up later,” Goldberg said. “So it can be very uncomfortable when we put a universal screening measure in place.”

That discomfort materialized in the fight to mandate screening for dyslexia in California. The California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union, opposed the proposed policy for multiple years despite a chorus of literacy experts calling for early screening for all students. The union said the legislation lacked details around what types of training teachers would need and how often students should be screened.

Cuevas said teachers who are more comfortable with phonics and the science of reading will be much more comfortable screening students.

He said, for example, if a student had a hard time saying the word “chair,” the balanced literacy approach would recommend just giving that child more books about chairs. But a teacher with training in structured literacy and phonics instruction has a more systematic approach that includes more testing and targeted instruction.

“It just seems like everyone’s trying to kick the can down the road,” Cuevas said. “With the science of reading, you just think differently.”

A necessary change

Goldberg and Cuevas agree that teachers, even those supportive of balanced literacy, have the best intentions. But they said that the shift toward mandatory screening should be accompanied by a shift toward more phonics instruction.

Goldberg said teachers first need to understand why screening matters. She said teachers typically see assessments as punitive and burdensome, but tests used to detect dyslexia and other reading challenges are a tool for improving instruction. Teachers might not understand why the tests ask students to sound out nonsense words, but Goldberg said sounding out random clusters of letters is the best way to detect whether a student will struggle with reading.

“They seem like arbitrary tasks,” she said. “Once you understand why each measure is important, administering the screeners is actually quite simple.”

School and district administrators also need to embrace these shifts. Meghan Trutter, a reading intervention specialist in the San Jose area, said teachers who learn about the science of reading later in their careers often tell her “this is what I needed all along.”

But Trutter said she’s concerned about whether districts will support teachers with the right curricula once the state mandates screening. If teachers aren’t given the necessary textbooks and materials to teach phonics, screening will be a pointless exercise.

“If the district executives don’t get it, they’re going to be another roadblock,” she said. “I can see teachers saying ‘We’ve identified the problems, now what?’ The district might say ‘I don’t know.’”

However, educators say there’s some much needed changes coming to teacher credentialing programs. A law signed in 2021 requires programs to teach the science of reading approach by 2025.

“I believe new teachers that are coming out of these programs are going to be better equipped to teach students how to read,” said Mara Smith, a reading specialist with the L.A. County Office of Education who helped revise California’s standards for teacher credentialing.

Long-term obstacles

The overhaul necessary in higher education will be easier said than done, according to some professors. Hsieh, at Cal State Long Beach, said one issue is the segregation of special education and general education programs.

She said prospective teachers in general education programs don’t get the training they need in phonics because those skills are more intensely taught in special education programs that focus on working with struggling students.

Another problem is the short length of teacher training programs. Elementary and middle school teachers earn the same multiple-subject credential. Their training spans instruction for kindergarten through eighth grade. Hsieh says this leaves little wiggle room for changes to teacher-training curricula.

“We’re working on being flexible and adaptive, but it’s challenging,” she said. “There’s so much that’s being demanded of teachers.”

And it’s not just classroom teachers and district administrators who are entrenched in balanced literacy. Most professors teaching in California’s credentialing programs are also committed to the approach, according to Kathy Futterman, a professor at Cal State East Bay. She said most professors aren’t sufficiently trained in structured literacy.

“I don’t know how many professors and instructors have themselves mastered structured literacy,” she said. “I feel like I’ve been swimming upstream and swimming solo for a long time.”

Futterman said the push for structured literacy as well as for mandatory screening started as a grassroots movement among parents and classroom teachers. But without a more systemic transformation, reading instruction in California will remain a patchwork, she said.

“We are heading in the right direction,” Futterman said. “Now we have to make sure everybody can be on board.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

The potential costs of a new policy or program always factor into the legislative process — but that’s especially true when the state is facing down a $31.5 billion budget deficit.

As the Legislature completed a key milestone this week, deciding the fates of nearly 1,200 measures with significant price tags, California’s looming revenue shortfall was on the mind.

“It is a different time that we have to operate in, so it is a lens that we have to look through all the bills,” said Assemblymember Chris Holden, a Pasadena Democrat who leads the appropriations committee. “To the extent there were some real pressures that we thought we needed to address, we did.”

Holden and his counterpart in the state Senate, La Cañada Flintridge Democrat Anthony Portantino, yesterday announced the outcome of the “suspense file,” a biannual culling of fiscal legislation. The bottleneck of hundreds of bills that are expected to cost at least $50,000 gives the appropriations committees an opportunity to consider them — and their potential outlay — as a whole.

Portantino, who sprinkled his reading of the results with trivia about California, declined to speak with reporters after, saying that he had a flight to catch.

The hearings took place less than a week after Gov. Gavin Newsom laid out his plan to close the budget shortfall. During a press conference last Friday, the governor said he was “deeply mindful” of the Legislature’s many spending requests, but urged them not to send him a litany of expensive measures that he would be forced to veto.

“We have a collective responsibility, and at the end of the day, I guess I’m the backstop,” Newsom said. “I want a little expression of deeper understanding now of the nature of the budgetary constraints. Just get it done in the budget. If it’s your top priority, work with your colleagues.”

Even with that warning, most of the bills on the suspense file advanced. The Senate approved 326 measures, or 78%, and the Assembly approved 770 measures, or 69%.

But those numbers will pare down even further in the weeks ahead, Holden noted, as bills go before their entire chambers for floor votes. Legislation must pass its house of origin by June 2 to continue this year, an intense period taking place against the backdrop of budget negotiations.

“The governor obviously sent a shot across our bough to think that way as well,” Holden said.

Here are some of the proposals that died on the suspense file:

Expanded tax credits for poor families

The Assembly appropriations committee shelved two bills favored by anti-poverty advocates that would have expanded tax credits for the state’s lowest-income residents.

The bills, authored by Democratic Assemblymembers Miguel Santiago of Los Angeles and Mike Gipson of Gardena, would have delivered a collective $1 billion, primarily to poor families with children, by boosting the minimum payout provided through the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit and expanding who is eligible for the Young Child Tax Credit.

The proposals were the latest attempt by advocates in California to bolster the state’s direct cash programs for the poor since the expiration of the expanded federal Child Tax Credit last year, which temporarily sent thousands of dollars to most families with children in the U.S. and led to dramatic decreases in child poverty.

Micaela Mota picks up her son from daycare in Richmond on Sept. 26, 2022. Photo by Marissa Leshnov for CalMatters

The California bills had bipartisan support despite the hefty price tag.

Anna Hasselblad, director of public policy at United Ways of California, said the bills’ failure was disappointing, but said lawmakers still support the efforts. She pointed out that boosting the Earned Income Tax Credit is included in the state Senate’s budget plan.

— Jeanne Kuang

Oil industry wins

Two climate change bills that could have taken a financial toll on the oil and gas industry met their end in the appropriations void.

One measure held in the state Senate appropriations committee would have allowed civil penalties on the operators of oil and gas wells located near residences, schools and hospitals. Another bill was aimed at increasing California’s ambitious greenhouse gas emissions goals even further.

Environmental advocates decried the failure of the climate change measures while an oil industry representative told CalMatters they were bad policy for the state’s businesses.

“The world is desperate for climate leaders like California to step up,” Nicole Rivera, government affairs director for the Santa Rosa-based Climate Center, said in a statement. Rivera added that she intended to continue to work to hold the state’s “polluters accountable.”

In response, Kevin Slagle, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, said that both bills were opposed by broad coalitions.

“They weren’t good bills,” Slagle said. “It becomes unhelpful that any time an activist group doesn’t like a bill the position is, well, the oil industry didn’t like it; what it really comes down to is that these weren’t good policies.”

Senate Bill 556 would have made the owners and operators of oil and gas wells liable for illnesses such as respiratory ailments, premature births, high-risk pregnancies and cancers within an area of 3,200 feet from those sites. The bill would have levied civil penalties of as much as $1 million per person.

Oil pumps in the Kern River Oil Field near Bakersfield. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

The author of the bill, state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat, saw a related measure banning new drilling within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, nursing homes, and hospitals pass last year. But that law was put on hold after the oil industry backed a signature-gathering campaign to qualify a referendum placing the measure before voters in November 2024.

“Fossil fuel executives have known for decades that drilling in neighborhoods puts our communities at risk of cancer, asthma, pregnancy complications, and other illnesses,” said Rivera of the Climate Center. “Instead of acting to protect public health and our shared climate, they’ve lobbied and spent millions of dollars convincing elected officials to look the other way.”

Sagle, of the petroleum association, said the bill would have held companies liable without proving they were the ones doing the harm and that’s why the bill drew opposition from groups including the California Chamber of Commerce.

“That is a guilty until proven innocent approach to public policy,” Sagle said.

The other closely-watched climate change bill to die was Senate Bill 12, which would have increased the state’s greenhouse gas emissions target to 55% below 1990 levels by 2030. Currently, California law calls for a 40% reduction.

The failure of the two measures comes after Gov. Newsom last week held firm on $6 billion in cuts from a $54 billion five-year climate package approved last year.

Facing a deteriorating fiscal situation, the governor last week proposed a $1.1 billion climate bond to be put before voters to avoid additional cuts.

— Alejandro Lazo

A rare defeat for abortion access advocates

For the first time, a bill backed by the California Future of Abortion Council and Legislative Women’s Caucus was quietly killed in the Assembly appropriations committee. The measure, authored by Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, targeted crisis pregnancy centers, requiring the state Department of Public Health to launch a public awareness campaign about the anti-abortion and often religiously affiliated centers, reinforcing what abortion options are available in California.

Abortion rights advocates accuse crisis pregnancy centers of misleading pregnant patients about their options and posing as health care facilities when few are licensed as such. Supporters of the centers counter that they provide women with supportive services like free pregnancy tests and counseling. A previous California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to provide information on abortions ran afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority in 2018, which struck the law down for infringing on freedom of speech protections.

“Across California crisis pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics by 20%,” Schiavo, a Democrat from Santa Clarita, said in a recent health committee hearing. “These crisis pregnancy centers shame, intentionally mislead and lie to women about their reproductive health care options to block them from accessing abortion care.”

Though more than a dozen abortion protection bills sailed through the Legislature last year, this measure ran into opposition from members in rural areas where Alternatives Pregnancy Center runs women’s health clinics. Alternatives is one of the few medically licensed crisis pregnancy centers in the state and can provide ultrasounds, prenatal care and well-woman visits.

— Kristen Hwang

Criminal background checks

The Senate Appropriations Committee dashed a proposal by state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, a Los Angeles Democrat, to further tighten restrictions on when employers can seek out a job applicant’s criminal history. Advocates said the bill was necessary — despite a 2017 law prohibiting employers from inquiring about criminal history until after they make a tentative job offer — because there are other ways bosses can research applicants’ records.

Initially a blanket ban on considering applicants’ criminal records at all, this year’s bill had been pared down in a different committee after objections from business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, which included it on its “job killer” list. Employers still found the bill’s “voluminous number of administrative requirements” onerous, said Chamber spokesperson Denise Davis.

— Jeanne Kuang

Who can own farmland

So many bills flow through the Legislature that it’s possible, in the rush of activity, for a bill to escape the notice of even dedicated industry lobbyists.

In 2022, a bill that would have banned foreign governments from buying, leasing, or holding a controlling interest in California agricultural land sailed through. It didn’t receive a single “no” vote and didn’t draw any formal support or opposition from agriculture groups.

“To be quite blunt, this bill flew under a lot of people’s radar last year,” Ian LeMay, president of the California Fresh Fruit Association, said last month. His organization lobbied the Newsom administration to veto it, LeMay confirmed.

Newsom ultimately did veto the bill, saying a data-collection component of the bill would create “​​arduous responsibilities.”

State Sen. Melissa Hurtado, a Bakersfield Democrat, introduced the bill again this year with a few tweaks. But this time she had to navigate choppier waters: More than a dozen farming and industry groups lined up in opposition, asking that the bill be amended. Some wanted the bill to ban a narrower group of foreign governments – countries that have “nonmarket” economies, and those that the federal government has determined pose a national security threat.

The bill also drew concern from some lawmakers in an April hearing. Sen. Dave Min, a Costa Mesa Democrat and vice chairperson of the AAPI legislative caucus, said “I think if we pass this bill, that we’re going to be sending a signal to the country … that California is jumping in on the xenophobia and anti-China bashing that we’ve seen.”

The bill was killed earlier in the legislative process – at least for this year.

— Grace Gedye

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Your daily news video roundup! Press play above, scroll down for additional reading and scroll even farther down to take today’s Pointless Poll!

ADDITIONAL READING:

• Mike McGuire Says We’ll Need to ‘Move Heaven and Earth’ to Expedite Floating Offshore Wind Development, Hears Concerns From Commercial Fishermen and Environmentalists
• MORE on the COMPOST MANDATE: Arcata City Council Moves Forward With Recology Franchise Agreement; Curbside Pickup of Organic Waste Expected to Roll Out in 2025
• California Awards $23.3 Million for Students to Become Substance Use Disorder Counselors (Governor’s Office)
• CDFW To Hold Elk Management Meetings in Humboldt, Del Norte
• Joint News Release: Agreement Reopens Yuba River To Salmon And Sturgeon, Launching Ambitious River Restoration (CDFW)
• “Move to End Hunger” (Food for People)

###

State Senate Majority Leader Mike McGuire, Chair of the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, held a hearing on Wednesday afternoon to discuss next steps with floating offshore wind development along the West Coast and to explore strategies to enhance coastal environmental protections while also protecting the interests of California’s fishing fleet.

“As we all know, the Golden State is staring down some extraordinary deadlines to meet our climate goals, and power generation plays a massive role in achieving these goals,” McGuire said during Wednesday’s hearing. “If we are serious about meeting these deadlines, we’re going to have to move heaven and earth to deploy new green power generation facilities in every corner of the Golden State.”

Late last year, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) auctioned off five leases – two off Humboldt Bay and three off Morro Bay – totaling nearly 600 square miles for the development of floating offshore wind energy facilities. The lease auction was the first of its kind on the West Coast and a critical component in furthering the Biden-Harris administration’s goal of deploying 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy by 2030 and 15 GW of floating offshore wind energy by 2035.

BOEM finalized and executed the lease agreements just this week, but there’s still a long way to go – perhaps another ten years – before the floating turbines start spinning off of our shores. 

“The very first thing that’s due [next] are the communication plans,” said Jen Miller, BOEM’s chief of the Renewable Energy Section for the Pacific Region. “We will have a communications plan for the fisheries, Native American tribes, [as well as federal and state] agencies. I would say the first thing to get right are those communications plans … making sure that they’re robust, they’re thoughtful, and that they consider all of the needs … of those groups that are resource-constrained. How do we make sure that that engagement is as regular as needed, but not overbearing?”

Yurok Tribal Vice-Chair Frankie Myers expressed his appreciation to federal and state representatives “for simply including tribes and making sure that we were heard and included in [this] conversation.”

“I think that’s absolutely the right first step that we have to take [while] looking at the potential for offshore wind here in California,” he said. “From my perspective – from the Yurok perspective – we view the world around us as a part of who we are, that we are a part of the world around us. … We look towards our past to help guide us into our future and I think it’s critically important that we continue that same methodology as we look at offshore wind.”

The communication plans are due in the next three months. Once those are complete, various agencies and environmental entities will begin a survey and data collection process to better inform the design and layout of the wind farms.

One of the biggest concerns that has cropped up around the development of offshore wind is its potential impact on marine ecosystems. Miller noted that BOEM’s environmental studies program has already done “quite a bit of work on marine mammals and entanglement studies for floating offshore wind,” but acknowledged that they “need to do more [research] that is specific to the West Coast.”

“One of the studies that has really received a lot of traction was the entanglement study that looks at potential entanglement risk due to potential floating cables that will connect wind turbines here in the Pacific [to the sea floor],” she continued. “That was identified as a potential risk. … And then we do have marine mammal mitigations that have been in place for our Atlantic leases [which] include a lot of passive acoustic monitoring for activities that are occurring on vessels and in the ocean.”

Garry George, director of the Clean Energy Initiative at the National Audubon Society, also underscored the importance of protecting birds.

“Just in terms of science, I want to remind you that Audubon’s 2019 study, [“Survival by Degrees: 389 Bird Species on the Brink”], reveals that if warming gets to 3º Celsius above pre-industrial levels, we may lose 389 species of North American birds. … We support rapid deployment to get to 100 percent clean energy as fast as possible. … In order to protect the California marine resources that are on and above the water – that would be birds and bats – the state of California needs to ensure that the siting and operation is informed by good collaborative independent science.”

Commercial fisheries are at risk as well. Mike Conroy, West Coast director for the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, acknowledged that impacts to the industry are likely inevitable but said, “the scale of those impacts remains unknown.”

“Can offshore wind and fisheries coexist?” he asked, repeating the question posed on the agenda. “I appreciate the question as our coexistence is presumed. The fishing industry has some serious concerns. … We have been asking BOEM to slow down the process, build out the five lease areas and let them operate so we can actually see what the impacts will be. If offshore wind will wreak havoc on the form and function of California’s marine ecosystem, then we need to stop it.”

When “unavoidable” and “unmitigated” impacts are identified and better understood, “compensating impacted community members should be a priority,” Conroy added.

Speaking on behalf of the committee, McGuire emphasized the importance of a statewide approach rather than a port-by-port approach for lost fishing grounds.

“There is going to have to be some type of mandatory compensation for lost fishing ground,” he said. “We know that this climate crisis has impacted the fleet as we see a shorter Dungeness crab season … and they’re struggling. We’re going to need to be able to work with offshore wind to ensure that they’re gonna continue to thrive. … Same thing with California’s iconic salmon fleet.”

“I think we’re going to have to be able to come together to figure out how both [offshore wind and commercial fisheries] are going to coexist,” he added.

###

PREVIOUSLY:

• Biden Administration Proposes Offshore Wind Lease Sale, Including Two Spots Off the Humboldt County Coast
• IT’S ON: Humboldt Offshore Wind Leases to Go Up For Auction on Dec. 6
• Harbor District Announces Massive Offshore Wind Partnership; Project Would Lead to an 86-Acre Redevelopment of Old Pulp Mill Site
• Offshore Wind is Coming to the North Coast. What’s in it For Humboldt?
• North Coast Fishermen Fear for the Future of Commercial Fisheries as Offshore Wind Efforts Advance
• North Coast Tribes Advocate for ‘Meaningful, Impactful Partnership’ with Potential Developers Ahead of Tomorrow’s Highly Anticipated Offshore Wind Lease Auction
• ‘Together We Can Shape Offshore Wind for the West Coast’: Local Officials, Huffman and Others Join Harbor District Officials in Celebrating Partnership Agreement With Crowley Wind Services
• SOLD! BOEM Names California North Floating and RWE Offshore Wind Holdings as Provisional Winners of Two Offshore Wind Leases Off the Humboldt Coast
• ‘It’s Beyond Frustrating’: Yurok Vice-Chair Calls Out Provisional Winners of Offshore Wind Bid for Failing to Engage With the Tribe Aheads of This Week’s Auction
• California’s Aging Electrical Infrastructure Presents Hurdle for Offshore Wind Development on the North Coast

###

It’s time to start thinking about composting (if you don’t already) because soon the City of Arcata will require curbside pickup for organic waste to bring the city into compliance with California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, SB 1383.

Okay, so it will probably be a couple of years before Arcata actually rolls out the composting service. But on Wednesday night the Arcata City Council (minus Councilmember Stacy Atkins-Salazar, who was absent) took one of many steps needed to begin citywide composting by authorizing city staff to draft a franchise agreement with Recology for the service. 

Emily Benvie, Arcata’s deputy director of environmental and community services, began by giving the council some background on the city’s current franchise agreement with Recology, which expires in 2029. Currently Recology provides universal curbside collection for trash, recycling and green waste – which includes yard waste, but not food scraps or other compostables. In exchange for being the City’s service provider, Recology gives the City 10 percent of its revenue as a “franchise fee,” Benvie said. This comes to approximately $400,000 annually, which the city puts toward street repair (to offset the wear and tear from Recology’s trucks) and toward other city cleanup programs such as park cleanups and graffiti removal.

In addition to adding organic waste pickup service, the new franchise agreement will address other aspects of waste management, including the bulky item pickup offered to residents, the frequency of pickup service, providing additional small kitchen food scrap bins for residents and education and outreach about the services. 

Of course there is the issue of rate increase and the bad news, Benvie explained, is that Recolgy is already anticipating raising its rates just to maintain its current level of service. Recology transports waste to the Eureka Transfer Station (aka, the dump) operated by the Humboldt Waste Management Authority (HWMA), which estimates a 26 percent increase in tipping fees – the fees that waste management facilities have to pay to put waste into the landfill. HWMA is also increasing its processing fees by about 57 percent, Benvie said. 

This means that Recology will have to pay more money to HWMA and, in turn, residents will need to pay more to Recology. Benvie said that the average rate increase will be about four dollars per household per month for the current services that Recology provides. How much people will have to pay additionally for the organic waste pickup is still unclear, Arcata City Manager Karen Diemer said, but staff anticipates about an additional 30 percent increase in costs.

The agreement will also carve out a space for the businesses already providing organic waste pickup, which includes Local Worm Guy and Full Cycle Compost. Under the new agreement, these businesses will be permitted to process up to 10 percent of the city’s organic waste and residents who already pay for those services will be able to opt out of the citywide compost pickup. 

However, since the way SB 1383 is written requires residents to use a curbside pickup service, there will likely not be an option for residents and businesses who do their own composting to opt out of the service. 

During public comment several community members expressed concern over the fact that people who do their own composting will still have to pay for the curbside collection. “I compost [at home]…Everything I compost can go in my garden,” one commenter said to the council.  “It’s really sad that there’s no option for us, that we’re mandated to do something that we don’t need to do.” 

Under the new service Recology will likely allow yard waste and food scraps to be combined into one green bin, Benvie explained, so many residents will likely be able to still use the service for their yard waste. Benvie also mentioned that people will be able to place bones and meat in the bins, which some people don’t want to put in their own home compost. 

There were also concerns about how the rate increase will disproportionately affect low-income residents. Councilmember Meredith Matthews said she understands that concern and hopes that the city will look at subsidizing costs for low-income people in the future. 

The franchise agreement is expected to return to the council for review this fall. Because it will take a while for Recology to make the necessary capital improvements, roll-out of the collection service will not begin until fall 2025. Benvie was clear that the community will receive notice of the rate increases, and that no one will be paying for the organic waste collection until the service begins.

Press release from the Sequoia Park Zoo:

The Sequoia Park Zoo is hosting a FREE bioblitz on Sunday, May 21, 2023. This bioblitz event focuses on finding and identifying as many species as possible on the Redwood Sky Walk and in Sequoia Park.

Participating in a community science bioblitz is a fun way to observe nature, enjoy quality family time, and contribute to real scientific research. This family-friendly event is open to bioblitz beginners and experts. NO previous knowledge is necessary! All participants receive a free nature journal and pencil. This event is part of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)’s Party for the Planet.

Beginners meet at the Sequoia Park Zoo at 7 a.m. (with gates closing at 7:15 a.m.) to learn how to install and use three free nature identification apps (iNaturalist, Seek, and Merlin Bird ID) on their own phone.

Those with experience using the apps can arrive at 8 a.m. (with gates closing at 8:15 a.m.) for the orientation and beginning of the bioblitz on the Redwood Sky Walk. The bioblitz will occur from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., but participants can leave at any time.

Attendance is limited, and participants must RSVP for free at this link.

All participants must sign a liability waiver. While all ages are welcome, children 15 years old and younger must be accompanied by an adult guardian. The bioblitz is held in ADA-accessible areas, though some participants may venture into areas that are not accessible. Starting now, anyone can contribute to this bioblitz on iNaturalist by joining the project “Sequoia Park Zoo bioblitz 2023.”

What: Sequoia Park Zoo Bioblitz

When: Sunday, May 21, 2023 from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. PT

Where: Sequoia Park Zoo, 3414 W Street, Eureka, CA 95503

What to Bring: smart device compatible with the apps, clothing appropriate for the weather, shoes or mobility gear for trail use, water bottle if desired

After years of controversy over state legislators taking trips paid by interest groups, California in 2015 adopted a law intended to bring more transparency to sponsored travel.

Senate Bill 21 requires trip organizers to annually disclose any major donors who travel alongside elected officials, taking aim at the secrecy that often surrounds these policy conferences and international study tours.

Yet in the seven years since the law took effect, disclosure forms have been filed for only two events — despite legislators reporting millions of dollars in sponsored travel and dozens of trips during that period. One form was filed last year and the second only after CalMatters made inquiries.

It’s unclear exactly why the disclosure has been such a failure.

Former state Sen. Jerry Hill, the San Mateo Democrat who pushed for the law, said he was surprised by its infrequent use. He said he crafted qualifications that he believed major travel sponsors would easily meet, requiring them to share more information with the public about who is paying for legislators’ travel — but, in hindsight, the language about when they have to file may not have been specific enough.

Many groups, including two whom Hill cited in arguments for the law, contend that they do not meet the eligibility criteria laid out in the measure, even as they spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to take legislators to far-flung locations.

“It looks like it’s being interpreted in the most favorable light for the nonprofits, and they are looking at that as a way of getting around it,” Hill told CalMatters.

If that is the case, he added, legislators should update the language to ensure the intent is clear.

“It’s frustrating,” he said. “It is law and it should be followed. And it’s disappointing that some have used whatever reason they can find to not follow the law.”

If any organizations are out of compliance, the state’s political ethics watchdog, which is responsible for enforcement, cannot say. The Fair Political Practices Commission has never clarified potentially ambiguous language in the rules and it depends on filers to follow them, investigating primarily if it receives a complaint. None has ever been lodged.

Jay Wierenga, a spokesperson for the commission, wrote in an email that he did not know the specifics of the situation, but “in my experience most of the folks who deal with this are sophisticated enough and/or smart enough to follow the rules and hire legal counsel to make sure they’re following it.”

Different rules for trip sponsors

California law allows elected officials to accept unlimited free travel from a nonprofit organization, as long as the trip is related to policy issues or they are giving a speech or participating on a panel. Officials must report the travel as a gift on their annual statements of economic interest filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission — and, because of the same 2015 law, disclose the destination.

But the nonprofits — often funded by corporations, unions and industry associations that lobby the Legislature and the state — do not have similar reporting requirements. Though some voluntarily share lists of donors, they are not obligated to reveal how much money they receive and from whom.

For nearly as long as these trips have been happening, they have generated criticism from opponents who believe they amount to unofficial lobbying, allowing interest groups to buy privileged access to lawmakers and regulators away from public scrutiny.

/

Then-Sen. Jerry Hill speaks in the state Capitol. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters

Hill said he grew more concerned after the 2010 PG&E pipeline explosion in his district that killed eight and destroyed a San Bruno neighborhood, which led to revelations about then-California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey’s close relationship and extensive travel with companies regulated by the commission.

So the law Hill authored was meant to provide greater accountability for which interest groups are paying for travel and how these trips can serve as opportunities for influence-peddling. It requires “a nonprofit organization that regularly organizes and hosts travel for elected officials” to annually report any donors who gave more than $1,000 and also accompanied elected officials on any portion of a trip, if the group meets two criteria:

• Travel gifts to elected officials in that year totaled more than $10,000, or at least $5,000 to a single official.
• Spending for travel, study tours and conferences, conventions and meetings related to elected officials account for at least one-third of its total expenses, as reflected in its federal tax filings.

Over the past two years, 16 organizations exceeded the first threshold at least once, according to a CalMatters analysis of legislators’ statements of economic interest. Just two of them filed the travel sponsor disclosure, known as Form 807.

The California Problem Solvers Foundation, which supports a bipartisan legislative caucus, revealed that in 2021, the year it launched, representatives from the California Medical Association, Edison International, the Associated Builders & Contractors of California, PhARMA, Blue Shield of California, DaVita Inc., PG&E and Sempra Energy donated and attended its inaugural policy summit in Dana Point, alongside nine lawmakers.

The foundation, however, did not file the form again for last year, when it spent another $12,000 taking four legislators to a policy summit in Sonoma. A spokesperson, Nick Mirman, declined to comment.

The California Legislative Jewish Caucus Leadership Foundation, which spent more than $213,000 to take 14 legislators to Israel in July, said it wrongly forgot to submit a disclosure for the trip.

After CalMatters reached out, a representative for the foundation said its compliance attorneys discovered the error while completing its taxes. She provided a Form 807 that the foundation planned to file, showing two donors that also traveled to Israel: the Koret Foundation Donor Advised Fund at Stanford University and the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles. The Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed Wednesday that it received the form.

Over the last week, CalMatters surveyed the 14 other groups about why they did not file the disclosure form.

• Three asserted they did not meet the eligibility requirements of the law, but did not specify how in follow-up inquiries: the Governor’s Cup Foundation, which organizes an annual golf tournament in Pebble Beach; the Shared Energy Future Foundation, the charitable arm of the oil and natural gas industry; and The Climate Registry, which spent more than $37,600 to bring lawmakers to United Nations climate conferences in Scotland and Egypt over the past two years.
• Two said they are trade associations, which are exempt from the law: the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies and the California Independent Petroleum Association.
• Five did not respond to questions, despite repeated inquiries: the California Biotechnology Foundation, the California Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation, the Climate Action Reserve, the Council of State Governments-West and the Foundation for California’s Technology and Innovation Economy.
• The California Environmental Voters Education Fund suggested that five lawmakers had incorrectly reported the organization as the sponsor of their travel to a United Nations biodiversity convention in Montreal, saying it had raised the money from another group called the Resources Legacy Fund.

Ambiguity in the law

A possible issue is how broadly to construe “activities with regard to elected officials,” as the law states, when determining expenses for the one-third of total spending threshold. Hill said his intent was for that calculation to cover the entire cost of trips and conferences attended by legislators, but nonprofits may be counting only their direct payments to lawmakers.

“Hindsight is 20/20, and if the nonprofits are using that as a way around following the law, that needs to be clarified or it needs to be enforced in a way that requires them to follow the law,” Hill said.

Wierenga said the Fair Political Practices Commission has no formal advice about how to complete the form because “nobody files them, so we’ve apparently never really been asked.”

Two prominent organizations mentioned by Hill at the time as inspirations for the 2015 law — the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy and the Independent Voter Project — told CalMatters they had never met the one-third of expenses threshold.

The California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, which sends lawmakers to policy conferences across the state and on international study tours, is by far the biggest source of sponsored travel that lawmakers annually report. In 2022, the foundation accounted for about 40% of the nearly $1 million in trips that California legislators took, according to a CalMatters analysis published this month.

A tax filing for last year is not yet publicly available. But in 2019, for example, the foundation reported spending $423,114 on study travel projects and $385,949 on conferences, conventions and meetings — about 43% of its nearly $1.9 million in expenses. Other recent years have comparable figures.

Spokesperson PJ Johnston declined to explain how the foundation calculates its expenses under the criteria laid out by the disclosure law. In an email, he wrote that “your approach may not take into account the full provisions,” but did not elaborate.

“Addressing your ‘calculations’ is not our responsibility, that is not our burden,” he wrote. “Your ‘calculations’ are imbued with no official weight, verification or concurrence from any agency with jurisdiction.”

He added that the foundation has never received any questions or guidance from the Fair Political Practices Commission about the disclosure law.

“It’s frustrating. It is law and it should be followed. And it’s disappointing that some have used whatever reason they can find to not follow the law.”
— Former state Sen. Jerry Hill, who pushed for the transparency law

Each November, the Independent Voter Project organizes a conference where dozens of legislators and corporate sponsors gather for a week of policy discussions and schmoozing at a luxury hotel in Maui. The event has long been a lightning rod for concerns about the close relationship between lawmakers and interest groups that have business before the Legislature.

Last year, the nonprofit spent $38,856 to bring 13 legislators to the Maui conference. But Dan Howle, the chairperson and executive chairman, said that event is a small fraction of the Independent Voter Project’s work — which also includes public education on the rights of no party preference voters and court challenges to laws restricting the participation of these voters in primary and general elections.

On its 2021 tax filing, the most recent that is publicly available, the Independent Voter Project reported spending $169,530 on conferences, conventions and meetings and $43,372 on travel and entertainment payments for public officials — just under a quarter of its $882,122 in total expenses for that year. Travel accounts for another $384,614 in spending, though it’s unclear whether those costs relate to “activities with regard to elected officials.”

Howle said the costs for the Maui conference — which include a dinner at the hotel restaurant, opening and closing receptions and the sponsored travel for legislators — are not as much as they may seem. His organization does not count hotel rooms for sponsors, which they pay for as part of their registration, curtailing spending that would qualify for the one-third threshold.

“We haven’t felt required to report it because we don’t reach that threshold,” Howle said. He said that the Independent Voter Project came to that conclusion after discussing the law with the Fair Political Practices Commission the year it took effect. The commission has issued no official advice.

A third organization, the California Issues Forum, also maintains that it hasn’t filed the form because it hasn’t spent enough to cross the disclosure threshold. Chris Tapio, a spokesperson, wrote in an email that the nonprofit’s “activities and expenditures have not met the statutory criteria” for filing a report.

The organization spent $15,634 to take 15 legislators to Napa, Los Angeles, and Marina Del Rey in 2022, according to lawmakers’ statements of economic interest, and $13,454 to take 13 legislators to La Jolla, Monterey and Lafayette in 2021.

Tax returns for those years are not yet publicly available. But in 2019, the organization reported spending $323,032 on conferences, conventions and meetings, and $15,072 on travel, accounting for about 27% of its nearly $1.3 million in expenses.

Yet in a separate category of the 2019 tax form, the California Issues Forum reported that it spent more than $1 million that year for seminars, meetings, and conferences that “brought experts, speakers and legislators together to educate each other on current issues” — or more than 80% of its total expenses.

Tapio said “that amount is inclusive of many expenses not pertinent to Form 807, such as grants, salaries, and postage.” He did not clarify what spending California Issues Forum does count under the disclosure law.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.