Information on 2.7 million public employees from 2,518 agencies and 54 pension plans
Shows 15 police officers in Contra Costa County were paid more than $500,000 in 2022, including the highest to El Cerrito Police Chief at over $850,000 plus, 10 others from his dep’t
Also, shows highest paid in Antioch PD was a Captain at $476,018.55
Highest paid in the state was Vallejo Police Chief at $953,396.61
Transparent California, the state’s largest database of public pay and pension data, has completed data collection efforts for records detailing 2022 employee compensation and pension payments made by almost all public agencies in our state!
In the last year we’ve added data on 2.7 million public employees obtained from 2,518 agencies, and 1.4 million pension records from 54 pension plans to our database. Added to our existing data from the last decade results in a total of 42 million records available on the site. All obtained from the agency’s own pay data using requests made under the California Public Records Act, all are available online for free to anyone with an interest at http://transparentcalifornia.com.
Pay and benefit costs are the single largest expense in our government. Transparent California’s site provides members of the public with unprecedented visibility into that spending. Knowing how government employees are personally benefiting from state and local spending is critical to ensuring true accountability in our government.
In 2022 over a million public employees, and over 125,000 pension recipients, enjoyed compensation packages totaling over $100,000 per year. Using the data available we can see the City Manager in Norco was provided total compensation of $539,705, the school superintendent in Ontario-Montclair was paid $643,796, and a police lieutenant in Vallejo made $839,798.
(Editor’s Note: According to an April 2021 ABC7 News report, Vallejo Police Lieutenant Herman Robinson, a 47-year employee with the department was fired. According to an April 2022 Vallejo Sun report, an arbitrator ordered Robinson be reinstated with back pay and be paid an additional 10% interest on his back pay. He “was one of the most highly paid city of Vallejo employees and received $179,590 in base pay and $196,941 in overtime pay for calendar year 2020, according to Transparent California, a website that tracks California government worker salaries. With benefits included, Robinson earned $547,403.68.”
Thus, the $839,798 Robinson was paid in 2022 included two years of compensation and the 10% interest on the back pay.)
UPDATE: That information was shared with Transparent California’s Director of Research, Todd Maddison. In response he wrote, “Thanks, appreciate the background. We are rarely if ever given the ‘story’ behind any particular pay data, and with over 4 million records a year to collect we usually don’t investigate unless someone feels the number is erroneous. We do offer agencies the ability to make a note if they want so site users don’t think an outlier is ‘normal pay’, but we’re rarely taken up on that.
Meanwhile, in 2022 there were 67 police employees who made total pay only (excluding benefits) of over $400,000. I’ve attached a spreadsheet of police employees in case you’re interested.”
That spreadsheet shows the highest paid police officer in Contra Costa County in 2022 was Richmond Police Sergeant Florencio Rivera, whose total compensation was $512,432. A total of 15 officers in the county were paid more than $500,000 each, with 11 of them from the El Cerrito PD.
The Transparent California website gives ordinary taxpayers access to such data, illuminating the spending that drive state and local government deficits, including the $73 billion in red ink being projected by the state.
Data collection for 2023 compensation is now starting. Those who want to monitor specific agencies can subscribe (free) or support the effort by sponsoring data collection from that agency.
Maddison noted, “2022 data collection was a great achievement. We’re particularly proud our small donor funded team lapped the State Controller’s Office’s government-funded effort in K-12 education, collecting data from 1055 districts to their 424. We’re focused on giving the people of California the data they deserve to see how their tax dollars are being spent.”
Students between classes at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Credit: Ashley Bolter / EdSource
Some have been exempt from paying out-of-state tuition since 2001
By Zaidee Stavely, EdSource – Republished with permission
More than 20 years ago, California passed a law allowing some undocumented immigrant students to attend college with in-state tuition, if they meet certain requirements.
But immigrant rights advocates say many students who should have been eligible have been wrongfully denied in-state tuition because of confusion over requirements, misinformation and different interpretations of the law at different college campuses.
“We lose that incredible brain power and colleges are losing enrollment,” said Nancy Jodaitis, director of higher education for Immigrants Rising, a nonprofit organization that advocates for undocumented people to achieve educational and career goals.
Immigrants Rising brought together officials from all three public college systems — California Community Colleges, California State University and University of California — to discuss and agree on answers to frequently-asked questions about the law.
Source: Immigrants Rising
The result is a document called the Systemwide AB 540 FAQ, which all three systems have now signed. The document includes answers to 59 questions, such as:
What if a student graduated from a California high school (completing three years’ worth of high school credits), but did not attend three years at a California high school?
Does a student have to take classes full time for their attendance to count?
Does all their coursework have to be taken at the same school?
Spokespeople from UC, CSU and California Community Colleges all celebrated the document.
Paul Feist, vice chancellor of communications and marketing for the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, said the document is particularly important because there are several different laws regarding the nonresident tuition exemption.
The first bill exempting some undocumented immigrants from out-of-state tuition, Assembly Bill 540, was signed into law in 2001. Since then, three other bills have been passed to expand the law, in 2014, 2017 and 2022.
“While the intent was to expand access to AB 540 financial assistance, they had the unintended effect of making it more difficult to navigate,” Feist said. “This FAQ is designed to provide clearer explanations and provide additional resources in advising students.”
Under current California law, students who are undocumented or have temporary protection from deportation such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents, are eligible for in-state tuition and state financial aid, if they attended at least three years of high school, adult school or community college in California and obtained a high school diploma or equivalent, an associate degree or fulfilled the minimum requirements to transfer to a UC or CSU.
Access to state financial aid and in-state tuition can be a critical factor for undocumented students, who are barred from receiving federal financial aid. Without the law in place, some of them would be charged tuition rates for international students, often much higher than in-state tuition.
“This is huge,” said Maria Gutierrez, a college counselor at Chabot College in Hayward and a doctoral student at San Francisco State University. “It helps us be aligned and have something in writing.” Before the FAQ document, Gutierrez says college staff in charge of approving exemptions from out-of-state tuition were sometimes afraid to make decisions without written proof of how to interpret the law.
Gutierrez herself has benefited from AB 540. She came to the U.S. when she was 5 years old on a visa, which later expired. She attended elementary, middle and most of high school in California. She also graduated from high school in California. But when she applied to attend community college in California, different campuses disagreed on whether she was eligible for in-state tuition because she had spent two years of high school in Utah. At the time, a second law had recently been passed to allow colleges to consider years of attendance in elementary and middle school for AB 540 eligibility.
“One college that I went to in So Cal, I was approved for AB 540. When I had to go back to the Bay Area, I was not approved for AB 540. So then I was confused that there was this inconsistency,” Gutierrez said.
A few years later, when she applied to transfer to a four-year college, both UC and CSU campuses told her she was not eligible for in-state tuition, even though by then, a law had passed that clarified that attendance at community college could be counted toward the requirements. She spent a semester paying out-of-state tuition at San Jose State University, before the university finally acknowledged she was legally eligible for in-state tuition.
As a college counselor, Gutierrez continues to meet students who have been incorrectly told they are not eligible for in-state tuition.
“It’s crazy because in reality it hasn’t changed much,” she said. However, she said, the financial burden is harder now, because most students graduating from high school cannot apply for work permits under DACA, because the government has not accepted new applications since 2017.
“I see my students now and I see the struggles they’re going through. If I didn’t have DACA, I honestly don’t think I would be where I am now,” Gutierrez said. “There’s no way that I would’ve been able to pay nonresident fees or wait for whoever it is that is determining that to learn what they need to do for me to be able to go to college.”
Advocates say they hope the document will help colleges give correct information and avoid students having to research on their own for information.
California also recently streamlined the process for undocumented students to apply for financial aid and exemption from in-state tuition on the same application when they fill out the California Dream Act application. In the past, students had to both fill out a California Dream Act application and an AB 540 affidavit form for each college. Now, the AB 540 form will be part of the same application.
Diana Aguilar-Cruz said that change is significant. Aguilar-Cruz is currently pursuing a master’s degree in public health at Cal State Fullerton. When she first began her undergraduate education at Cal Poly Pomona, she was charged nonresident tuition, which was almost double the in-state tuition. She had immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico City in 2015, when she was 14 years old, and lived with her grandmother in Baldwin Park while attending high school.
She had completed a California Dream Act application, but no one told her she also had to complete a separate form. After researching it herself online, she found the form and completed it, at which point the university finally changed her tuition to in-state.
“If I didn’t find it in my Google search, would I be paying in-state tuition for my four years of college?” Aguilar-Cruz said. “I always think to myself, what would have happened if I was a more fearful student or a student who did not have a strong support system at home?”
According to the Renewing the Dream page on the California Student Aid Commission’s website, “In 2021-22, only 29% to 30% of undocumented college students who applied for financial aid through the California Dream Act Application (CADAA) ultimately enrolled in school. Moreover, only 14% of California’s estimated undocumented student population in postsecondary education ultimately received state financial aid.”
Sacramento, CA – March 28, 2024 – After immense pressure from California Senate Republicans, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has finally listened and is scrapping the income-based utility bill scheme proposed by California’s largest utilities, which came to fruition as a result of Assembly Bill 205 (2022). The non-elective commission released a flat fixed rate proposal, with reduced charges for low-income customers, and is expected to vote on it on May 9, 2024. (See related article)
“I’m cautiously optimistic to see that CPUC’s preliminary decision on a new fixed-rate plan for electrical billing includes a flat rate rather than one of the ludicrous income-based charges that had been proposed,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego). “I’m looking deeper into the proposal and studying how it will affect my constituents and ratepayers across the state. Still, I hope this may be a compromise Californians can live with. At the same time, I anticipate that electricity rates will continue to be a huge affordability issue in California, even under this new flat rate proposal.”
“As vice chair of the Senate Energy, Utility and Communications Committee, l have strongly advocated for affordable and reliable energy for Californians, but the majority party’s misguided approach has been driving up the rates for years,” said Senator Brian Dahle (R-Bieber). “This income-based utility scheme was another disastrous measure. I appreciate the CPUC heeding Republicans’ advice to pause this nonsensical bill, and I will continue to work tirelessly with my colleagues to make energy reform a reality in our state.”
The CPUC’s fixed rate proposal has a 20-day comment period and is eligible for a vote at the next CPUC public meeting on May 9, 2024.
California Senate Republicans have been leading the fight against the income-based electricity charge after Capitol Democrats rammed it through budget trailer bill AB 205 in 2022. In 2023, and as recent as January 2024, Senate Democrats thwarted Senate Republicans’ efforts to provide Californians a lifeline by repealing AB 205. Additionally, this year, Senate Minority Leader Jones and the entire Senate Republican Caucus introduced SB 1326 to repeal the income-based fixed charge mandated by AB 205. Click here to learn more about the caucus’ efforts.
After immense pressure from California Senate Republicans, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has finally listened and is scrapping the income-based utility bill scheme, which came to fruition as a result of Assembly Bill 205 (2022). The non-elective commission released a flat fixed rate proposal and is expected to vote on it on May 9, 2024.
Over 3.6 million school-aged children across the state qualify for at least $500 in savings with the California Kids Investment and Development Savings program (CalKIDS), a state initiative to help children from low income families save money for college or career.
Just 8.3% of eligible students, or 300,000, have claimed their accounts as many families are unaware of CalKIDS or face challenges accessing the accounts once aware. The money is automatically deposited into the savings account under a student’s name, but families must claim the accounts by registering online.
Here is information you should know about the state-funded accounts:
What is CalKIDS?
The CalKIDS program was created to help students, especially those from underserved communities, gain access to higher education. It helps families save for post high school training by opening a savings account and depositing between $500 and $1,500 for eligible low-income students in the public school system. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who launched the program in August 2022, invested about $1.9 billion in the accounts.
Who qualifies?
Low-income students and all newborns qualify.
According to program details, low-income public school students are awarded $500 if they:
Were in grades 1-12 during the 2021-22 school year
Were enrolled in first grade during the 2022-23 school year, or
Will be in first grade in subsequent school years.
An additional $500 is deposited for students identified as foster youth and another $500 for students classified as homeless.
For newborns,
Children born in California after June 2023, regardless of their parents’ income, are granted $100.
Those born in the state between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, were awarded $25 before the seed deposit increased to $100.
Newborns get an additional $25 when they claim the account and an additional $50 if parents link the CalKIDS account to a new or existing ScholarShare 529 college savings account.
The California Department of Education determines eligibility based on students identified as low income under the state’s Local Control Funding Formula or English language learners. The California Department of Public Health provides information on newborns.
How can students use the money?
The money can be used at eligible higher education institutions across the country, including community colleges, universities, vocational or technical schools and professional schools, according to CalKIDS.
The funds can be used for: tuition and fees, books and supplies, on or off-campus room and board as well as computer or other required equipment, according to the CalKIDS program guide.
Click hereto search for schools that qualify as an eligible higher ed institution.
Does the CalKIDS account have restrictions similar to those for a 529 savings account?
CalKIDS accounts are a part of the ScholarShare 529 program — California’s official tax-advantaged college savings plan — and administered by the state’s ScholarShare Investment Board.
Transportation and travel costs are usually not considered qualified expenses for 529 savings accounts.
According to the guide for CalKIDS, if a student has no account balance with their higher education institution — which receives the CalKIDS distribution check — the institution can pay the funds directly to the student.
Does the money in the CalKIDS accounts earn interest?
The deposits grow over time because CalKIDS accounts are interest-bearing.
How aggressive that growth is depends on the age of the student, said Joe DeAnda, communications director with the California State Treasurer’s Office, which oversees the CalKIDS program.
“If it’s a newborn, (the seed deposits are) invested in a fairly aggressive portfolio that assumes 18 years of investing time,” DeAnda said. “If they are school-aged, they’re invested in a more conservative portfolio that assumes a shorter investing timeline and is a more secure portfolio.”
Even among students, the younger a child is, the more aggressive the savings portfolio will be. The investment provides “opportunity to grow savings while the child is younger and better safeguard savings against market fluctuations when the child nears college age,” according to the CalKIDS program guide.
Specifically, accounts for newborns, each new class of first graders and students in grades 1-5 during the 2021-22 school year are invested in a portfolio that corresponds to the year that they’re expected to enter a program after high school, or at age 18. The portfolio will become more conservative as the child gets older.
For students in grades 6-12 during the 2021-22 school year, the accounts are invested with a guaranteed, or fixed, rate of return on the investment.
Can I add to the account?
No, you cannot add money to the CalKIDS account. Parents or guardians can open a ScholarShare 529 account, which can be linked to the CalKIDS account so they can view the accounts in one place.
In fact, CalKIDS encourages families to open a ScholarShare 529 college savings account, which is a way for families to save even more money for their children, DeAnda said.
What if my student already graduated? What happens to unclaimed money?
The accounts remain active under a student’s name until the student turns 26 years old. Up until that age, students can claim the money.
If the account is not claimed by age 26, the account closes, and the money is reallocated to others in the CalKIDS program, DeAnda said.
What if I’m not sure if my child is considered low income?
CalKIDS has sent notification letters of program enrollment to over 3.3 million eligible students and nearly 270,000 students in last school year’s class of first graders.
Without the letters, to check student eligibility, families must enter students’ Statewide Student Identifier (SSID), a 10-digit number that appears on student transcripts or report cards, according to the CalKIDS website.
The California Department of Education provides CalKIDS with data on first graders in the late spring or early summer and asks parents to wait until then before checking for their child’s eligibility.
How do I access that SSID number to check eligibility or to register the account?
The SSID may be found on the parent’s or student’s school portal, transcript or report card.
The CalKIDS website instructs families to contact their child’s school or school district if they’re unsure of how or unable to locate the number.
How do I access or ‘claim’ the account?
The notification letter that CalKIDS sends families contains a unique CalKIDS Code that can be used to register the accounts. Even without the code, families can register the accounts.
Enter the county where the student was enrolled (for a student in grades 1-12 in the 2021-22 school year; for a first grader, where the student was enrolled in 2022-23 or subsequent years)
Enter student’s date of birth
Enter the SSID or CalKIDS Code from the notification letter
Click Register
Set up the account, either as the child or as the parent/guardian, with a username and password
To claim the newborn account, which should be available about 90 days after birth:
Visit the CalKIDS registration page to claim the account.
Enter the county where the child was born
Enter child’s date of birth
Enter the Local Registration Number on the child’s birth certificate or CalKIDS Code from the notification letter
Click Register
Set up the account, either as the child or as the parent/guardian, with a username and password
I still need help. How do I get additional support?
The CalKIDS team is also hosting an April 17 webinar to outline the program, eligibility, account registration, fund distribution and benefits. To sign up for the webinar, click here.
How does my high school graduate make a withdrawal to use the money?
According to the CalKIDS program guide, to request a distribution, log into the claimed CalKIDS account and request a distribution, which doesn’t have to be for the entire amount. The funds are tax-free for the qualified expenses of tuition, books, fees, computers and equipment.
The student must be at least 17 years old and enrolled at an eligible institution.
The CalKIDS money, which will be sent to the institution, is considered a scholarship from the state of California.
Monica Wilson (Source: Wilson for Assembly campaign) and campaign finances in 2024 through Feb. 17th. Source: Cal-Access
Avila Farias in second, Mitchoff a close third, Ledo a distant fourth
Antioch Mayor Pro Tem voted to appoint three residents to new Police Oversight Commission after receiving contributions from them
By Allen D. Payton
According to the latest required campaign finance reports Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson has a commanding lead in fundraising over her three rivals in the 15th Assembly District race on Tuesday’s primary election ballot.
The reports, known as Forms 460 and 497 on the California Secretary of State’s Cal-Access website, show Wilson has raised over $300,000 almost three times what her next closest rival, Contra Costa School Board Trustee Anamarie Avila Farias has, who raised a little over $108,000. Former County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff has raised close to $90,000 and Realtor Sonia Ledo, the only Republican in the race, has raised about $7,300.
In addition, as of Feb. 17th, their reports show Wilson’s campaign spent two-and-a-half times what her closest opponent did with $267,491.18 to Avila Farias’ $104,542.71, Mitchoff’s $75,757.72 and Ledo’s $16,260.33.
The most unique contribution was made to Wilson’s campaign from the Jane Fonda Climate PAC for $4,000.
Wilson Outpaces, Outraises, Outspends Opponents With Help From Unions & Attorneys
The reports for Wilson, who is serving as treasurer for her own campaign committee, show she has raised $129,068.64 last year, $203,555 total with $275 of non-monetary or what are referred to as in-kind contributions $203,280 in cash. In 2023 as of Feb.17 she raised $94,440.51 this year with $94,222.77 in cash contributions and $217.74 of in-kind contributions. Since then, according to several Form 497 Late Contribution Reports, Wilson’s campaign has received an additional $38,600 in contributions after Feb. 17 for a total of $306,091.18 in contributions to date, including $492.74 of in-kind contributions.
$11,000 from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers Local 549 PAC with $5,500 reserved for the general election;
$10,900 each from American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees-CA People Small Contributor Committee, California Nurses Association PAC (CNA-PAC) Small Contributor Committee, California State Council of Service Employees Small Contributor Committee, Service Employees International Union Local 1000 Candidate PAC Small Contributor Committee, Standing Committee on Political Education of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO Small Contributor Committee, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California PAC Small Contributor Committee, SEIU Local 2015 State PAC Small Contributor Committee, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California PAC Small Contributor Committee, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Small Contributor Committee, and United Domestic Workers of America Action Fund Small Contributor Committee;
$10,500 from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local Union 302 PAC Small Contributor Committee;
$5,500 each from Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 104 Political Committee, Steamfitters U.A. Local 342 PAC, United Association No. 159 Consumer Protection Fund sponsored by Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 159, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees – Council 57 PAC, California African American PAC, Consumer Attorneys of California PAC, affordable housing activist and former Planned Parenthood leader Karen Grove of Menlo Park, IBEW Local 551 PAC, Operating Engineers Local Union 3 Statewide PAC Small Contributor Committee, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West PAC Small Contributor Committee, IBEW Local 595 PAC Small Contributor Committee, IBEW PAC Educational Fund, and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Political Action Together Legislative & Educational Committee (MPO) i.e. multipurpose organization;
$10,217 from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 617 PAC;
$5,000 each from Corey Jackson for Assembly 2024, Faculty for our University’s Future, a committee sponsored by the California Faculty Association Small Contributor Committee, and Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Candidate PAC Small Contributor Committee;
$3,000 each from California SMART (Sheet Metal Air Rail Transportation) TD (Transportation Division) (formerly United Transportation Union) PAC, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 Legislative PAC and Bryan for Assembly 2024, and California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers PAC Small Contributor Committee;
$2,500 each from Ash Kalra for Assembly 2024, California Federation of Teachers COPE Small Contributor Committee, Cathryn Campbell of El Cerrito, a Berkeley Unified School District teacher, Electing Climate Champions Fund sponsored by California Environmental Voters, Lori Wilson for Assembly 2024, District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity PAC Small Contributor Committee, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas for Senate 2026, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 11 PAC Small Contributor Committee, and Republic Services LE03-AWIN Management Inc., United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Candidate PAC Small Contributor Committee,
$2,417 from Progressive Era PAC, which works “to elect governing majorities of leaders in California committed to building a progressive era for people of color;”
$2,000 from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local #6 Political Account Small Contributor Committee, political campaign consultant Melody Howe Weintraub of Lafayette, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 5 PAC, Marysville Central Labor Council PAC;
$1,500 each from DRIVE (International Brotherhood of Teamsters Democrat, Republican, Independent Voter Education) Committee, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 Legislative PAC, United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Candidate PAC Small Contributor Committee, and a variety of personal injury attorneys including: Altair Law, LLP in San Francisco, Baron & Budd, P.C. law firm of Dallas, TX, Gregory Bentley from Newport Beach of Bentley & More, LLP, Michael Bidart from Claremont, CA of Shernoff Bidart Echeverria Bentley, LLP, Elizabeth Cabraser from from Sebastopol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Brian Chase from Newport Beach of Bisnar, Chase Trial Lawyers, LLP, Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy, LLP of Burlingame, Dreyer, Babich, Buccola, Wood, & Campora, LLP of Sacramento, Don Ernst of the Ernst Law Group in San Luis Obispo, Greene Broillet & Wheeler, LLP of El Segundo, Knight Law Group of Los Angeles, Law Offices of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger of San Francisco, McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP of Los Angeles, Panish, Shea, Boyle, Ravipudi, LLP of Los Angeles, Rizio Lipinsky Law Firm of Santa Ana, Robinson Calcagnie, Inc. of Newport Beach, Singleton Schreiber, LLP of San Diego, Mickel Arias of Arias, Sanguinetti, Wang & Torrijos, LLP in Los Angeles, and Elizabeth A. Carazolez from San Diego, Director of Management of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield, LLP;
$1,000 each from former Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, Melony Wilson, Controller for advertising agency LIDA NY, LLP of New York, Terrance Wilson of Brentwood, National Union of Healthcare Workers Candidate Committee for Quality Patient Care and Union Democracy, Gipson for Assembly 2024, Black Elected Officials of the East Bay PAC, and Dallas Fowler of Los Angeles, a business development and political consultant;
$750 from Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton; and
$500 each from International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators, Allied Workers Local 16, AFL-CIO PAC, Teamsters Local Union No. 315 PAC, and UA Local No. 228 Building Corporation PAC Small Contributor Committee of Marysville.
Wilson also received $600 from former City of Antioch public information officer Rolando Bonilla, and contributions of $200 from Antioch resident Devin Williams and $100 each from Antioch residents Harry Thurston and Leslie May, all of whom the councilwoman recently voted to appoint to the City’s new Police Oversight Commission. Wilson also received $100 contributions from fellow Antioch Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, Antioch School Board Trustee Jaguanana Lathan and Brentwood Councilwoman Jovita Mendoza.
As of Feb. 17th, Wilson’s campaign had spent $267,491.18, with no outstanding debts and had $51,077.94 cash on hand.
Anamarie Avila Farias (Source: Avila Farias for Assembly) and her campaign finances for 2024 through Feb. 17th. Source: Cal-Access
Avila Farias Files Financial Forms, Funded by Faculty, Firefighters, Cops, Casino Indian Tribes & Healthcare Workers
The list of Assembly District 15 candidates on the Cal-Access website, as of Sunday, Feb. 3, 2024, incorrectly shows Avila Faria’s name not highlighted to access her campaign financial information and reports.
In spite of the fact that Avila Farias’ name is not highlighted on the State Assembly candidates page of the Cal-Access website, making it appear that her campaign failed to file the required financial forms, a search of her name on that website reveals she has.
Avila Farias’ campaign raised $48,195.23 last year, $50,598 as of Feb. 17th and an additional $9,500 since then, for a total of $108,293.23 with just $43 of in-kind contributions. Her largest contributions were:
$12,900 from Peace Officers Research Association PORAC PAC
$10,900 from California Teachers Association For Better Citizenship;
$5,500 each from Western Manufactured Housing Committee PAC, California Professional Firefighters PAC, PACE of CA School Employees Association, California Latino PAC and Pechanga Band of Indians, owners of a Southern California casino, and Housing Contractors of CA PAC;
$5,000 from redistricting lawyers Shenkman & Hughes PC of Malibu, CA;
$4,000 from International Association of Fire Fights Local 1230 PAC;
$2,500 each from California Federation of Teachers COPE, Cal Fire Local 2881 SCC, Morongo Band of Mission Indians owners of another Southern California casino, and Bianca Rubio for Assembly 2024;
$2,000 each from California Financial Services Association PAC, Construction Employers’ Association PAC and California Nations Indian Gaming Assoc.
$1,500 from Eli Lily and Company PAC;
$1,324.23 from Yazmin Llamas-Morales from Martinez of Allied Mortgage Group Finance;
$1,000 each from National Union of Healthcare Workers, Manuel G. Avila & Domitila Avila Trust of Martinez, Blanca Pacheco for Assembly 2024, James Cervantes of Lafayette, Assemblymember David Alvarez of San Diego, and real estate developer William Schrader, Jr. of Alamo, owner of The Austin GroupLLC.
Her Form 460 report ending Feb. 17th shows Avila Farias spent $77,848.32 this year for a total of $104,542.71 during the campaign, had $41,215.02 in accrued expenses and an ending cash balance of $49,051.87.
Karen Mitchoff (Source: Mitchoff for Assembly) and her campaign finances for 2024 as of Feb. 17, 2024. Source: Cal-Access.
Mitchoff Backed by Big Oil, Business, Beer & Builders
Mitchoff raised $68,769 in 2023 and as of Feb. 17 has raised $23,399 this year for a total of $92,168 of which $3,063 were non-monetary contributions. Her largest contributions were:
$5,500 each from Chevron Policy Government & Public Affairs, Phillips 66, PBF Holding Company LLC (Betsy Brien) of Parsippany, New Jersey, which owns the Martinez Refinery, Western States Petroleum Association California PAC, Walmart, Inc., Yasef Pinson of Yasef Pinson Real Estate in Los Angeles, and Devora Pinson, Executive Office Manager of Boardwalk West Financial Services, also in Los Angeles;
$5,000 each from California Family Beer Distributors Association PAC, Marathon Petroleum Corporation and its Subsidiaries/Affiliates, Build Jobs PAC, Sponsored by the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery (MDRR) PAC and MDRR’s owner, Sil Garaventa;
$4,000 from American Property Casualty Insurance Association California PAC;
$3,000 from the California Building Industry Association PAC;
$2,500 from Concerned Americans for Responsible Government, Sponsored by the California Trucking Association (CARGO PAC);
$1,500 each from California Permanente Medical Groups PAC and Walnut Creek-based retail developer Brian Hirarara;
$1,000 each from former Antioch Mayor Donald Freitas, Joseph Garaventa, Sil’s brother, John McPeak, former County Supervisor Sunne McPeak’s husband, and Sheila Stokley, Property Manager of Stokley Properties in Pleasant Hill and Zell & Associates of Point Richmond.
Mitchoff’s campaign also received in-kind contributions of $1,800 from Brandon C. Bjerke, a Legislative Analyst for the California State Assembly, for website design and maintenance, as well as $1,164 from lawyer Patricia Curtin of Lafayette for fundraiser event costs.
As of Feb. 17th, Mitchoff’s campaign committee had spent $50,205.74 this year for a total of $75,757.72 during the campaign, had no outstanding debts and an ending cash balance of $17,185.74.
Sonia Ledo (Source: Ledo for Assembly) and her campaign finances for 2024 through Feb. 17, 2024. Source: Cal-Access
Ledo Lends Herself, Raises Least
Ledo’s campaign finance reports show she has raised $1,655.88 in 2023 and $5,664 in 2024 as of Feb. 17 for a total of $7,319.88 of which $99 was non-monetary contributions.
Besides herself, Ledo’s largest contribution was from the BART Police Officers Association for $2,000. As of Feb. 17th, her campaign had outstanding debts of $7,315.26 most of which is owed to herself for the filing fee for her candidate’s statement and the balance is owed to a Christos Moulis of Concord for Ledo’s filing fee. Her campaign had spent a total of $16,260.33 and an ending cash balance of $5,898.19.
The top two candidates in the primary election will face off in the November general election to replace outgoing Assemblyman Tim Grayson who is running for the 9th State Senate District instead.
The Leadership for California: East Bay Committee financial disclosure reports show expenditures for three mailers against Monica Wilson in the Assembly District 15 race and two mailers supporting Tim Grayson in the State Senate District 9 race. Source: Cal-Access
Same PAC supporting Grayson in Senate District 9 race
By Allen D. Payton
So far, a political action committee named “Leadership for California: East Bay Committee, Sponsored by Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy” has spent $214,162 to oppose Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson in her campaign for the State Assembly District 15 seat.
To date the PAC has paid for six mailers against Wilson between Feb. 7th to 15th, ranging in cost from $35,242 to $77,492. According to the PAC’s Form 460 financial disclosure report from Jan. 1 thru Feb. 17, 2024, there are two mailers that had yet to be mailed. Most likely they have been by now.
The Leadership for California East Bay Committe Form 460 report dated Feb. 17, 2024, shows expenditures for polling, research and a mailer against Wilson. Source: Cal-Access
$260,000 from Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy ID# 1275549
$49,000 from American Beverage Association California PAC
$10,000 from Keeping Californians Working, a Coalition of Insurance Agents, Technology, Energy, and Health Care Providers
$14,392.50 as an in-kind non-monetary contribution by Brighter Future for All ID# 1463665 for polling and research.
The Leadership for CA East Bay Committe Form 496 report dated Feb. 22, 2024, shows expenditures for another mailer against Wilson. Source: Cal-Access
Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy Supported By Medical, Business Interests
According to Cal-Access, contributors to The Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy PAC include the California Medical Association PAC, Target, Dart Container, Cooperative of American Physicians State PAC, Californians Allied for Patient Protection PAC, California Cable Telecommunications Association, Davita, Lyft, Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) PAC, Fresenius Medical Care, In-N-Out Burgers, California Real Estate PAC, Chevron, PG&E, Walmart, Chime Financial, Inc., Anheuser-Busch Companies, McDonald’s Corporation and California Bankers Association State PAC.
The Leadership for CA East Bay Committe Form 496 report dated Feb. 28, 2024, shows expenditures for a third mailer. Source: Cal-Access
Same East Bay PAC is Supporting Grayson for Senate
The same Leadership for California: East Bay Committee PAC also spent $72,350 on two mailers supporting Assemblyman Tim Grayson, for whose seat Wilson is seaking, in his campaign for State Senate District 9.
Wilson is facing three opponents in the race for Assembly District 15, including two fellow Democrats, County Board of Education Trustee Anamarie Avila Farias and former County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, and one Republican, Realtor Sonia Ledo. The election is next Tuesday, March 5th and the top two vote-getters will face off in the November general election.
The Opportunity PAC’s financial disclosure reports show expenditures for three of the four “hit piece” mailers against Karen Mitchoff in the Assembly District 15 race. Source: Cal-Access
By Allen D. Payton
One of four mailers opposing Mitchoff paid for by Opportunity PAC with funds form by unions.
Some of the same unions backing Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson in the Assembly District 15 race on the March primary ballot have spent almost $253,000 attacking one of her three opponents, former Contra Costa County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff.
At least four mailers have been sent to Democrat voters in the district criticizing Mitchoff’s pay raise she voted for while on the board, and her votes against pay raises for county employees.
Two of the mailers obtained by the Herald show they were paid for by “Opportunity PAC – A coalition of teachers, health care givers, faculty members, school employees, and public and private employee organizations.” The political action committee’s Top Funders for the mailers are listed as SEIU (Service Employees International Union) California State Council, California Faculty Association (of the UC and CSU systems) and California School Employee Association.
Another of four mailers opposing Mitchoff paid for by Opportunity PAC with a similar message about her vote for a pay raise for the Board of Supervisors.
When asked about the mailers Mitchoff said they’re all pretty much about the same issue. “The same group with the same message. My decision on the pay raise was made over 10 years ago because I wanted to make sure the county supervisors were paid enough to make it a full-time position.” She also pointed out that she did vote for pay raises for county employees, “in 2022, giving them 5% a year for four years, for a total increase of 20%.”
The interesting part is that some of the state teachers’ unions including college and university faculty and staff are helping pay for the mailers, even though as a member of the Board of Supervisors, Mitchoff had no say about education funding.
According to Cal-Access, the California Secretary of State’s campaign finance reporting website, so far, the PAC has made three expenditures of $46,446.03 each for three mailers opposing Mitchoff, two on Feb. 1 and one on Feb. 13, 2024. The cost for a fourth mailer that appear under the PAC’s Accrued Expenses show an additional $46,446.03. That totals $185,784.12. In addition, the PAC spent $37,000.00 on polling and consulting and $30,126.43 on research in their effort against Mitchoff.
Other Opportunity PAC Expenditures opposing Mitchoff were for polling, consulting and research. Source: Cal-Access
Contributions to PAC Total Over $2.5 Million
The PAC is supporting and opposing a variety of candidates throughout the state. Their most recent Form 460 financial disclosure report dated Feb. 17, 2024, shows they have raised $1.715 million this year and their report ending Dec. 31, 2023, shows $803,500 was raised last year for a total of $2,518,500. They had cash on hand of over $1.1 million as of Feb. 17th.
Contributions include the following amounts and sources:
$750,000 from the California Teachers Association Independent Expenditure Committee;
$534,500 from SEIU California State Council for Working People;
$225,000 from PACE (Political Action for Classified Employees) of California School Employees Association;
$190,000 from Smart Justice California Action Fund;
$150,000 from United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Independent Expenditure PAC;
$150,000 from California Federation of Teachers COPE (Committee on Political Education);
$150,000 from Service Employees International Union Local 1000, Keeping California Healthy, Safe and Strong;
$100,000 from Service Employees International Union Local 721 CTW, CLC Workers’ Strength Committee;
$75,000 from SEIU United Healthcare Workers West PAC;
$59,500 from Faculty for Our University’s Future, a committee sponsored by California Faculty Association;
$59,500 from Standing Committee on Political Education of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO;
$50,000 from the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay Bisexual & Transgender) Caucus Leadership Fund; and
$25,000 from SEIU California State Council (nonprofit 501 (c)(5))
Opportunity PAC Accrued Expenses as of their Feb. 17, 2024 report includes $46,446.03 for a fourth mailer opposing Mitchoff. Source: Cal-Access
Wilson’s Backers Funding Mitchoff Opposition Effort
Wilson’s campaign has been the beneficiary of support from many of those same unions. On her campaign website, Wilson shows endorsements by the California Faculty Association, SEIU California, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) and United Food & Commercial Workers Local 5, as well as unions that are members of the AFL-CIO.
Wilson and Mitchoff also face two others in the race, including County School Board Trustee Anamarie Avila Farias and Realtor Sonia Ledo in the March 5th primary election next Tuesday. The top two will face off in the November election.
EBCSS members with rally signs. Source: AEA Facebook page
Members currently voting on interest to authorize a strike; district says union’s budget figures incorrect
The two sides differ on amount available for pay & benefit increases by almost $18 million
“You can only get burned so many times before you stop believing them.” – AEA President Bob Carson
By Allen D. Payton
The Antioch Education Association (AEA) is planning to hold a “Rally for Student Success” on Wednesday, Feb. 21 as part of a larger effort of the East Bay Coalition for Student Success (EBCSS). In addition, the local teachers’ union members are voting on interest to authorize a strike.
In a Dec. 18, 2023 post on the Antioch Education Association’s (AEA) Facebook page they wrote, “District revenues have skyrocketed over the last few years but the % of those monies spent on educator’s salaries continues to decline??? How can we attract and retain the best educators for the students of Antioch when this is happening?”
Dec. 18, 2023 post on the AEA Facebook page. Source: AEA
Another post on Friday, Feb. 9, 2024 reads, “Antioch Unified School District Why???” and claims, “AUSD ended the year with $88M in unspent funds. After taking out restricted money and reserves…AUSD STILL has $34.4 million sitting in the bank that can be used for staff salaries and benefits.”
Source: AEA Facebook page
In another Facebook post that day, the AEA posted a flier about the rally which included what they’re seeking. The flier reads, “Join us as we raise our voices in support of/for: quality educators in every classroom, smaller class sizes and caseloads, salary increase reflective of the 8.22% COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment), fully paid medical benefits for all members and safe schools for our students and members.”
According to a June 2023 article on their website, the EBCSS was formed in September 2022, and “is committed to ensuring local school districts continue to prioritize funds to provide the best for student learning and educator retention and attraction. Locals and district management teams in the coalition have been working hard at the bargaining table to win agreements that focus resources on students and educators.”
Emails were sent to both Bob Carson, President of the AEA and a member of the EBCSS, and Antioch Unified School District Superintendent Stephanie Anello asking for more details about a possible strike.
Source: AEA
Antioch Teachers’ Union President Offers Details
Carson responded, “No EBCSS association has authorized a strike. What many have done is have preliminary strike authorization votes. Antioch is doing one right now, as is Pittsburg. Other chapters like Piedmont, Pleasanton, Moraga and Dublin have already concluded their strike authorization votes. These are not votes on whether educators are going on strike but whether they will be supporting their negotiating teams until the end and be willing to participate in actions called on by the Association. A final strike vote could only occur after all the steps in the negotiating process have failed. In Antioch and these other locations, we are not there yet.
The goal of the EBCSS and its members is that each student find success. There are many ways to help make that happen. Smaller class sizes so students get more individual attention, the best technology, and safe schools are just some of things the EBCSS advocates for. We believe the most important need in a student finding success in school is to have a quality educator in every classroom. Paying competitive salaries, having full paid medical benefits (at the Kaiser rate), and good working conditions is how you get quality educators.
To be specific to what is happening in Antioch, the AUSD negotiating team presented AEA with their “best and final” offer in a December negotiating session. Since we found that offer lacking in many areas, we rejected it. We were then at “impasse”. We now have a state appointed mediator who is trying to find a way to get the 2 sides to reach an agreement. We have met 3 times with that mediator and have another meeting scheduled for 2/22. No specific offers being presented are allowed to be publicly discussed during mediation. I can tell you we have had no success to date. If the mediator at some point feels there is no hope in facilitating an agreement, either side can then move the negotiations to “fact-finding” where an appointed arbitrator receives information from both teams and writes a statement on their findings. After fact-finding, the 2 sides are required to meet for at least one more negotiating session where the district could again present their best and final offer. At that point, a strike vote could be called.
AEA is hopeful that an agreement can be reached but will not accept an offer that is not reflective of the 8.22% COLA increase the district received this year. Class size, caseloads for counselors and speech pathologists, medical benefits, and salary are the main issues right now. As you saw on our FB page, we are planning a rally on 2/21, in conjunction with other EBCSS associations. We want to bring attention to the issues. One serious problem for us is the tremendous ending balances AUSD is carrying over every year. This is money provided by the state of California to be used on our students. Instead, its sits in the bank – year after year. This year AUSD had an ending balance of $34,000 million dollars in unrestricted funds (money that can be spent on anything) not used. They had close to another $40 million in restricted funds also not spent. This is after accounting for the prudent reserve required of them to have by the state. To me – and AEA members – that is crazy. That money could be used in many ways to help the students of Antioch and to help AUSD find quality educators.”
From presentation to Antioch School Board at their Dec. 13, 2023, meeting. Source: AUSD
District Says Teachers’ Union Using Old, Incorrect Information
In response to the request for more details from Superintendent Anello and the claims by the AED, the school district’s Associate Superintendent for Business and Operations, Liz Robbins shared the following: “Their information is from the unaudited actuals report which shows how the District ended the 2022-2023 school year.
Our first interim budget report which was presented to the Board in December, provides the most current financial information.
$46.2 million is restricted monies; $22.5 million is unrestricted. Of the $22.5 million, $18 million is allocated for potential salary and benefit increases. $4.5 million is allocated for school improvements and upgrades including HVAC, security, and technology. Lastly, $9.4 million of the ending fund balance is the set-aside required by the State for economic uncertainty. This leaves approximately $500k of unassigned funds in the ending fund balance.
The budget is not a static document, and an updated second interim financial report will be presented to the Board on March 13.”
$17.9 Million Difference Between District Budget & Teachers’ Union Figure
According to the 2023-24 First Interim MYP (Multi Year Plan) – Components of Fund Balance chart on page 80 of the 2023-24 First Interim Budget Presentation, provided to the school board at their meeting on Dec. 13, 2023, it shows $15,961,836 “Assigned for Potential Employee Negotiated Settlement”. That plus the $521,041 in Unassigned/Unappropriated funds results in about $16.5 million available for salary and benefit increases, which is $17.9 million less than what the teachers’ union claims is available.
Source: AEA
AEA President Disagrees Says District Using Projected Estimates
That information was provided to Carson who was asked if he had a final response on the matter, for now. He provided the chart (above) and replied, “In September of each year the district presents to the school board their ‘unaudited actuals’. This financial report reflects the district’s final year end closing from the previous June (end of the financial year). The numbers I gave you are from that. Those numbers are what the district had left over from the previous year. Money not spent. That’s a fact – straight from their reporting.”
“The December (which Liz references) and March interim reports are estimates based on what the district says they are going to do. The September report is what they did,” Carson continued. “What they really spent. For example, last year the district said they would have $7 million in unrestricted funds left over in their December interim report but in September they had $34 million!!!!! Their estimate was way off. I will bet you a soda it will be way off again come September 2024. On top of all that, the district received an 8.22% COLA increase!!!”
“If this was a one-year bad projection, we would understand. It happens every year and it’s just getting worse. I will attach the ending balances over the past few years. You can only get burned so many times before you stop believing them. It’s frustrating. We want the students of Antioch to have quality educators in every classroom. Our proposals are fair attempts at making that happen. We are by no means trying to break the bank – not even close,” Carson concluded.
