u/moralprolapse

The CASE Updates hype up AB 1729, which is a good approach, but it is not enough. Even if it passes, it will almost certainly be vetoed, and the legislature almost certainly won’t override a veto for the first time since 1980.

The fact that none of the blasts any of the unions are putting out talk at all about what to do in the overwhelmingly likely case the bill either dies or gets vetoed suggests to me that it is more about the optics of looking like the unions are doing something as opposed to actually getting something done.

Please attack this via PERB and the LAO as well. I am really hoping that a couple of months from now, the CASE board won’t be pointing at 1729 and saying, “see; we did everything we could.”

Please keep us updated on the fight, and thank you for the work you do.

One of the more frustrating aspects of RTO is the disingenuousness of it. CalHR and DGS were unable to provide any numbers on fiscal impact last year when they were being hammered in the hearings. They refuse to treat fiscal impact as a real concern, because, frankly, they can’t. If they put real, honest $ figures on it, it will sink it as a winning political issue for the governor with the public.

I’m wondering about another vector of attack. Is there a way to lobby LAO to insist they need real numbers for the cost of implementation of this major policy change before they can, in turn, provide advice to the legislature on budget proposals for the new fiscal year?

I’m certain the last several years of budgets didn’t ignore the savings from telework when they were trying desperately to balance the budget. So current budget models contemplate the new reduced cost as the baseline. RTO is a NEW, and unquestionably expensive cost.

This isn’t a bill, but for anyone here who has worked on bill analyses for their departments, imagine refusing to provide a fiscal impact section… on a bill that would undoubtedly cost 10s of millions to implement… and just expecting to get sign offs up the chain. It wouldn’t happen. Why is this different?

I thought I went all out. I bought the most recent edition of the California Master Gardener Handbook and read up on cold hardy varieties for my climate zone. I built loamy mounds, leaning into sandy loam, because of my shallow soil, mulched them well, painted the trucks with diluted latex paint because the summers get hot here as well.

And I bought one each of what the Handbook (which is talked about like the Bible for gardening in CA) said were type A and B most ideal for my area.

I planted them both immediately after last frost. They are both now putting out lots of new growth and appear to be doing great!

I got a GEM and a Stewart. The one thing I didn’t do was Google the varieties to cross check what ‘the Bible’ said their types were. Now Google is telling me my GEM is an A, not a B like the Handbook says 🤨. Stewart is also an A.

No one else in my neighborhood has avocado trees 😫.

I occasionally watch YouTube videos of judges dealing with these pro pers, and the responses range from smirking and chuckling at it, to getting angry and yelling at each individual point raised.

I keep waiting for a judge to say something like, “Mr. x, having been doing this for a long time, and in an effort to save us all some time… it sounds like you have bought into what is popularly know as “sovereign citizenship.” I am letting you know it is all nonsense and none of it is going to work for you. I definitely have jurisdiction over you, this is not an admiralty court, you are not a corporation. You are you. The UCC has nothing to do with what we are doing here, and there are no magic words you can say that are going to cause someone to come arrest me or otherwise delay these proceedings. You would do well to take the real, actual law and procedure of these proceedings seriously, because I can assure you I do. So that being said, how do you wish to proceed?”

Why do they never cut to the chase like that?

Edit: To all the people appropriately raising due process concerns, fair enough. But I didn’t ask why the judge wouldn’t refuse to hear those arguments. I asked why he doesn’t tell them up front that they are specious. Add to my hypothetical diatribe, “…that being said, you have a right to make any argument you wish…”