Incredibly, SB633 was passed unanimously by the California State Senate on January 24, with our State Senator Fran Pavley voting in support of the bill. However, it died recently in the State Assembly, after extreme pressure from lobbyists for various environmental groups, with Assembly candidate Betsy Butler voting to kill it.
SB 633 would have given the California Department of Finance (DOF) the authority to issue a corrective action plan regarding the allocation of state bond funds, such as the Prop 50 bond funds used to finance the destruction of the Malibu Lagoon, if it determines that the bond funds have been misspent by a state agency or entity. The bill also would have authorized the DOF to issue a "cease and desist'" order on the allocation of bond funds until the corrective action plan has been implemented.
During the hearings on SB633, Prop 50 bond money was specifically called out as a prime example of the abuses which necessitated giving the DOF more teeth to deal with such abuses. At present, the DOF can merely offer suggestions to the offending state agency or entity, but the agency or entity can respond by saying in effect: "Thank you very much for your input; we will try to do better," or "We disagree with your comments and plan to ignore them."
The DOF has specifically found the the agencies spending the Prop 50 money used to finance the Lagoon "restoration" work had the following deficiencies:
- There were "no written policies and procedures for administrative and project management processes."
- "The contract with the chief project consultant could not be located."
- "Unsigned contracts may not be valid and legally enforceable. Without an executed contract there is no assurance work is performed within cost and in accordance with the understanding between the contracting parties."
- "A contract [was] paid for communication charges not included in the consultant contract."
- "The [Resource Conservation] District [of the Santa Monica Mountains] could not provide the basis for the 10 percent administrative overhead charged under the grant agreement…the grantee should be able to substantiate the rate as reasonable…the district may be overcharging administrative overhead."
- A March, 2010 DOF audit noted that although project documentation for the initial $300,000 in funding for the Lagoon project was adequate, "the project manager was unable to provide adequate documentation for the project's eight amendments that modified the scope of the project and increased total funding from $300,000 to $925,000", since "they included only lump sum amounts with little to no justification for the 208 percent funding increase."
- Also, "the project manager was not in charge during the amendment approvals."
At a time when the State of California is seriously in debt, the waste and mismanagement regarding the Lagoon "restoration" project is especially unwelcome, and there are many other horror stories regarding the use of the various Prop 50 and other bond moneys being spent on environmental projects around the state.
The Prop 50 bond funds totaled $3.44 billion after it was passed in 2002. This huge pot of money is not part of the general fund that is used to pay the regular annual expenses of the State of California, but can only be used for the specific uses set forth in the initiatives that resulted in the creation of the bonds.
That has allowed a number of public and quasi-public environmental groups in California to set up a lobbying network to get access to these funds by creating environmental projects that fit the profile of projects deemed worthy of the bond money in the pot. owever, a number of these organizations have not set up adequate infrastructure to manage the project money they receive, and this has led to waste and mismanagement.
SB633 was introduced in the State Senate and was passed unanimously there to deal with this waste and mismanagement in a meaningful way. When it was referred to the Assembly Committee on which Betsy Butler sits, the lobbyists sprang into action and killed it, with Butler voting to kill it. You would think that someone who seeks to represent Malibu in the Assembly in the future would be interested in helping to cure the waste and mismanagement which has become evident in the way the funds used to implement the Malibu Lagoon "restoration" project have been spent to date. However, apparently Betsy is more interested in representing Sacramento in Malibu than representing Malibu in Sacramento.
Ted Vaill
We all recall your assurance that your mighty political sway as Democratic committee member would convince the governor to kill the lagoon muck removal project. Then, there was your brilliant assessment that the project stoodj a 50-50 chance of being rejected by the courts. Wrong again. Twice. Now, your backdoor attempt to get your way in Sacto has blown up again. Man, you are the touch of death on every political thing you touch. At least a dead clock is right once in a while.
SB 633 passed the State Senate with no opposition listed. However, groups such as The Nature Conservancy and Audubon California, voiced their legitimate concern for this legislation late in the process. Supported by the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Tax Payers Association, SB 633 was a flawed bill that attempted to concentrate all bond oversight authority into the Department of Finance (DOF), allowing it to make sweeping unilateral decisions, while doing away with institutional checks and balances and taking away the Legislature’s appropriations authority. Had SB 633 gone forward, the DOF could force agencies to cease all bond allocation and levy fines against those agencies that misuse bond funds in addition to any and all corrective measures it deemed necessary. Once a penalty was assessed, how would the agency pay the fine? The State Budget Act annually allocates funds for an agency’s general operations, but a fine would likely be considered an unanticipated cost. In the end, SB 633 was granted reconsideration and remains a work in progress. In its current form, the bill raised too many questions, concentrated too much authority into one department and served to eliminate the checks and balances already in place.
Even the Governor's office could not extract a complete budget from its numerous agencies benefitting from the bond money related to the lagoon. He could only show former Cohncilmenber Conley Ulich a portion of the funds allocated. Only Matk Abramson knows the complete budget details, and he works for a semi govt agency, so he apparently does not have to share this info. Please reconsider and get this measure passed, Betsy! It's your opponent's agency that has helped fill up the cookie jar of bond money - without being willing to share the full details. If not you, who? If not now, when? Carpe diem!
When people talk too long to justify their position, there's a reason: They're not with you, they're against you. If their words seem tortuous, it's because they do not want you to understand. So much for BButler. Anyway, during her remarks at the Democratic Club meeting you could see she just doesn't get what it's like to smell wild sage in the evening or get excited over stunning rare birds, or dolphins, or wildcats or weasels. Too bad. I wanted to like her and I haven't closed the door. And If she comes back and shows she's pro-Malibu, she still might have a chance. But I haven't seen it and doubt I will. Right now, BetsyB is not on the right side of that line in the sand. Not for saving the heart of Malibu. She wanted to bulldoze the lagoon just like she bulldozed this bill. Maybe she needs a new name. Butlers are rather passé, anyway. Let's call her Betsy Bulldozer instead.
NO ONE - except maybe Mark Abramson, who is not officially a state employee even though he introduces himself as such, seems to be able to re-count the total budget for the Malibu Lagoon "restoration & enhancement" project - the public would like to know the entire budget starting with the FIRST $250K the state coastal conservancy gave in 2002 to Heal the Bay to devise the plans.
NO ONE - except maybe Mark Abramson, who is not officially a state employee even though he introduces himself as such, seems to be able to re-count the total budget for the Malibu Lagoon "restoration & enhancement" project - the public would like to know the entire budget starting with the FIRST $250K the state coastal conservancy gave in 2002 to Heal the Bay to devise the plans. And because Mark is not a public employee, he doesn't have to tell anyone. Checks & balances - please!