LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA ▪ 1107 9th Street, Suite 300 ▪ Sacramento, CA 95814

916-442-7215/Fax 916-442-7362/Toll-free 888-870-VOTE ▪ E-mail: lwvc@lwvc.org ▪ Web site: www.lwvc.org

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS® OF CALIFORNIA

Legislative Interview Kit

Legislative Interviews 2014-2015

Every year, the LWVC encourages local League members to interview their state legislators. This is an opportunity for legislators to share their priorities with League members and to learn about League positions and priorities. Local League members can learn more about how some state legislative actions are going to affect their communities. The LWVC, in turn, learns more about the legislators and more about local Leagues and their legislative interests, and gains information useful in planning statewide activities.

Legislative interviews are particularly important because League visibility will be increased and the members of the legislature will be more aware of our interest in the legislation they will be considering.

Use this interview to become better acquainted with your legislator and to emphasize to him or her that the League is always nonpartisan but that it is also political and takes positions on issues after thorough study and consensus.

If you have any questions about which legislators represent your League, or which other Leagues are in the same districts, please refer to Section L of the LWVC Resource Directory: archive.lwvc.org/lwvonly/resourcedirectory.html. Please let us know if you find any problems with this cross-referenced list of districts and local Leagues, or if you need the password to open the Resource Directory.

General Guidelines

If you have not participated in Legislative Interviews recently, you may notice a few changes.

The questions leave a time for you to ask about an issue or issues of local interest.

In the past, local Leagues were assigned to individual legislators, and, when there are multiple Leagues in a district, one League was designated to take the lead in coordinating among the local Leagues. Leagues are now being asked to coordinate among themselves. If you each wish to schedule separate interviews, perhaps because you have different issues to discuss with a particular legislator, feel free to do so. NOTE that if you choose to schedule a separate interview, you should keep any other Leagues in the district informed of your plans.

In the past, we have stressed the importance of speaking personally with the legislator. While it is important to try to get an appointment with the legislator, it can also be extremely difficult for some Leagues, and at the same time, there can be great value for a local League in establishing a good working relationship with the local office staff of a legislator. Use your own judgment, and use the legislative interview time to cultivate that relationship. Time with your elected legislator is

Legislative Interview Reports Are Due March 2, 2015.

2

still the first choice. If you do not get through all the questions you may want to ask if you can meet with staff, either as a continuation of this meeting or at a later time.

Should We Send the Questions Beforehand?

We are often asked whether we should send out our actual legislative interview questions to the legislators in advance. While we don’t want to be seen as playing “gotcha,” we believe there’s a clear benefit when we hear directly from the legislator regarding their understanding of an issue in a somewhat impromptu way. We think the purposes of an in-person interview are to look the legislator in the eye, hear their tone of voice, and get a sense of their interest in an issue. In addition, this gives the legislator an opportunity to interact with our local League members and develop or further an ongoing relationship with them. A pre-prepared statement of positions that could simply be mailed to us does not accomplish these goals.

Our recommendation is to not share the actual interview questions themselves with your legislator in advance. Please do feel free to share the issue areas (Money in Politics (Campaign Disclosure), Education, Water) with your legislator in advance so that they may comfortably prepare for your questions. Tell them that the specific questions that will be asked that day by your interview committee will come from those issue areas.

The Legislative Interview Team

League members should take the time to prepare themselves for the interview with their legislator. The interview project is a short-term project that should include preparation, the interview and wrap- up. If the interview team includes new League members, or League members new to the interview process, the preparation should include some face-to-face time, if at all possible. Steps in the project:

Planning/assignment of roles and responsibilities

Briefing to review roles at the interview, and the questions and topics to be covered

THE INTERVIEW

Post-interview wrap-up: review of the reports to be sent to the LWVC and presented to your membership. This should happen as soon as possible after the interview.

State legislative districts often encompass more than one local League. You may want to arrange to meet along with one or more of the other local Leagues in your legislative district. However, recognizing that Leagues within a given legislative district may have very different issues their members are interested in, it is no longer required that local Leagues try to arrange a single meeting within each legislative district.

If you would like to arrange to meet with your legislator in the company of another League or Leagues in your legislative district, the LWVC Resource Directory 2014-2015: archive.lwvc.org/lwvonly/resourcedirectory.html lists all of the local Leagues in each district in Section L. Please let us know if you find any problems with this cross-referenced list of districts and local Leagues, or if you need the password to open the Resource Directory.

No matter how you arrange to interview your legislator, be sure to keep other Leagues in the district informed of your plans.

3

Assembling an Interview Team

Teams of three to five members are ideal. Coordinators should try to include:

at least one person with a long-term League background

a member with a history of working with the legislator

members well-versed in the program items covered by the questions

a new member on the interview team if accompanied by experienced League members.

Suggested roles and responsibilities:

Team Leader

Make the appointment; contact the legislator's local district office. Be persistent. Ask for an hour's time, but accept less if necessary. If possible, arrange to meet in an office or a home free of distractions. If you cannot get a meeting with the legislator, ask to meet with the district director. They are often extremely well versed about everything going on in a district and in the legislature. Your visit will still be noted and remembered

Send a letter or email message confirming the appointment, mentioning the topics you will discuss. (Do not send a copy of the “Background” or the “Legislative Interview Report Form” sections of this kit.)

Brief the members of the team on interview etiquette, the role each member will take in the interview and their responsibilities as an interview team member.

Lead off the introductions at the start of the interview and invite League members to introduce themselves.

Pace the interview (watch the clock) and tactfully keep everyone (including the legislator) on the subject. You will know in advance how much time the legislator has agreed to spend with you, and allot an appropriate amount of time to each question.

Write a follow-up thank you after the interview. A thank you note gives you an opportunity to underscore points made at the interview, answer any questions you were not sure about, or send a League publication you may have referred to during the course of the interview.

Interview Etiquette

Be prepared. Study the background materials and the substance of the topics covered in the interview questions.

Follow your assigned role on the interview team.

Opinions expressed should be only those of the League, not of individuals.

Do not overstay your welcome.

Secure the legislator’s permission and specific conditions under which you may print

any part of the interview in a VOTER or other newsletter.

4

Researcher

Brief the other members of the interview team on the legislator's relationship with the League and his/her voting record. What are his/her committee assignments and/or leadership positions in the legislature?

Is the legislator a member of the your League or another League in the district?

Check the LWVC Bill Status Report: ca.lwv.org/lwvc/action/bsr/bsr.html for information about bill(s) your legislator authored. You may want to take a moment to express the League's appreciation or disappointment about a particular bill and briefly state the League’s position.

The information you develop should become part of an ongoing file about each legislator.

Background Briefer

Brief team members on League positions and history on the interview question topics.

Lead a discussion with team members about the background information on question topics and the substance of the interview questions.

If your legislator is new or does not know the League well, plan to spend some time talking about the mission of the League and briefly explaining the difference between the League's advocacy and education roles. Explain how we take positions on issues.

Recorder

Have the interview questions in front of you.

Make note of bills or policy objectives mentioned by the legislator.

Make note of requests for information or League materials from the legislator.

Write up the material from your notes promptly.

Conduct a debriefing with team members shortly after the interview.

Return the completed Legislative Interview Report Form to the LWVC office March 2, 2015. Responses received by this date will be the most useful for action on League priorities.

Bring with You to the Interview

Membership brochures from each local League represented. Ask the legislator and staff members present to join!

Appropriate League publications. In addition to the Action Policies and Positions 2011, with 2012 and 2013 Additions: archive.lwvc.org/lwvonly/docs/lwvc_positions.pdf and your League's business card, you might include local Facts for Voters or a similar publication.

Copies of local League newsletters.

Electronic Reporting

If you wish, you can fill out the Legislative Interview Report Form online here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9W7SQWN

5

E-mailed reports should be sent to advocacy@lwvc.org with a subject line of Legislative Interview Report 2014-2015. Please give the information requested on the report form at the end of this packet.

Questions?

If you have any questions about the interviews, please contact LWVC Vice President for Advocacy and Program Joanne Leavitt, jleavitt@lwvc.org, or LWVC Senior Director for Program/Advocate Trudy Schafer, tschafer@lwvc.org.

Basic Resources

District maps from the California Citizens Redistricting Commission: http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/maps-final-drafts.html

Legislators: www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/legislators/your_legislator.html Assembly Districts: www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/districts/assemblydistricts.html Senate Districts: www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/districts/senatedistricts.html Note: At the time of writing (December 2015), the Senate Districts page has not been updated to reflect the fact that the 2011 districts (drawn after the 2010 census) were used in all Senate races. An update is anticipated.

LWVC Resource Directory section on legislative representation: http://archive.lwvc.org/lwvonly/resourcedirectory.html (section L). Please let us know if you find any problems with this cross-referenced list of districts and local Leagues, or if you need the password to open the Resource Directory.

LWVC Legislative Bill Status Reports: http://ca.lwv.org/act-now/bill-status-report Bill Status Report for 2014: http://ctweb.capitoltrack.com/public/publish.aspx?session=13&id=efb5b39d-6b0e-4edf-a0af-c0f69e9c1e6f

Calif o rn ia Legislat ive An alyst ’s Of f ice: www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspx

6

Questions:

Note: The background material here is for League members only, and should not be sent to the legislators or their staff. If asked for questions or topics, please indicate that you want to talk about issues of importance to the League and to the legislator, and topics will include money in politics (campaign disclosure), education, and water.

QUESTION 1: Money in Politics (Campaign Disclosure) Cal-Access is the database and website for online reporting and disclosure of state campaign and lobbying financial activity. It is antiquated, inflexible, and desperately in need of an overhaul to make it robust and user-friendly for the public and the media as well as for those who are required to file disclosure reports. Would you support funding for the rebuilding of Cal-Access? Possibilities that have been mentioned include an item in the 2015-2016 state budget and a loan from the state’s General Fund that would be repaid over time from an existing fund dedicated to improvement of Cal-Access. Possible follow-up question: Would you support a requirement that Cal-Access be structured to allow expansion to include electronic filing of local disclosure reports? BACKGROUND – Question 1 –Money in Politics (Campaign Disclosure): The Political Reform Act was passed by California voters as an initiative in 1974. It created the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), required disclosure of the financial activities of candidates, officeholders, ballot measure committees, and lobbyists, and imposed certain limitations on campaign financing. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 legislative session, there was much talk about strengthening California’s campaign disclosure laws. After a secretive, last-minute $11 million donation to a 2012 initiative campaign was brought to light, the League strongly supported SB 27, a bill sponsored by the FPPC to prevent such “dark money” donations from being funneled through nonprofit corporations without the source of the funds being revealed. SB 27 was passed and signed in time for the November 2014 election campaigns. In addition, recent commissions and task forces have made recommendations for improving the transparency and effectiveness of campaign disclosure processes in the state. In 2013-14, the LWVC cosponsored two bills and supported others containing a number of those proposals. Fourteen years ago, California established the Cal-Access (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/) system for online disclosure of state campaign and lobbying information. Since then the system has fallen into disrepair and is unable to meet the demands of current disclosure best practices. In late 2011, the entire system crashed, taking more than a month to be restored and stabilized. Government watchdogs and the public were left unable to monitor the flow of money in California’s political system, while regulated parties were forced to seek other means of filing required disclosure reports. In 2013, the LWVC and California Common Cause sponsored a bill, SB 3, which would have begun the Cal-Access modernization process with a feasibility study of the technology requirements and costs of a new statewide electronic filing system. The goal is simpler filing, searching and access to data than

7

the present cumbersome system allows. However, Governor Brown objected to another provision in the bill and vetoed it. He directed the state technology agency to make recommendations, in consultation with the FPPC and the Secretary of State, for improving campaign disclosure, but recommendations have not been made public. In addition to procurement and other bureaucratic hurdles to be overcome, a major stumbling block to revamping the system has been the need for funds, estimated to be on the order of $10 million. Beginning in 2013, a special fund, the Political DATA (Disclosure, Accountability, Transparency, and Access) Fund, has received revenues from increased registration fees paid by lobbying entities and campaign committees, making some $300,000 to $400,000 available annually for the online disclosure system. Last May, the LWVC and other organizations urged the Governor and Legislature to include Cal-Access modernization in the state budget, financed by a loan to the General Fund from the Political DATA Fund, to be repaid over time. While that was not done, we continue to consider it an option worthy of consideration. The newly-elected Secretary of State has named action on Cal-Access a high priority. The LWVC is joining a “working group” called together by California Forward and the Sunlight Foundation to share information, perspectives, and practices in hopes of assisting in the development of an upgraded Cal-Access. Background for the follow-up question: The LWVC would also support steps taken toward including mandatory electronic filing of campaign donations and spending for candidates and campaign committees at the local level. This could include assistance for the smallest campaigns. Several cities and counties around the state are adopting electronic filing with the support of the city clerks and county supervisors. This makes opening data to the public much easier because all the data is then available electronically. References: LWVC Money in Politics for basic information on money in politics and League action on the issue: http://ca.lwv.org/issues/money-and-politics LWVUS Reforming Money in Politics: http://lwv.org/issues/reforming-money-politics Campaign Legal Center, Why Our Democracy Needs Disclosure: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1418%3Awhy-our-democracy-needs-disclosure&catid=71&Itemid=69

8

QUESTION 2: Education. This question is in two parts. QUESTION 2, Part 1 – Early Childhood Education Early Childhood Education (ECE) programs were greatly reduced during the economic downturn. Although significant funding was reinstated last session, it is still not at the previous level, and large numbers of children, with differing needs, go unserved. Among the options for increased funding of ECE programs are 1) universal access for all four year olds, 2) limiting funding to low-income children and those with special needs while expanding the reach to three-year-olds, 3) expanding and improving service for the very young (ages zero to three), or 4) the ideal, all of the above. What would be your preference? What first? What do you think has the best chance of being funded and signed? BACKGROUND – Question 2, Part 1 – Early Childhood Education: California has a strong commitment to early childhood education, including providing all four year olds with a free preschool experience in future years. All early childhood programs took a major reduction in 2008 and are still funded at much less than they were before the recession, currently $2.48 billion as compared to $3.5 billion in 2007. This, despite a growing number of children in poverty and in homes where English is not the primary language, leaves many children with no access to state-funded early education. $264 million in funding restored by the 2013-14 legislature only replaced about one-fourth of the cuts that were made. This did expand the capacity of the state preschool program to serve another 11,500 children of parents who make 70 percent or less of the area median income in full-day, full-year programs. However, it left many other state-funded preschool programs at half-day, which is difficult to utilize for a working parent, and 32,000 income-qualified children still totally unserved. Although research shows greater and more sustainable gains for those with two years of preschool, there is little funding to provide assistance for normally developing three year olds, those who do not meet Special Education definitions. Another major need is for services for infants and toddlers. This is more expensive, largely because of the higher staffing ratio required, one adult for every three babies. California does have a federal Early Start program for at-risk infants and toddlers. Last year’s budget provided an additional $8 million for this program and it recently received $4.4 million additional federal funding. But this program only reaches children already identified as being at some risk. There is no universal outreach to parents of newborns or young children, although it has been proven cost effective in identifying developmental delays at a very early age when remediation is both more effective and less expensive. At the time this is published in December, only one early education bill, AB 47, has been introduced so far. However, there may be many more before your interviews. Many of these will be discussed in the links below, and a check of the LWVC Bill Status Report (http://lwvc.org/act-now/bill-status-report) will let you know if we have taken a support position on any of them. Resources: Infant and toddler programs: Zero to Three is a primary advocacy organization for infants and toddlers. http://www.zerotothree.org/wo/assets/docs/quality-care-for-infants-and-toddlers-in-california.pdf

9

EdSource has a page devoted to early learning: The League of Women Voters of California was a founding member of EdSource. One of our members still sits on their board. http://edsource.org/topic/early-learning#.VIo1Q3uhhmM Early Edge, formerly Preschool California, has broadened their reach to also cover issues about infants and toddlers. This is an advocacy organization the LWVC works with: http://www.earlyedgecalifornia.org/our-issues/budget/ Children Now covers many issues including children’s health and K-12 education. This link takes you to their Early Learning pages: http://www.childrennow.org/index.php/movement/campaign_early_learning_and_development QUESTION 2, Part 2 – Cap on Reserves As part of the 2014-15 state budget, the legislature adopted a trailer bill, SB 858, one provision of which would place a cap on local school district reserves, including assigned and unassigned year-end balances, under certain conditions. That provision was linked to Proposition 2 in the November election, and with the passage of Prop 2, it is now in effect. In August, at the close of the legislative session, there was an attempt to repeal the cap language, but it failed. Would you support a bill to repeal the cap and restore the authority of local school districts, in alignment with the norm of local control, to ensure school districts can maintain healthy reserves to protect students and teachers from budget cuts during future economic downturns? Note to League members asking this question: What we are looking for with this question is whether the legislator:

a. Supports a bill to repeal the cap-related language b. Opposes repealing the cap-related language c. Is undecided d. Is not familiar with it

The answers to this question will directly assist the LWVC in crafting our approach to legislative advocacy on this issue, specifically how and where to direct our resources. Please note any comments your legislators may have. BACKGROUND – Question 2, Part 2 – Cap on Reserves: With the adoption of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013, California schools saw sweeping changes in how funds are distributed to our public schools for the first time in more than 30 years. Governor Brown championed the LCFF, introducing the principle of subsidiarity to our political and educational lexicon. (Subsidiarity: The concept that state government should perform only those tasks that cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.) The League has joined with a number of major education organizations, including the California School Boards Association (CSBA), California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO), Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), Children Now, and Ed Trust West to support the repeal of the “cap language” in SB 858, now Education Code Section 42127.01.

10

In the final days of 2014-15 budget negotiations last June, the provisions of Senate Bill 858, a budget trailer bill, were amended to limit the size of local school district reserve balances, under certain conditions, if Proposition 2 on the 2014 general election ballot were to pass. These provisions were heard and voted on in public the same day the entire budget package was approved. There were no policy hearings in either house and no hearings before any budget subcommittee – in other words, no opportunity to examine and debate real and potential impacts. In August an attempt was made to repeal the cap language with AB 146 (Olsen). However, that bill never had a hearing, although there was discussion and a failed vote on a procedural motion to refer it to a policy committee. Briefly, according to the Legislative Analyst, if Proposition 2 were to pass, “a new state law would go into effect that sets a maximum amount of reserves that school districts could keep at the local level.…For most school districts, the maximum amount of local reserves under this new law would be between 3 percent and 10 percent of their annual budget, depending on their size. This new law would apply only in a year after money is put into the state reserve for schools. . . . (The minimum school district reserve requirements that exist under today’s law would still apply. Therefore, district reserves would have to be between the minimum and the maximum in these years.)” Subsequent and more detailed analysis shows that the new education code provisions created by SB 858 go beyond the reserves for economic uncertainty and requires school districts to spend down their reserves AND year-end balances when the state makes any contribution to the Proposition 98 reserve. Districts would be allowed to seek waivers of the requirement from their county superintendent, but those waivers, if granted, would be for only two out of the next three years. References (note: within each item, you will find more links): EdSource: Cap on reserves http://edsource.org/search/cap+on+reserves/#.VIinGdYSszg Language of trailer bill with cap-related language underlined https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1197872-statebud-2014-15-reservescap-trailerbill061314.html CSBA: Background Q&A, Talking Points, and more regarding Proposition 2 and Reserves Cap http://www.csba.org/Advocacy/LegislativeAdvocacy/RepealReserveCapSB858AB146.aspx http://www.csba.org/Advocacy/LegislativeAdvocacy/~/media/CSBA/Files/Advocacy/LegislativeAdvocacy/201410BackgrounderQAforBOD.ashx http://www.csba.org/Advocacy/LegislativeAdvocacy/~/media/CSBA/Files/Advocacy/LegislativeAdvocacy/201409ReserveCap_TalkingPoints.ashx Article in cabinetreport.com https://www.cabinetreport.com/politics-education/csba-calls-reserve-limit-unworkable

11

Question 3: Water In recent months, voters approved the Proposition 1 water bond and the legislature passed significant groundwater legislation. Do you see these actions as having addressed the important water issues in your district? If not, what more should be done? What can the Legislature do to increase California’s resilience in the face of future water supply uncertainties? BACKGROUND – Question 3 – Water: Northern California watersheds feed the state’s two largest rivers, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin, which meet in a delta and estuary, the Bay-Delta Estuary, before flowing into San Pablo and San Francisco bays. Water for huge federal and state water projects moves through the area where the rivers converge and is transferred to users around the state; about two-thirds of Californians get some portion of their water for drinking, household uses, and landscaping through this system. About three million acres of farmland, much of that in the San Joaquin Valley, are served. Of this water that has been “developed” for economic purposes, about 20 percent goes for urban uses, including municipal and industrial uses, and about 80 percent goes for agriculture. Additional “undeveloped” water meets environmental needs, such as instream flows that support fisheries and other aquatic life. Legislation passed in 2009 called for providing a more reliable water supply for California while restoring the damaged Delta ecosystem and reducing statewide reliance on the Delta. In California, groundwater is considered to belong to the owner of the land above it, although groundwater is not distributed uniformly within a groundwater basin. For most urban and rural users, surface water is supplemented by groundwater. In the 20th century, groundwater provided 30 to 46 percent of the water Californians used, depending on whether a year was wet or dry. Unlike the other Western states, extraction (pumping) of groundwater has not been monitored or regulated in most of the state. Legislation signed by the Governor in September will require sustainable, local groundwater management for the first time. California's system of surface water rights gives priority to owners of land adjacent to waterways and to those whose water rights were acquired before 1914. The same water may be used multiple times by different water rights holders. Although data is not uniformly available for all holders of water rights, several recent studies have found that California has issued water rights for at least five times more surface water than the state receives on average from precipitation. In a series of drought years, the imbalance between water promised and water available is even greater. Proposition 1, the water bond put on the ballot by legislators and the Governor and approved by California voters in the November election, includes a variety of strategies for managing water but does not directly address the large discrepancy between water available and water for which Californians have developed often-inflexible needs. In addition, the 2013 California Water Plan cites an assessment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that California will need $44.5 billion to fix aging drinking water systems over the next two decades. Large as the water bond is, it cannot pay for the water supply and infrastructure challenges Californians face. References: Proposition 1, November 2014: LWVCEF In Depth: http://archive.lwvc.org/lwvonly/elections/14nov/IN%20DEPTH%20Nov%202014%20election%20(Fin

12

al%20v2%20-%209-28-14).pdf UC Merced researchers’ study of California’s issuing water rights for at least five times more surface water than the state receives on average from precipitation: http://www.ucmerced.edu/news/2014/california-overspends-water-rights-300-million-acre-feet 2014 groundwater management bill package: http://sd27.senate.ca.gov/news/2014-09-16-historic-bill-package-protect-groundwater-supplies-california-signed-governor-brown; http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18701 Public Policy Institute fact sheet on Water Use in California: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108 QUESTION 4: Local League Question(s) about issue(s) of particular local concern – OPTIONAL QUESTION QUESTION 5: What other major issues do you think the legislature must deal with in 2015? What are your personal priorities?