FCLCA

Vol. 58, No. 4 FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA December 2009

N E W S L E T T E R

Perspective: California’s Crisis, Part II ...Page 1

FCLCA On the Move .............................Page 5

FCLCA In Action ...................................Page 6

Your Voice, Your Values ........................Page 8

Reflections On Giving .........................Page 10

In ThIs Issue …

FC

LC

APe

rspe

ctiv

e

(Continued on next page)

In this conclusion of a two-part series exam-ining California’s crisis of governance, we discuss key proposals aimed at putting the government back on track to solve the state’s problems.

The Golden State has been plagued by a series of perpetual crises: the state’s ongoing struc-tural deficit and vanishing safety net at a time of growing need for government services, 6.5 mil-lion California residents without health insurance, and overcrowded prisons operating at 200 per-cent capacity. Investment in public education is declining while the cost of attending public univer-sities is rapidly increasing. One in five California children does not complete high school, an omi-nous sign for our state’s future.

While much of the bad news can be attrib-uted to the economic recession, these problems are ongoing and lead many observers to conclude that state government is unable to respond effectively to the challenges. Fifty-nine percent of registered voters disapprove of Governor Schwarzenegger’s job performance, while 71 percent disapprove of the Legislature’s (Public Policy Institute of California, Statewide Survey, September, 2009). But most state government observers conclude that the inability to solve problems stems from a broken system rather than the caliber of people elected to office. It bears repeating that our state’s bond rating hovers just above junk bond status – even though California always pays back its creditors – because of state government’s inability to respond effectively to changing economic conditions (see “Too broke not to fix, California’s crisis and the reforms that got us here,” FCLCA Newsletter, September 2009).

One reason that voters ratify ballot-box-budg-eting initiatives (ballot propositions that mandate

spending for a particular program, often without providing a funding stream) is because of the Legislature’s inability to address pressing prob-lems. As we go to press, the California Teachers Association is considering whether to place sev-eral initiatives on the ballot that would raise taxes for public schools – a noble cause that few progressives or conservatives would argue against – except that when the economy goes sour, there are no funds left for important safety net programs. One of the sad ironies of modern California is that we are making deep cuts to the safety net when there is growing need for govern-ment services. This harms the most vulnerable Californians as political power follows the path

Too broke not to fix: California’s crisis and the current proposals for reform

“The Friends Committee on Legislation of California (FCLCA), guided by Quaker

values, advocates for California state laws that are just, compassionate

and respectful of the inherent worth of every person.”

2 FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

(FCLCA)1225 8th Street, Suite 220

Sacramento, California 95814(916) 443-3734

fclca.org

Board of Directors 2009

Betsy Morris, Co-clerk Strawberry Creek Friends Meeting

Lillian Henegar, Co-clerkSacramento Friends Meeting

George Millikan, TreasurerBerkeley Friends Meeting

Steve BirdleboughRedwood Forest Friends Meeting

Laurel GordSanta Monica Friends Meeting

David JaberBerkeley Friends Meeting

Sarsh LevineSanta Cruz Friends Meeting

Eric MoonBerkeley Friends Meeting

Elizabeth RalstonSanta Monica Friends Meeting

Sherri SissonOrange County Friends Meeting

Staff

Jim Lindburg, Legislative Director JimL@fclca.org

Kevan Insko, Director of Development and Outreach Kevan@fclca.org

Dale Richter, Office Administrator Dale@fclca.org

Newsletter Design and Layout Debbi Tempel Tempeltype@sbcglobal.net

FCLCAPerspective (continued)

of least resistance, and those unor-ganized interests lacking position in Sacramento bear the hardship disproportionately.

Two ambitious reform efforts are gaining interest and could find their way to the November 2010 ballot. One effort issues a call for a limited constitutional convention and the other entails several inter-locking policy reforms by the non-partisan reform group California Forward.

Starting from scratch: a twenty-first century consti-

tution for California?The California Constitution, rat-

ified in 1879 when the state had less than 900,000 residents, is the third longest in the world behind India and the Alabama state constitution. The United States Constitution con-tains approximately 4,500 words and has been amended only 17 times since its ratification in 1789. According to constitutional theory, constitutions create governments – a framework for making law – and governments create laws. By con-trast, the California Constitution contains more than 75,000 words and is cluttered with detail nor-mally found in state laws, often in the form of restrictions and locked-in spending which protect particular interests, but make it exceedingly difficult for the Legislature to craft solutions to fiscal crises. Grassroots citizens’ groups have faced huge hurdles (California’s geographic size, the costs of paying professional signature gatherers and running a statewide media campaign) when seeking to amend the Constitution. Well-financed, powerful interest groups, however, have found it relatively easy, though expensive, and the state constitution has been amended 512 times.

In August 2008, the San Francisco Chronicle published an opinion piece by Jim Wunderman, CEO of the Bay Area Council (a busi-

ness-sponsored public policy advo-cacy organization), advocating a constitutional convention. The piece struck a chord with reform-minded individuals and groups, including the Courage Campaign (a progres-sive, on-line advocacy group) and the New America Foundation. The groundswell of support led to the creation of an informal collaboration called “Repair California.” Repair California consulted with legal experts and historians to craft a pro-posal for a limited constitutional convention and held a series of town hall meetings across the state. A list of formal endorsers and coali-tion partners will be made public once the ballot initiative language is approved by the Attorney General.

Currently the state constitu-tion allows only the Legislature to call for a constitutional convention or a revision to the state constitu-tion; therefore, the state constitution would first need to be amended to allow a simple majority of voters to call a convention. Repair California submitted two ballot proposals to the Attorney General’s office that are awaiting title and summary: one amending the state constitution to allow the voters to call a conven-tion and another calling for a limited convention.

Hot button social issues could easily derail efforts to create a better governance structure. The scope of the proposed convention will be limited to the following cate-gories: 1) government effective-ness, with emphasis on establishing a method for ensuring government efficiency; 2) elections and the ini-tiative process, with a focus on reducing special interest influence; 3) spending and budgeting, relating to the process, term and balancing of the budget, voting thresholds and mandating spending and; 4) gov-ernance, including the relationship between the state and local govern-ments and the structure of the leg-islative and executive branches. The

FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009 3(Continued on next page)

ballot initiative language further stipulates that the convention may not propose tax or fee increases, nor shall it address social issues or con-sider changes that could weaken civil rights protections. Thus the emphasis is on creating a process that will enable government to make reforms rather than reforms per se.

If both initiatives pass, the convention would convene no later than May 11, 2011. The Constitutional Convention Commission, made up of the nonpartisan Fair Political Practices Commission or their designee, would deter-mine the date and location for the con-vention, hire staff and legal counsel, be the final arbiter of delegate selection and provide for the training of del-egates. Any changes to the California Constitution would ultimately be approved by the voters no later than the November 2012 General Election.

The convention would be com-posed of 465 delegates as follows: three randomly chosen delegates per Assembly district for a total of 240; one county delegate for each 175,000 residents (counties with less than 175,000 residents would receive one county delegate), chosen by a local Delegate Selection Committee (composed of two mem-bers of the Board of Supervisors, two mayors and a member of the school board or board of education), for a total of 221. Each of the four feder-ally recognized Native American tribes will also appoint one delegate.

The State Auditor would ran-domly select the names of 400 people in every Assembly District and send them information about becoming a delegate. Of those who express an interest in becoming a delegate, 50 per Assembly District would be invited to attend a presen-tation about the responsibilities and

duties of becoming a delegate. The 50 will then choose three from their ranks to serve as delegates to the convention.

Random selection of delegates will help ensure broad representa-tion of California’s diverse popula-tion and confer legitimacy on the convention as the delegates would

not be beholden to vested political inter-ests. A constitutional revision commis-sion created by the Legislature in 1993 failed to produce change in part because by the time its recom-mendations were final-ized the state’s fiscal condition had dramati-cally improved and the political will for taking on the status quo had wilted. Had

its recommendations made it to the ballot, they likely would have been portrayed as the product of politi-cians in Sacramento tinkering with the machinery of government in order to further their self inter-ests, a difficult argument to make against a convention of ordinary citizens. Anyone holding any public office, serving as a staff member to any state elective office, state com-mission, or state agency after 2005 would be excluded, as would regis-tered lobbyists. All delegates would be paid and receive protections sim-ilar to those given to jurors so as to not risk losing their employment. Delegates would also receive inten-sive training on public policy issues and options facing the state. All pro-ceedings would be televised and the public would have opportunities to weigh in via the internet.

One downside to the random selection of delegates is the potential for a convention that lacks exper-tise. Finding the right mix of broad representation and qualified del-egates is a difficult balancing act, and Repair California proposes that counties also appoint delegates in order to ensure that there are a

significant number who are well-versed on public policy issues of the day. Repair California points to the recent successes of the con-stitutional convention in British Columbia and the residents of New Orleans in crafting the basis for a redevelopment plan in the after-math of Hurricane Katrina as evi-dence that ordinary citizens, when charged with an extraordinary civic task, given the time, resources and training, will check their partisan differences at the door and rise to the occasion.

Substance over form: California Forward

California Forward was founded in 2008 at the request of several philanthropic organiza-tions: the California Endowment, the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Whereas the call for a constitu-tional convention may or may not produce substantive changes, California Forward has submitted two ballot proposals for title and summary to the Attorney General’s Office, which are likely to appear on the November 2010 ballot. The initiatives are composed of best practices used by other states and businesses. They were refined after extensive discussions at forums and town hall meetings throughout the state. (California Forward claims to have spoken with over 20,000 Californians.) Its proposals con-sist of several substantive policies stressing budget accountability and emphasizing the effectiveness of local government because it is closer to the people. As these proposals are bipartisan, everyone will find things they like and dislike in them.

The first proposal, the “Best Practices Budget Accountability Act,” would require the governor and legislators to consider a two-year spending plan and a five-year fiscal forecast before approving the annual budget. It also gives

Repair California submitted two ballot proposals… one amending the state constitution to allow the voters to call a conven-tion and another calling for a lim-ited convention.

4 FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009

FCLCAPerspective (continued from page 3)

the governor broad discretion to reduce spending should state tax revenues decline substantially below projections. The governor’s annual budget proposal would be required to spell out clear goals for every program and would require formal legislative oversight of every state program, at least once every ten years. Unexpected spikes in revenue could only be used for one-time expenditures such as paying down the state’s debt. The Act also requires that any new pro-gram or tax reduction identify a funding source or program cuts in order to make up for the addi-tional spending or loss of tax rev-enue. Budgets would be approved by majority votes, though it would still require a two-thirds majority to increase taxes.

One criticism of the California Forward proposal is that it would require a two-thirds supermajority of the Legislature to raise fees to supplement taxes. Last December, Democrats passed a creative majority-vote budget plan that sup-planted taxes with new fees in order to raise more revenue and avoid additional cuts. The plan increased the sales tax, placed a surcharge on personal income taxes and levied a severance tax on oil production. These tax increases were offset by repealing the 26-cent excise and sales tax collected on a gallon of gasoline. The excise tax on gasoline was supplanted by a new “fee” on each gallon of gas. Alas, Republican lawmakers objected to the end-run around the two-thirds, superma-jority threshold for raising taxes, and Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the plan. Had he signed it into law it is not clear that the “triple-flip” would have withstood court challenges. Under California Forward’s proposal, normal user fees or fees assessed for environ-mental mitigation would still be sub-ject to a majority vote.

California Forward’s second pro-posal is the “Community Funding Protection and Accountability Act,” which would prevent the Legislature from borrowing, transferring or oth-erwise appropriating funds from local government and redevelop-ment agencies in order to help bal-ance the state’s budget. Local gov-ernments would also be allowed to develop county-wide action plans to address local priori-ties and could raise the sales tax up to one percent to fund them if approved by a majority of voters. Local officials would have to dem-onstrate progress in achieving com-munity goals and seek voter approval to continue with the program at least once every ten years.

Indeed, there is much to like in these proposals. In the era of term limits where service to the Legislature is largely viewed as a stepping stone to higher office, leg-islative oversight, to the extent that it exists, is largely driven by embar-rassing newspaper headlines (law-makers reap greater rewards for passing new laws than for con-ducting oversight). Regularly sched-uled reviews of performance-based budgets with clear benchmarks could improve accountability and achieve efficiencies. For example, year after year, spending for prisons has increased substantially, while California’s recidivism rate, the worst in the nation, has stayed around 70 percent. California Forward points to the example of Texas, which was faced with a shortage of 17,000 prison beds. Prison officials proposed building three new prisons to address the shortfall, but a commission designed

to improve efficiency found that that funding programs to reduce recidi-vism could do the job at less than half the cost.

While California’s tax revenues have declined substantially in the economic recession, the Legislature has still not come to grips with

the state’s $8-12 bil-lion structural budget deficit that occurred when Democrats won spending increases in exchange for tax cuts sought by Republicans during the dotcom boom years on the basis of a one-time surge in revenues. Voters have also ratified numerous initiatives for new pro-grams without including funding sources, which means fewer dollars for other important

programs. While reducing the two-thirds

supermajority requirement to pass a budget is sensible, many argue that revenues and expenditures are two sides of the same coin. Indeed, budget stalemates have been char-acterized more by arguments over the level of taxation than by how the state spends money. George Lakoff has submitted a simple 14-word ini-tiative stating “all legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.”

California Forward responds that public polling shows scant sup-port for replacing the two-thirds, supermajority requirement with a simple majority threshold for raising taxes (a recent Field Poll shows strong opposition, with 69 percent of voters opposing such a move). California Forward also maintains that before voters can be engaged in a discussion about taxes, trust and confidence in state government must be restored, that there is still

(Continued on page 12)

California For-ward’s second proposal… would prevent the Legisla-ture from borrow-ing, transferring or otherwise appro-priating funds from local government and redevelopment agencies.

YES! I want my voice heard in Sacramento.NAME ______________________________________________________________

YOUR EMAIL (Important: to send you FCLCA alerts and updates) ____________________________

ADDRESS ____________________________________________________________

CITY, STATE, ZIP _________________________________ PHONE _______________

❑ I’d like to become a Monthly Sustainer of FCLCA.TO: ❑ FCLCA (for lobbying, not tax-deductible) ❑ FCL Education Fund (tax-deductible)Amount: ❑ $100 ❑ $50 ❑ $35 ❑ $20 ❑ Other _________ ($10 min.)

Method of payment:

❑ Automatic withdrawal from my bank account (FCLCA will send you an authorization form to fi ll out.)

❑ Charge my credit card – my information is below.

❑ Pay online (FCLCA will send you a monthly email with a link for payment.)

❑ I’d like to make a gift of: ❑ $125 ❑ $100 ❑ $75 ❑ $50 ❑ $35 ❑ Other ______TO: ❑ FCLCA (for lobbying, not tax-deductible) ❑ FCL Education Fund (tax-deductible)

❑ I’d like to sponsor a prisoner’s subscription. ❑$35 ❑ Other _______

Method of payment:

❑ Check enclosed ❑ Charge my credit card – my information is below.

CREDIT CARD INFORMATION: ❑ VISA ❑ MASTERCARD

Account Number _____________________________________ Expiration Date ______

Name on Account _______________________ Signature ________________________

Friends Committee on Legislation of California1225 8th Street, Suite 220 • Sacramento, CA 95814-4809

Phone: (916) 443-3734 • Fax: (916) 448-6109

FC

LC

A O

n th

e M

ove

What does it cost to have a voice of conscience at the Capitol?

Answer: About $600 a day.Keeping FCLCA’s voice strong – maintaining our lobbying and advocacy programs, our newsletter and educational materials, our outreach to prisoners – cost about $600 a day in 2009. Your gener-ous contributions make our work possible.Want to sponsor a “day of advocacy” that brings voice to your values? Here are a few ideas:n Become a sustainer at $50/month.n Become a sustainer at $10/month and recruit 4 friends,

family members or members of your Meeting or church to join you as sustainers.

n Help plan a special fundraising event at your Meeting or organization or a house party in your home. We can help with ideas.

n Request that friends donate to FCLCA in honor of your birthday or special occasion.

n Consider donating your tax refund check in the spring.n Make a tax-deductible gift of stock to the FCL Educa-

tion Fund. n Remember FCLCA when making your estate plans.

FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009 5

6 FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009

FC

LC

AIn

Act

ion

FCLCA Impact 2009

KEY ISSUES

California’s State Budget

It was a challenging year for California’s budget process. In July, the governor and Legislature revised the current year’s budget, with significant cuts to education and the social safety net. The governor’s proposal for wholesale gutting of key programs was beaten back by a coalition of the faith community, advocates for the poor, and service providers. FCLCA activists and staff participated in rallies, testified before the Legislature and lobbied legislators in their districts and in Sacra-mento. On June 16, FCLCA partnered with other faith-based groups in a vigil outside the Capitol building that drew participants from all over California.

Corrections Budget

The July budget revision included a $1.2 billion cut to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) budget. Half of the cuts required legislation to change state law in order to reduce the prison population and establish a sentencing commission. FCLCA lobbied for responsible cuts that would make less use of incarceration and greater use of alternative sanc-tions, while maintaining programming. Ultimately the plan the Legislature sent to the governor came up $250 million short of the requested cuts, which means that more cuts will be made to prison programming. FCLCA continues to speak out strongly against the “warehousing” of prisoners.

Death Penalty

FCLCA and its allies the ACLU and Death Penalty Focus continue to draw attention to the enormous fiscal costs of maintaining the death penalty: at least $1 billion over the next five years could be saved by eliminating state-sponsored executions in California. In June, FCLCA activists joined hundreds of others in testifying at the

first-ever public hearing on execution procedures and helped to gather some of the thou-sands of letters to the CDCR opposing the proposed procedures and registering opposition to the death penalty.

FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009 7

KEY LEGISLATION

Criminal Justice

FCLCA opposed and played a key role in derailing AB 1487, which would have doubled a local jail inmate’s co-pay for medical visits from $3 to $6.All sentencing enhancement bills were defeated or held due to lobbying from FCLCA, ACLU, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and other like-minded groups, the state’s fiscal situation and the Senate’s informal agreement to not pass bills that would increase the prison population.FCLCA supported and the governor signed SB 678, which improves local probation practices and reduces the number of probationers sent to state prison.

Peace and Nonviolence

FCLCA supported and the governor vetoed SB 115, the Alternative to the Loyalty Oath bill. Despite the active engagement of hundreds of FCLCA and ACLU supporters who wrote over 1,500 messages of support for the bill, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 115, which would have a created a religious exemption to the loyalty oath requirement for state employees.

FCLCA supported and the governor signed AB 962 which regulates ammunition purchases. FCLCA played a key role in getting the bill through the Senate Public Safety Committee.

FCLCA opposed AB 351, which would have allowed JROTC and other school-sponsored activities to fulfill Physical Education Standards. FCLCA and allies AFSC, Public Advocates and the California Teachers Association succeeded in having the bill pulled back to committee.

Health Care

FCLCA supported and the governor signed AB 1422, which restores funding to the Healthy Families Program, providing health insurance for children in households with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level.

FCLCA supported and the governor signed AB 119 which prohibits health insurance plans from charging higher premiums on the basis of gender in the individual health insurance market.

Housing and Non-Discrimination

FCLCA supported and the governor signed AB 260 which establishes that lenders have a fiduciary responsibility to borrowers, prohibits negative amortiza-tion loans and prohibits lenders from steering borrowers to loans that are more costly than other loans they qualify for.

FCLCA supported and the governor signed AB 494 which promotes the construction of housing for agricultural laborers (by exempting the lease of agri-cultural lands for the development of farmworker housing from the Subdivisions Map Act).

FCLCA supported and the governor signed SB 54 which requires Califor-nia to recognize same-sex marriages legally conducted in other states prior to the passage of Prop. 8. FCLCA

FC

LC

AYo

ur V

oice

, You

r Val

ues

The policies that guide us

8 FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009

How does FCLCA’s staff know what to support and what to oppose when legislation is proposed? What is an “FCLCA position” and how do we know it is line with our core values?

The work of FCLCA – its lobbying and advocacy concerns – are guided by Policy State-ments developed by a Policy Committee of the FCLCA Board and approved by FCLCA’s General Committee.

Every year, the Policy Committee n reviews three of our 17 policy statementsn invites participation from Friends all over California to discuss and revise themn after a months-long process, presents three proposed drafts to the General

Committee at its statewide meeting in December.

This year, the General Committee approved three policy revisions: Concern for the Environment; Taxation, Budgeting and Fiscal Policy; and Human Services.

We’d like to share with you one of our 2009 policy statements, Concern for the Environment. The 2009 revision adds specific guidance to our board, volunteers and staff about FCLCA’s vision for our society’s relationship to the environment and the measures needed to accomplish that vision.

Acting as God’s Stewards –FCLCA’s policy on Concern for the Environment

Friends Committee on Legislation of California affirms that the Quaker values of truth, justice, social health and peace are fundamentally linked to and connected to our rela-tionship with the earth. Our actions and decisions that destabilize the environment will ultimately destabilize our communities and promote conflict.

Friends Committee on Legislation of California endeavors to promote policies that will heal the environment and promote living in harmony with nature. We as a society must develop a thriving relationship with the natural systems that support us. Human aspi-rations for peace and justice depend upon restoring the earth’s ecological integrity, and recognizing and managing the scale of our impacts (see also Family Planning policy).

Friends believe that “the earth is the Lord’s” and we gratefully acknowledge that:

“All we possess are the gifts of God. We act as God’s steward, and it becomes our station to act agreeably to that divine wisdom which God graciously gives to his servants.”

– John Woolman

“When one tugs at a single thing in nature he finds it is attached to the rest of the world.”– John Muir

We envision a society that:n is fueled by 100% renewable resources;n creates no toxic substances and no “waste”;n revitalizes and regenerates the health of the earth’s living systems;n ensures quality-of-life for all beings; and

FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009 9

n ensures that all people can be full environ-mental stewards and participate in public envi-ronmental decision-making, regardless of economic or geographic condition.

In pursuing this vision, FCLCA supports measures which:n ensure all environmental policy

development is open, transparent, and has full participation of affected communities, including the rec-ognized and unrecognized Native American tribes and groups who maintain deep connections to their lands;

n ensure our land use and natural resource policies maintain healthy ecosys-tems and regenerate forests, grasslands, and all habitats;

n promote land use decisions that improve existing cities and urban environments, and improve access to housing, jobs, and human services within current urban boundaries; and

n take swift and decisive action on climate change to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use, and support climate adap-tation efforts to mitigate any adverse impacts on affected people and species. Good practices include use of renewable energies, conservation, efficiency, scientifically-credible sequestration of carbon, and the localization of food systems and economies.

n are equitable in that all peoples benefit, and ensure marginalized populations are not regres-sively impacted [e.g. in carbon taxes (see also Taxation, Budget and Fiscal Policy)];

n in no way compromise the health of natural ecosystems;n promote green collar indus-tries and jobs to create a healthy economy and environment, while providing meaningful, living-wage entry level jobs for the underemployed;n protect all people and ecosys-tems from toxic exposures, such as pesticides, air pollution, endocrine

disruptors, or hazardous chemicals; andn ensure equitable and affordable access to clean

water, and promote its efficient use and con-servation. Water pricing must allow for main-tenance of systems while ensuring affordable access for all as a fundamental human right.

n ensure that diversion of water for humans does not degrade healthy rivers, streams, and lakes;

n restore natural streams and lakes where water depletions have been significant; and

n take a precautionary approach wherever there is significant uncertainty or significant lack of scientific consensus, such as with untested chemicals or unknowns about the storage and safety of toxic and nuclear wastes and act so as to be the most protective of public and ecolog-ical health, habitat, and biodiversity. FCLCA FCLCA

The Sacramento Chapter of Death Penalty Focus

and the Friends Committee on Legislation of California present

The Capitol Awards BanquetFriday, March 26, 2010

The Doubletree Hotel, Sacramento • Point West Way

HONORINGCHRISTINE THOMAS, Office of the Federal Defender

SISTER CATHERINE CONNELL, Sisters of Social ServiceTHE ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE PROJECT

for their dedicated commitment to criminal justice reform and the abolition of the death penalty

**Featuring Death Penalty Focus President, Mike Farrell**For more information call FCLCA at (916) 443-3734 or visit

www.deathpenalty.org/sactodinner

FC

LC

AR

eflec

tion

s on

giv

ing

Why I Give An interview with Gerald Haynes

10 FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009

Gerald Haynes is the FCLCA representa-tive from Claremont Monthly Meeting and a long-time supporter of FCLCA. He was interviewed by board member Laurel Gord.

I understand that you are one of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California’s most longstanding supporters. How did you first get involved?I first got involved with FCLCA along with my wife, Edith, who passed away several years ago. We both knew Roscoe Warren, who started the Friends Committee on Legislation of California (in 1952, ed.). We attended Warren’s presentation on FCLCA. He had some facts about criminal justice that were startling. When my wife, Edith, got involved she was very concerned about criminal justice, and it has been a long-standing concern for me. When Edith first retired, FCLCA still had a Pasadena office and Edith volunteered there as a secretary four days a week for about a year.

Why is the work of FCLCA important to you?

I still appreciate FCLCA’s focus on criminal justice issues after all these years. I’m glad that FCLCA focuses on criminal justice issues as a whole rather than just capital punish-ment, important as that is. I’m also glad that we have an overall Quaker voice in Sacra-mento. That feels important to me.

What are the benefits to you of supporting FCLCA?

I like getting the newsletter in the mail and being able to hold it in my hands to read it. I especially enjoy the section where you find out the outcome of various bills.

Do you think FCLCA has a strong relationship with Friends around California?

FCLCA does empower Friends to visit their state legislators and to write letters. If you want to make an impact on state issues it can

be hard to know where to start, and FCLCA helps. My major frustration has been that it has been difficult to get my Meeting more involved, and I feel that the reason has to do with the number of Quaker organizations.

There are so many Quaker organizations, and they all have acronyms. Friends are subjected to constant refer-ences to the alphabet.

So what makes you continue your activism and financial support of FCLCA? What do you want to say to Friends about our organization?FCLCA provides an oppor-tunity to make a difference via the state legislature. The legislature makes a lot of

important decisions that affect our lives. Our FCLCA lobbyist develops relationships with legislators and their staffs and so is in a posi-tion to speak up for our values and to keep us informed.We need to realize our own personal emo-tional blocks to being assertive. We need to learn to have close friendships and be able to express serious disagreements. And to be effective lobbyists, people need to learn to speak out clearly and hold their position. FCLCA

At this holiday season, we’d like to thank all our supporters

for their ongoing faith in our work and their continuing

contributions even in these difficult times.

We appreciate each and every one of you!

FCLCA Newsletter DeCeMBeR 2009 11

In Memoriam Russ Jorgensen – 1917-2009

Russell Frederick Jorgensen, co-founder of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, passed away peacefully in Nevada City on November 4, 2009, surrounded by his loving family. Born in 1917, Russ embraced Quaker worship and the way of Friends at an early age and he integrated his beliefs into his life’s work, family and community.

In his career with the Ameri-can Friends Service Commit-tee (AFSC), Russ helped build programs to integrate housing and employment, reform prisons and improve the lives of farm laborers. In 1961, heeding the call of Martin Luther King, Jr., Russ and his wife Mary joined the bus-loads of Freedom Riders bringing nonviolent intervention to end segregation.

Russ also helped to nurture and build Pacifica Radio and KPFA, the Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County, the Peace Center of Nevada County and the ACLU. Over forty years ago, he and his wife joined with other families to found an intentional community in Sonoma County, Monan’s Rill, that is still thriving today.

At 85, Russ moved with Mary to Nevada City, where he continued to work for social change and to inspire others by his example.

As an activist with AFSC in the early 1950’s, Russ rec-ognized the importance of having a direct impact on California lawmakers. Here’s how Russ described his role in the founding of FCLCA in an earlier inter-view in the FCLCA Newsletter:

In the early fifties, there were a number of leg-islative issues that the AFSC was working on. I thought that there should be a branch of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) out here, so I made a phone call to Raymond Wilson, then executive secretary of the FCNL in Washington, and he suggested we start an FCL without the N.

Six of us, including Bud Morriset, Cecil Thomas, and Catherine Gumpertz, met every two weeks at a Chinese restaurant in San Francisco and ironed out what we would do. The AFSC Executive Com-mittee was kept informed.

Soon we took a big step and invited Friends Meetings and Churches to get involved.

We held the founding meeting in May 1952 at the Berkeley Friends Church. We decided to start a new Friends Organization – a political counterpart of the AFSC, a state counterpart of

the Friends Committee on National Legislation. In October of 1952 the office of FCL opened in the AFSC building on Sutter Street in San Francisco.

At first, FCLCA was called the Friends Committee on Legisla-tion of Northern California, until November of 1952 when a Southern California executive committee was added under the leadership of Roscoe Warren. In the first year, Russ and his

fellow organizers involved more than 900 supporters and activists in a massive outreach for California’s first social justice lobby. Today, Russ’s legacy of prin-cipled social action lives on through the work of the many organizations he supported, including FCLCA, and the lives of those he touched in his many years of service. FCLCA

Russ Jorgensen and the founding of FCLCA

In Memory of our dear friends…

John S. deBeersMark L. Farmer

Russell F. Jorgensen

Behold, I do not give lectures or a little charity, when I give, I give myself.

– Walt Whitman

much that can be done to keep the state moving forward and that these two initiatives will put California on the right path.

Both Repair California (http://www.repaircalifornia.org) and California Forward (http://www.caforward.org) will engage in extensive outreach and education campaigns next year. The FCLCA Board of Directors will make formal recommendations after careful reflection should these proposals make it to the ballot next year.

Whether or not one or both of these proposals is the best path for California, what is clear is that the crisis we face offers us an unparalleled opportunity. A crisis is a terrible opportunity to waste, and proceeding down the same path is not a viable option. The proposed reforms are far-reaching, and we urge all California residents, Friends Meetings, churches and civic groups to begin deliberating them now. Friends Meetings and Churches that participate in FCLCA should begin seasoning them and instruct their Meeting Representatives to make their concerns known to the FCLCA Policy Committee prior to the Board’s deliberations. FCLCA

– Jim Lindburg <JimL@fclca.org>

The Friends Committee on Legis-lation of California (FCLCA) includes Friends and like-minded persons, a majority of whom are appointed by Monthly Meetings of the Religious Society of Friends in California.

n

Expressions of views in this news-letter are guided by Statements of Policy prepared and approved by the FCLCA Committees. Seeking to follow the leadings of the Spirit, the FCLCA speaks for itself and for like-minded Friends. No organization can speak officially for the Religious Society of Friends.

n

While we strive above all for correctness and probity, we are quick to recognize that to err is human. We therefore solicit and welcome comments and correc-tions from our readers.

Printed on recycled paper with soy-based inks

First-Class Mail Auto

U.S. Postage PaidSacramento, CAPermit No. 316

FRIENDS COMMITTEE ONLEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA1225 8th Street, Ste. 220Sacramento, CA 95814-4809Website: http://www.fclca.org

PhOTO CReDITs: Pages 1,6 (bottom) June 16, 2009 rally, courtesy of California Church ImpactAll Others istockphoto.com Front Page Illustration Alfredo Arredondo

FCLCAPerspective (continued from page 4)