Minutes from October 21, 2014 Open Meeting-Ballot Initiatives

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Open Board of Directors Meeting

San Bernardino Community College District

114 S. Del Rosa Drive

San Bernardino, CA   92408



Present: Dimitrios Alexiou, Don Averill, Carole Beswick, Tom Brickley, Mike Burrows, Ken Coate, Bill Easley, Dick Hart, Scott Hofferber, Fran Inman, Mark Kaenel, Lowell King, Pam Langford, John Mirau, Lou Monville, Tom Nightingale, Bev Powell, Kristine Scott, Carlos Valdez, Steve von Rajcs, and Phil Waller.   

Guests: Jay Jimenez and Ed Lasak

 Announcements1)  A Inland Empire Federal Technical Assistance Workshop will be held on Thursday, October 23rd from 10a.m. to 4:30p.m. at Cal State University, San Bernardino.  This event is hosted by Senator Feinstein and creates an opportunity for officials from Washington in various federal agencies to come to the Inland Empire.        


M/S/P:  Minutes from October 14, 2014.


Mark Kaenel introduced Michael Scarpello, San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters.


Michael Scarpello came to San Bernardino County in 2011 and is happy to be working with Greg Devereaux and the new County Vision.     


The registrar’s office is responsible for conducting federal, state, county, city and special district elections.  There are 850,000 registered voters in the county (12th largest in the nation) and voting results are typically slow due to millions of paper ballots (46% vote by mail).  The office has been re-thinking their processes and are now using many business concepts to rebuild their infrastructure and install new technology.  They have re-built the sample ballot, created new data bases and re-built the 15 year old web site to become more effective.  Critical enhancements to their web site include on line voter registration, a district finder and a polling place look up map.  Low voter turnout is expected in November as there is minimal voter interest with Gov. Jerry Brown facing relatively little-known opponents.  Mr. Scarpello is working to make voting easier and more accessible in our county.


Lou Monville and Carlos Valdez presented and discussed opposing perspectives for the initiatives on the November ballot. 


Prop. 1 would allow the state to redirect $425 million in unsold bonds and sell $7.1 billion in additional bonds, for a total of $7.5 billion in general obligation bonds. The funds would be used to manage water supplies, protect and restore wetlands, improve water quality, and increase flood protection. Of the total $7.5 billion, $5.7 billion is available for water supply and water quality projects only if recipients provide a local match, in most cases 50% of the total cost.


Prop. 2 would reduce the annual revenue transfer to the Budget Stabilization Account to approximately $1.6 billion, but add a portion of capital gains-related taxes in years when such revenues exceed a certain level. The total annual transfer could thus possibly increase to $4 billion or more. 

For 15 years, half of the foregoing amount would have to be used to pay down public retirement benefit obligations and inter-governmental debts. Later, the Legislature could choose whether to use the BSA transfer funds to further pay down these debts. 

Prop. 2 would increase the target BSA maximum to about $11 billion. Once the maximum is reached, the BSA transfer amount would instead be used to build and maintain infrastructure. 

Prop. 2 would also limit the circumstances under which the transfer could be reduced, or BSA funds could be withdrawn, and the amounts which could be withdrawn in any year. 

In some years when capital gains revenues are strong, and certain other conditions are met, money would go into a new state reserve for schools and community colleges. However, Prop. 2 does not directly change the long-term amount of state spending for schools and community colleges. 

If the new school reserve is funded, under certain circumstances a new state law would limit the size of local school district reserves to a maximum of 10% of their annual budget, depending on the size of the district. This new maximum limit could be changed in the future by the Legislature.


Prop. 45  applies only to insurance coverage for individual and employer small-group plans. The Insurance Commissioner would have to approve rate changes for those plans before they could be implemented. The application process would require the company to publicly disclose and justify its requested rates. Consumers or insurance companies could challenge the outcome in court. Rates in effect as far back as November 6, 2012 would be subject to refund if found to be excessive. Under Prop. 45, “rates” would be defined to include any charges that affect cost, such as co-payments, deductibles, installment fees, premium financing, and more. 

The California Department of Managed Health Care would continue to review and regulate the small-group and individual insurers that it now oversees, but only the Insurance Commissioner could approve or reject their proposed rate changes. Insurance companies would continue to be charged a fee to cover the costs of administering the new law.

Prop. 45 would also prohibit the use of an individual’s credit history or the absence of prior insurance coverage when determining rates or eligibility for health, automobile, or homeowner’s insurance. In practice, insurance companies generally have not used such factors.


Prop. 46 would:

  • mandate random drug tests of doctors, in addition to tests after events of possible medical negligence or if the doctor is suspected of using drugs or alcohol;
  • require doctors to check a statewide database before prescribing certain drugs to prevent patients from “doctor shopping” for multiple prescriptions;
  • raise the cap for non-economic damages in malpractice lawsuits to $1.1 million (reflecting inflation since 1975) and index it to inflation going forward. The cap on attorney’s fees would remain unchanged.


Prop. 47 would reduce the penalty for most non-violent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, unless the defendant has prior convictions for violent and serious crimes. Prop. 47 would permit resentencing for anyone currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses reclassified in Prop. 47 as misdemeanors and certain offenders who have already completed a sentence for one of those felonies may apply to the court to have their convictions changed to misdemeanors.

State savings from Prop. 47 would go to a newly created fund, “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund,” for truancy and drop-out prevention programs in schools, victims’ services, and mental health and drug treatment services designed to keep individuals out of prison and jail.



Prop. 48 is a referendum that asks the voters to approve or reject the gaming compacts with the North Fork and Wiyot tribes. A YES vote approves the legislative statute that ratifies the compacts, and allows the compacts to go into effect; a NO vote rejects the statute and voids the compacts.



A Q & A period followed.


Meeting adjourned at 8:36a.m.