State scientists deserve pay equity

With a budget surplus nearing $100 billion, it’s time for Governor Newsom and the California State Legislature to address demands for pay equity from state scientists whose work is undervalued and underpaid.

State scientists – more than half are women – often do similar work as state engineers, 78% of whom are men.

We count on California’s “citizen scientists” to protect our communities from toxic pollution, combat climate change, preserve wetlands, and identify safe consumer products.

State scientists working full-time, however, earn on average 27% less than state engineers – a difference of over $30,000 annually.

That’s not pocket change – it’s enough to pay rent or a mortgage for an entire year.

Continue reading “State scientists deserve pay equity”

Machine politics on display in race for state Senate seat

If you think that machine politics undermine the democratic process, check out my latest op-ed, published in CalMatters: Machine politics on display in race for state Senate seat.

I write about how Daniel Hertzberg’s campaign for state Senate District 20 is “a case study in politics gone wrong – it’s a toxic blend of entitlement, influence wielding and misplaced collegiality.”

Read more here.

Law enforcement should get backlog of rape kits tested

 

Check out my op-ed published in CalMatters: Law enforcement should get backlog of rape kits tested.

California legislators have enacted half a dozen bills in the past five years that send a bipartisan message to law enforcement: Identify and test the backlog of rape kits, known formally as sexual assault evidence kits, or SAE kits.

A bill was passed in 2018 that required all facilities that receive, maintain, store or preserve SAE kits – including law enforcement agencies, medical facilities and crime labs – to inventory kits in their possession and report their findings to the California Department of Justice no later than July 1, 2019.

The response was dismal. “Only 149 of 693 law enforcement agencies operating in California reported data for the audit, and no medical facilities in California responded,” according to Assemblyman David Chiu’s office, author of Assembly Bill 3118, which required the audit.

Read more here.

 

3 confirmation questions for Newsom’s nominee for Attorney General: How to make preventing and prosecuting sexual assault a priority at DOJ

 

Confirmation hearings are a prime opportunity to extract promises from eager candidates for constitutional offices – something California legislators are undoubtedly contemplating as they prepare to interview Governor Newsom’s nominee for California Attorney General —  announced today as Assemblymember Rob Bonta.

One line of questioning should focus on sexual assault: How might the Attorney General fully utilize the power and resources of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make prevention and prosecution of sexual assault a priority in California?

It’s not like there’s nothing going on at DOJ. Last year, the Department released an audit of the backlog of untested sexual assault evidence (SAE) kits, also known as rape kits. They’ve released two required annual SAFE-T reports (2018 and 2019) with statistics summarizing the progress and status of SAE kits collected in California; and DOJ’s crime laboratories process SAE kits for 46 of California’s 58 counties.

But far more could be done to make prevention and prosecution of sexual assault a top priority.

These three confirmation questions can help send that message.

What will you do as AG to end California’s rape kit backlog?

27 states have committed to testing their backlogged rape kits, according to the Joyful Heart Foundation, a respected national organization that advocates to end the backlog.

Not California.

California law requires testing of all SAE kits collected since 2016, but not before.

The recent DOJ audit of the rape kit backlog identified 13,929 untested kits throughout the state – a significant undercount due to the dismal response  from the law enforcement agencies, medical facilities, and crime labs that were legally required to report.

In the confirmation hearing, the AG nominee needs to assess why the audit response rate was so low – and what could have been done differently to ensure participation. Was it indifference on the part of local agencies? Insufficient outreach and notification? Untapped legal power to compel compliance? And it’s worth asking: Is legislation required to conduct a follow-up audit, or does the AG have independent authority to repeat the study?

How can you make DOJ’s work to prevent and prosecute sexual assault a priority?

If you poke around on the DOJ website, including a search for “sexual assault” or “rape,” it’s difficult to determine the Department’s activities and priorities related to sexual assault. That’s not the case for other programs accorded more visibility.

It’s as if rape, classified by the FBI has a “violent crime,” is buried in the bureaucracy.

How might DOJ’s work on sexual assault be made more accessible and transparent? What are the Department’s priorities – and do they need to be expanded? And how might leadership at the highest level rally DOJ professionals and local leaders to do their utmost to combat sexual assault in California?

In the confirmation hearing, the AG nominee needs to explain how they can send a strong and visible message – within DOJ and throughout the state – that preventing and prosecuting sexual assault is a top priority.

One idea to consider? A designated “czar” to work with partners to update DOJ’s priorities, initiatives and expected outcomes.

How can DOJ expand research to better inform our understanding of sexual assault – and guide prevention and prosecution?

Through it’s Open Justice initiative, DOJ laudably makes public a lot of crime data, but more could be done to make research a dynamic tool to guide state and local efforts to prevent and prosecute sexual assault. For example, how might DOJ help local partners identify prevention measures by evaluating the demographics of sexual assault (who? when? where? by whom?) in their communities?

The Attorney General, as the constitutional supervisor of record for county district attorneys and sheriffs, should also be assessing and facilitating dialogue about different rates among counties for sexual assault, rape kits collected and tested, case clearance rates, and prosecutions. To put it plainly, we need to acknowledge county leaders who confront sexual assault as a violent crime – and hold accountable those who fall short of their responsibilities.

In the confirmation hearing, the Attorney General nominee needs to lay out goals to generate more research on sexual assault in California – and specify how dissemination of data, dialogue, and training can improve law enforcement’s work to curb this violent crime.

California’s next Attorney General must make preventing and prosecuting sexual assault a top priority at the Department of Justice. The California State Legislature’s confirmation hearings offer a public forum for the nominee to make that promise.