NVR Logo
A meeting of the minds
State Dems talk flood project, strategy during summit at Silverado
Friday, February 09, 2007
Save and Share Share
State Assembly Democrats wrapped up their four-day summit at Napa’s Silverado Resort Thursday, providing lawmakers an opportunity to sample some Napa delicacies and take a gander at the Napa flood control project from chartered buses.

It was all according to plan for Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, and her bid to give Napa more exposure to lawmakers.
“As we drove over the river last night I brought it up to the members how they gave $10 million to flood project,” she said. “It was great for the members to have an opportunity to see the projects they have funded. That’s really why I brought them to Napa. I’ve talked to them about the (Veterans Home of California at Yountville), the foster care group VOICES and the flood project.”

Evans is chairwoman of the Assembly Democratic Caucus, a post that gives her the privilege of helping to select the location of the annual Assembly Democratic Summit each year. Past summits have been in other high-profile locales like Monterey and Newport Beach.
The Napa summit saw lawmakers chowing down at Copia, finding little time to sample the world-class golf course or spa amenities of the Silverado Resort.

“We worked really hard,” Evans said. “We started with a 7:30 a.m. breakfast in the morning, worked through lunch and had presentations all the way through dinner.”
Evans said despite the work, there was no consensus on exactly what to do with some of the biggest issues facing California — health care, prison reform, water supply issues and tribal gaming — but good information for Democratic leaders to take to governor Arnold Schwarzenegger when the time comes to negotiate over the state budget.

“We spent a lot of time on the budget,” Evans said, adding that Democrats would oppose Schwarzenegger’s proposed cuts to the state welfare to work program. She said Democrats talked about what cuts they could live with, but declined to be more specific. The event was mostly off-limits to the press.

Breaking from tradition, the Democrats this year did not rely on corporations to pay the tab directly for the event, which began Monday and ended Thursday. Instead, the bill will be split between taxpayers — the normal per diem allowed to lawmakers — and the political action committee of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles.

Nunez said media scrutiny in past years distracted from the policy work that goes on behind closed doors.

“I don’t mind if I get bad press; I don’t want my members to get bad press,” Nunez told reporters Tuesday, standing inside the restored 19th-century mansion that serves as the Silverado Resort’s conference center. “We want the media coverage on this to highlight the great things that we’re doing.”

California taxpayers will pay for about 50 hotel rooms at a cost of $143 a night per room, or more than $21,000 for the three-night stay.

Nunez’s political action committee, which last November received a $4 million check from the California Democratic Party, is paying for lawmakers’ meals. That includes breakfast on a covered deck of the Silverado Resort overlooking a golf course and dinners at some of Napa’s finest restaurants, including the Culinary Institute of America.

Republicans, meanwhile, held their annual policy retreat in more modest accommodations in a former Sierra Gold Rush town in Calaveras County. The Murphys Suites charges $95 a night and boasts a coin-operated laundry and a microwave in every room.

Lawmakers are given a per diem to cover daily expenses when they are on state business, on top of their $113,097-a-year salary.

Republican caucus spokesman Morgan Crinklaw said meals and expenses for the Assembly Republican retreat were paid by private funds, although he would not provide details.

Evans said lawmakers’ spirits were high, coming off of last year’s successes for the Democratic legislature.

“Last year we had the most productive session in recent memory,” she said. “We will continue to build on the success we had last year. With the governor talking about issues important to us such as health care and the environment, I would say we will have as productive a session as last year.”

The Associated Press contributed to this article.
5 comment(s)

Exasperated wrote on Feb 9, 2007 7:36 AM:

" Oh, gee, what a surprise, the limousine liberals staying at Silverado! "

Good news... wrote on Feb 9, 2007 11:03 AM:

" They were great tippers!! "

richard mckone wrote on Feb 10, 2007 3:09 AM:

" Like to see the state save up to a half billion annually by implementing a well tested correctional program? You say that sounds like a “pie in the sky” scheme. Of course it does – the only thing, though, is that it is probably true. How could such cost savings be achieved? By establishing a community corrections program with features similar to successful community corrections programs operated by Minnesota and Oregon since the early 1970s. Such a program would probably bring technical parole violation rates back to “normal” levels. The parole revocation system has been broken for many years, resulting in a huge increase in violation rates for technical violation and drug use. California’s violation rates are three to four times its historical rates and far higher than any other state . The difference in prison operating costs resulting from current parole revocation rates compared to historical or “normal” rates costs is about $.5 billion annually. A rough estimate of the cost of this difference in violation rates during the past 10 years would total about $5 billion in avoidable costs, giving credence that the quote: “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money " applies to the state prison system. Under a community corrections act, counties contract with the state to provide parole supervision. Parole violations would be handled in the same manner a violations by felony probationers by the courts. It should be noted that felony probation success rates have not changed during the past 30 years and it is very probable that parole violation rates would return to normal/expected levels under the counties. A recommendation to contract with counties for parole supervision was included in the last major study of the California correctional system Study of 1971 . It was seriously considered by the state in the 1990s. It is not known why it was not passed into law. It should at least be tested on a pilot basis to determine if community operated corrections would make parole supervision viable again. "

Barbara wrote on Feb 11, 2007 10:05 AM:

" Thanks for the article, and thanks especially to Richard McKone for his thoughtful comment on reducing the ricidivism rate. He suggest "establishing a community corrections program with features similar to successful community corrections programs operated by Minnesota and Oregon since the early 1970". Sentencing and parole reforms will make us all safer and save us lots of money. "

richard mckone wrote on Jul 4, 2007 12:13 PM:

" You might be pleased to learn two facts: Prison overcrowding can be eliminated for $1.5 billion; and $6.2 billion can be saved by not building 40,000 unneeded prison beds. Prison overcrowding and the very high parole revocation rates are simple system problems with the same cause - a long term, massive county jail bed shortage [1]. Both problems are eliminated if the state funds both construction and operating costs for 16,600 [2] county jail beds to house offenders now serving short terms in prison due to the jail bed shortage. Also, the state would realize savings of up to $.5 billion in annual prison operating costs and a substantial prison bed surplus would develop as parole revocation rates declined. Prior to the county jail bed shortage; parolees charge with less serious or purely technical parole violations were routinely held in county jail until a local program could be developed. Severe jail overcrowding necessitated transfer to prison for violation disposition which almost always meant a revocation term served in prison. This factor caused California to have by far the highest parole violation rate of any large state. You might not be real happy with the fact that our leaders have no intention of following this money saving approach but instead are committed to spending $6.5 billion to build 40,000 prison beds even though more prison beds are not needed. Why? That is a really good question you ask your elected officials. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy