Today is the big day. The California Air Resources Board released the draft proposal for California's cap-and-trade program to allocate carbon emissions permits to large polluting companies. The program is the flagship proposal of the legislation and the principle legislative success Governor Schwarzenegger is clutching onto for his "environmental" legacy. It is also the remnant of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's legacy, who pushed the legislation through the legislture in 2006 with then Assembly member and now Senator Fran Pavley .
At stake is the environmental and economic future of the state. A recent report commissioned by the Natural Resource Defense Council on the American Clean Energy and Security Act which passed out of the House of Representatives earlier this year, identified $300 billion in investment that could be redirected to clean jobs. If California's emissions program is aggressive enough to stimulate the innovation and economic development of California's clean energy sector, California could reap the benefits and jobs that come from the federal effort. Even if the feds don't pass the legislation, California could see the economic boon from its own program.
The danger that remains to be seen is if the business community will be successful in securing free pollution permits under the program. The business lobby has been pushing hard and this program is the only bill the Governor has signed that the CA Chamber of Commerce has actively opposed. Known for broken promises and half hearted policy goals, this program could be the last hope for a Governor in search of a box office legacy.
The former speaker of the Assembly hasn't actually been gone all that long, and it was always anticipated that he would might make a run at the State Senate in 2010 (among other possibilities). Fabian Núñez has filed papers to run for the SD-22 seat currently held by Gil Cedillo - a seat that might open up even sooner if Cedillo wins a special election to replace Hilda Solis in the Congress:
This week, he filed paperwork to fill the seat of termed-out Sen. Gil Cedillo in 2010. Cedillo's seat could be vacated even sooner, as the Los Angeles Democrat is running for Congress to replace Rep. Hilda Solis, who President Barack Obama has tapped as labor secretary.
Núñez would be a prohibitive favorite, should he run. His campaign treasury was stuffed with nearly $5 million as of the end of 2008.
The filing could also simply be a place to legally store all that campaign cash. Many former leaders keep accounts open for races in which few if anyone expects them to compete.
Although it's possible Núñez is just parking the cash, this would seem like a sensible move for him to make. He'd have at least another 8 years in the Legislature, potentially longer if term limits reform ever gets implemented (and I hope it does). And I have to believe that Núñez would indeed be the favorite for the seat, given his profile as Speaker and his campaign warchest.
Still, Núñez would do well to build his campaign around a solution to our state's ongoing budget mess. He was in the Big Five room for the last four years of negotiations, and should have as good an idea as anybody what could be improved in the system.
And he also has a responsibility to voters to explain how he would do better - Democrats failed to offer a clear alternative to the Republican tax cuts mantra while he was speaker, making it very difficult for Democrats and progressives in 2009 to mount a successful pushback against Republican demands. That's not say this crisis is all his fault, but as one of the recent leaders in Sacramento, he would do well to give voters a clear sense of how he would use his experience to chart a different course in the Senate.
In an unanticipated flip flop (this one in particular, not the flipping in general) this past weekend while in San Diego addressing the National Council of La Raza, John McCain signaled his unequivocal support for the DREAM Act:
Q: "Will you support humanity all across the world and support The DREAM Act that we are trying to pass?"
A: "Yes. Yes, but I will also enforce the existing laws. That's why we must secure the border..."
McCain was a sponsor of the DREAM Act in 2003, 2005 and 2007, but NOW in 2007:
McCain Skipped Vote On DREAM Act But Said He Would Have Voted Against Bill That He Co-Sponsored. "Last week, McCain skipped a Senate vote on immigration legislation called the DREAM Act - Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors. He then said he would have voted against the bill, even though he was a co-sponsor." [Myrtle Beach Sun-News, 11/2/07 ]
This is remarkable on its face and is a clear attempt to pull Latino voters to McCain and make California competitive, but it doesn't exactly jive with the spin that was being pushed around yesterday after Obama's luncheon speech.
The real absurdity of McCain's strategy, at least with regard to reaching Latino voters in California, was on full display Sunday following Obama's La Raza speech, and it basically boiled down to telling Latinos that the elected Latinos throughout the state are failures. Hector Barajas, Director of Communications for the California GOP ticked off the list of Democratic boogeymen: Antonio Villaraigosa, Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo. Not just three of the most visible Latino politicians in the state, but ones that are noteworthy for championing Latino causes. Heck, Cedillo sponsored the DREAM Act that McCain now supports.
DaDonGate has been receiving all of the attention this week, but Assemblyman Fabian Nunez apparently decided he wanted some of the limelight:
A campaign committee set up to boost Democratic voter registration has transferred $600,000 into a committee controlled by former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.
The payment from the Voter Registration 2008 Committee to Nunez's Committee to Protect California's Future , was dated July 2, just one day into the new filing period for political contributions.
The shift of funds marks the latest infusion of cash into a committee controlled by Nunez. After the 2005 special election, the California Democratic Party paid $4 million into a Nunez-controlled committee.
Nunez will be termed out of office in November. He has not made public any future political plans. Under state rules, he could choose to spend the money without limits on a statewide initiaitve campaign, or he could transfer portions of the money to a campaign for future office, subject to state contribution limits.
"I don't know what's going to happen with that money, but we need it today for registration," said Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Montebello. "Without knowing what the circumstances surrounding that transfer, it looks like it's no longer available for voter registration. That's a problem."
In somewhat related news, Assemblyman Nunez also scored some ink today when the LA Times editorial board wrote he was enhancing, "the suspicion that a lawmaker's real bosses are the special interests that make contributions and expect something in return, and not the constituents back home who send the lawmaker to Sacramento and whose taxes supposedly pay the salaries."
How many new Democrats do you think could be registered with $600,000?
Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee reported that the California Democratic Party used $250,000 of its contributors' money to pay the legal expenses that Perata (D-Oakland) has racked up defending against a criminal probe by the FBI.
It's all perfectly legal, but it sure stinks. [...]
As for Perata, Democrats not just in his district but anywhere in the state must wonder what their party is doing. They have every right to expect that contributors' money will be pumped into districts where Democrats are locked in tough election fights with Republicans, or into struggles with the GOP over the budget. Instead, it's paying the legal bills for Perata, who simultaneously is leading the fight against a redistricting measure on the November ballot.
When politicians demonstrate contempt for Californians, Californians respond in kind. Term-limits reform, badly needed to fix the state's broken political system, lost at the ballot box in large part because voters mistrusted Perata, Nuñez and Schwarzenegger, and with some reason. The notion that elected officials are paid by the public to do the public's work has become distressingly quaint.
This is clearly indefensible, which is probably why Bob Mulholland chickened out on debating the issue with Rick Jacobs on KPFA this morning. According to the host, Perata's flacks also refused to go on the show. With today's editorial rightly blasting the CDP, the press is trying to get people on record and the word on the street is that the CDP and Perata's team are refusing to try and defend the indefensible. Props to any press organization that can get the CDP or Don Perata to debate this in public.
There isn't a debate because there is no excuse for this waste of money. Don Perata needs to immediately refund all $450,000 and Art Torres must resign in shame before tonight's fundraiser to avoid making a fool of Speaker Karen Bass. And then both should apologize to Hannah-Beth Jackson and every Democrat on the ballot this fall for having such contempt for the concept of trying to win elections.
[UPDATE by Dave]: The problem here is transparency, and it's not limited to funding. Watch palace courtier Bob Mulholland respond to the fact that his boss essentially lied about Sen. Feinstein and the FISA bill:
So I contacted the party today to see if Torres would comment on today's votes. I got a callback from party political advisor Bob Mulholland, who noted Obama voted for immunity today too as a compromise. "Our attitude as a political party is, let's win the election and we can start cleaning up the constitutional mess Bush gave us," Mulholland said.
In other words, shut up and trust us, we know what we're doing. I think it would be easier to win the election if they weren't laundering half a million dollars to the Senate leader's legal defense fund and embarrassing the entire party. Speaking of which, why IS he still the Senate leader? Why haven't there been immediate caucus leadership elections in the wake of this? Nuñez at least had the sense to step aside.
While not tremendously important, the Platform Drafting Committee kinda does its thing every four years. In 2004, the DNC produced this piece of milquetoast (PDF). As the nation's largest state, we always have some sort of hand in this, but this year, California will be represented by some interesting choices:
Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez were among the 19 Democrats named to the Democratic Party's national Platform Drafting Committee. (CapAlert 7/9/08)
I'd guess that clean money campaigns won't be the first thing we see Núñez lobbying for, but I imagine that the pair will have some specific issues of concern. These things tend not to get into a great deal of specifics, but they can become oppo pieces for a number of candidates. It will be interesting to see how the pair plays this.
Boy, lameduck CDP Chair Art Torres sure looks like shit. All that smoke he blew up the asses of the E-Board about how DiFi listens to him and so she shouldn't be censured -- well it was all crap. He stuck his neck out to vouch for DiFi on an issue as simple as upholding her oath of office and by doing so made an ass of himself and made himself look irrelevant at the same time. Didn't think it could get any worse than the scandal over the $4 million payola to Fabian Nunez, but Torres sure out did himself on this one.
Also not surprising, Senator Barbara Boxer fought to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies like Senator Dianne Feinstein. And fortunately for her, she's putting together a strong re-election campaign that won't rely upon the worthless CDP during the time we are recovering from the Torres dynasty.
In his latest look at California's 2010 Democratic Gubernatorial primary, Steve Maviglio writes about Dianne Feinstein:
Why she's not being touted as a possible Veep choice I don't know; she'd be the perfect fit.
Don't worry SacGuy, she's touting herself, but if her husband's sketchy financial dealings were enough to sink her as the VP nominee in 1984, all the war profiting from a war DiFi supported means this will never happen. Plus there's the whole problem with all of her support for Bush, specifically on the Judiciary Committee. And with news that the losers in our Party are trying to cave to the President on retroactive immunity, DiFi should be worried about another push to censure the senator. And there is the whole problem with her not just being a liability, but bringing nothing to the ticket. In short, this would be a perfect fit just like the $4 million refund from the CDP to Fabian Nunez was a perfect move (Maviglio cites, "several million dollars in his campaign account" as why the "Speaker Emeritus" may be a contender for governor).
At this weekend's California Democratic Party Executive Board meeting, the most important thing will be to see whether the Party wants people to respect the party. As of late, the CDP hasn't made much of an effort to earn respect and instead hasn't seemed to even give much of a damn.
For instance, the scandal over the $4 million "refund" to Fabian Nunez was disgusting on so many levels, not the least of which was the fact it occurred on the same election day where we spent less money on GOTV while losing the gubernatorial race in a landslide year. So tactically, the CDP needs to choose a new direction and not just honor Howard Dean at a cocktail hour but embrace the successful 50 State Strategy in California.
In this era of reform, with delegate elections and a new chair coming up soon, how do you see this weekend playing out? Will the CDP be like the DNC under Terry McAuliffe or Howard Dean? Transactional or transformational? The way things have been done or cross that bridge to the 21st century?
• Obviously everyone is going to be working hard for their causes and candidates, so it may be a little quiet around here. I'll be out walking all day tomorrow. Oh, and don't vote for the racist guy, Bill Johnson, as a Judge of the Superior Court (Office number 125) in LA County.
• Yesterday was the deadline for bills to get passed out of their chamber of origin, and the Assembly passed major subprime mortgage legislation, without help from Republicans (6 of them abstained despite being seated right in the chamber). This bill has some good homeowner assistance elements that will allow people to restructure their financing before foreclosure. A mortgage bill has also passed the State Senate, so some form of legislation will hopefully get to the governor post haste.
• One of the biggest problems with the housing crisis is that, as home sale prices lower, homeowners are reassessing their value and getting their property tax lowered, decreasing state revenue yet more.
• Sticking in the shiv before riding off into the sunset, Fabian Nuñez writes a puzzling op-ed in the Sacramento Bee approving of the Governor's horrible idea to borrow against future lottery revenue. Considering that the only sustainable solution to the permanent crisis mode that we have in our budget is to reorganize the tax structure instead of constantly borrowing, I have no idea why any Democrat would veer so far off message and undermine the new Speaker's ability to move forward. What's more, lotteries are regressive taxes on the poor.
• One spot where there will be a lot of action on Tuesday is in Ventura County, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans and which could have contested elections in the Assembly, Senate and US Congress. However, the LA Times shows its political acumen by writing:
One of the more closely watched contests on Tuesday will be the Democratic primary in the 24th Congressional District. Insurance agent Mary Pallant of Oak Park; Marta Jorgensen, a Solvang educator; and Oxnard businesswoman Jill Martinez are running.
Marta Jorgensen quit the race over a month ago and endorsed Martinez. Way to go, LAT.
• Excellent news out of Los Angeles: there's been a $1 million dollar settlement with Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center for their dumping homeless patients on Skid Row. They will also be monitored by a US Attorney for five years. This unethical practice has reached a reasonable conclusion. Hollywood Presbyterian deserved punishment.
• Trying to get rid of marijuana grow houses in Arcata is like trying to get rid of the Pacific Ocean on the California coast.
• Do read Robert in Monterey's report about Abel Maldonado, Don Perata's best buddy, running as a write-in candidate in the Democratic primary to stall an attempt to get an opponent on the November ballot. First of all, this is an example of why crossfiling should be banned once and for all. Second, Abel Maldonado is a snake and I can now see why Don Perata would knock on doors for him. Apparently, neither of them have much interest in the democratic process.
• Arnold thinks the legalization of gender-neutral marriage will be a boost to the sluggish economy, but I hope he's not basing his entire budget on a sharp uptick in gay weddings. I mean, there are only so many Mr. Sulus rich enough to have that surge register more than a blip. By the way, good for Mr. Sulu. And good for Ellen DeGeneres for telling Straight Talk Express where to shove it.
• Lucas mentioned this, but Darrell Issa got in the middle of a heated exchange between Henry Waxman and EPA Adminstrator Stephen Johnson over the EPA's breaking the Clean Air Act. Emptywheel has video:
• Why Fabian Nuñez is claiming racial bias at this late date over questions about his travel practices is completely beyond me. And he's taken to Spanish-language television for these accusations to stoke divisiveness in the Latino community, too. It's so counterproductive, as well as misleading.
• Speaking of Spanish-speaking media, this is an older story, but it's fascinating to me that the Spanish-language channels in LA are so much more substantive than the English-language ones, featuring longer, "more deeply reported" pieces.
• We could see a settlement very shortly on prison overcrowding in the state which would not require early release. There are some decent components to this deal, but it basically gives everyone three more years to clean up their act, and I wouldn't be surprised if it just puts us in the same siutation come 2011. The policies needed are well-known; the political will remains elusive.
• The Bay Area AQMD passed a carbon tax for businesses that emit greenhouse gases. It's "not enough to change behavior," one expert said, but it does presage what may be coming down the pike for polluters. Whether you get there through selling carbon permits at auction or with a tax, the bottom line is that pollution is going to cost enough money to alter business' approach to engaging in it. This is a good step.
• Interesting that we denied the endorsement to Rep. Laura Richardson (CA-37) on the same day that she is forced to defend herself against allegations that she walked away from her foreclosed home in Sacramento. It sounds like the Congresswoman renegotiated the loan, but the conservative fever swamps are all over this one (check the comments in that LAT blog post). She did buy the half-million-dollar home with no money down, and then left Sacramento almost immediately after winning election to fill the open seat in Congress.
The budget fight has touched just about every single person with an interest in the fiscal policy of the state and that includes strippers, porn stars and others in the adult entertainment industry. The Democrats are trying to find ways to raise revenue and avoid having to cut even deeper than they already have into essential programs and education funding. That means "sin taxes" and other sales taxes and fees. LAT:
As state leaders hunt for politically palatable solutions to the swelling budget shortfall, some Democrats are proposing unorthodox ways to generate cash.
Strip clubs, six-packs, grocery bags and iTunes downloads are all in their sights as alternatives to broad income or sales tax hikes. So are gas guzzlers and yachts -- and a tax loophole for criminals.
Despite tough odds of overcoming an oath signed by their Republican colleagues to stop any tax hikes, Democratic lawmakers seem confident that their ideas will carry the day. They predict the public won't stand for painful cuts to schools and healthcare to close a shortfall the governor now pegs as high as $20 billion, and say anti-tax forces will ultimately have to accept that more revenue is needed to bring the state into the black.
This is nothing new. We are roughly in the same place we were a few months ago, only the deficit is even larger. Flip it.
The redistricting component features an independent 17-member "hybrid" commission. No legislators will serve on the panel, with the majority picked randomly from a screened pool with no legislative influence and eight others picked by legislative leaders. Unlike the Voters First initiative that may appear on the November ballot, this proposal requires diversity in every step of the process and puts the Voting Rights Act first and foremost among the criteria in selecting districts. There's also a host of transparency and public input provisions.
The term limits provision is similar to Prop 93, but excludes the provisions that protected many incumbents that drew criticism. It reduces the maximum amount of time a person can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12 years, allowing a legislator to serve all their time in one house.
There's also a fundraising blackout period prohibiting campaign contributions to legislators and the Governor from May 15th until the budget is enacted.
These would go up on the ballot for passage by voters in November once they get through the Legislature. There is of course already a redistricting measure that appears to be on its way to the ballot, so it's unclear whether or not this is a "confuse and kill" strategy. But Nuñez said that his hope would be for one redistricting proposal on the ballot.
I'll let folks draw their own conclusions and pick their own fights for the most part, but I thought this poll (link changed to pdf of Field Poll) was pretty interesting (favorable/unfavorable/net):
California Nurses Association/Nurses: 53/15/+35
California Hospital Assn./Hospitals: 33/30/+3
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: 40/40/0
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez: 20/29/-8
Chamber of Commerce/Business Groups: 25/36/-11
News Media: 28/46/-18%
Republican State Legislative Leaders: 22/48/-26
Health Insurance Companies: 16/55/-39
I will throw a few rather obvious ones out along with one that may be less so. One- people don't care much for politicians. Two- they care even less for the media, which is interesting as the media keeps cutting back on news coverage. Three- they HATE insurance companies, which makes me wonder why anyone keeps trying to keep them in the equation.
Also, CNA's numbers are pretty darn impressive. Some of that is that people just like nurses I would imagine. But average Californian on the street, if they have an actual opinion of CNA proper, it's likely to be an opinion on single-payer. Which makes me think that, given the opportunity, people might be pretty supportive of single-payer.
Given that George Skelton has written the opposing view in today's L.A. Times, I thought readers would enjoy my opinion about California's early primary.
Remember when California moved up its presidential primary from June to February - so that we'd have a "bigger impact"? We ended up sharing February 5th with 21 other states - and so had almost no effect on the nomination. Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton because he didn't have enough time to introduce himself to voters in such a large state, but made up for that loss by racking up huge victories elsewhere. Now California has a state primary on June 3rd - where turnout is expected to be very low, so the right-wing Proposition 98 to end rent control could pass. If we had kept the primary at a later date, we would have affected the nomination - and Prop 98 would have gone down in flames. But the Democratic leaders in Sacramento pushed a February primary to extend their term limits - in a gambit that failed.
There are a lot of interesting things going on that should be mentioned, but that I couldn't quite generate whole posts out of - so here they are for your Friday reading pleasure.
Karen Bass will become the Speaker on May 15, meaning she will play a central role in the upcoming budget negotiations this summer. I'm guessing she won't be as frequent a guest in Arnold's smoking tent as was her predecessor.
Civil Rights groups have come out swinging against the redistricting reform plan - MALDEF, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, and the William C. Velazquez Institute held a news conference to explain their belief that redistricting reform will produce many fewer elected officials of color and weaken the voting rights of those communities. It's especially ironic that these criticisms are made against the backdrop of Fabian Núñez getting ready to hand off power to Karen Bass - redistricting reform is low enough on the state's list of priorities, and if it is going to reduce the representation of California's communities of color, it needs to not be passed.
The Department of Managed Care is going to reexamine thousands of "rescissions" of health insurance made by insurers AFTER the patients got sick. When 90 of these rescissions done by Blue Cross were sampled by the agency, all 90 were found to be flawed. While this process holds out some hope of recovery of costs and insurance by those victimized by this practice, it also simply reinforces the point that health insurers have no place in the delivery of health care in our state and in our country.
Facing the end of both his term in the state assembly and as its Speaker, Fabian Núñez is pushing a series of "legislative reforms," as reported in today's LA Times. The problem is that these "reforms" will do little to produce actual improvements in governance - and if Núñez is interested in securing his "legacy" as the article suggests, he's taking the wrong approach.
Núñez is trying to put three initiatives on the November ballot - a term limits extension that would only apply to legislators who are not in their final terms (so that Núñez himself won't benefit); a ban on fundraising during budget negotiations - and a redistricting measure.
Núñez is teaming up with Yacht Party leader Mike Villines on all of these reform initiatives, including redistricting. The article does not detail the Núñez redistricting measure, but noted that he (rightly) objected to the Schwarzenegger plan's possibility of weakening majority-minority districts - and that Núñez believes the best way to defeat Arnold's redistricting plan is to provide his own alternative. The article also notes that Núñez has $5.1 million to spend on these accounts (assuming he doesn't give in to the pressure to return that to the CDP).
But nowhere in Núñez' legacy plan is there anything regarding the 2/3 rule for budget and tax votes in the Legislature, by far the most important reform that the Legislature needs. $5.1 million would provide a major boost to an effort to eliminate the 2/3 rule and restore sanity to the state budget process. Given the likelihood of a Yacht Party holdout on the budget this summer public support for a 2/3 elimination would be high this November.
Instead Núñez is wasting his time on less relevant issues. Term limits reform would be nice, but it's not the state's highest priority at the moment. Same with fundraising during budget talks.
Most importantly, the entire redistricting reform movement is a sham, built upon completely unproven assumptions and on the unstated but key desire to reduce the number of Democrats in Sacramento. More on that below.
CapWeekly broke the news that the California Labor Federation passed a resolution demanding that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez give back the $4 millions the CDP transfered to his account back in November 2006. Those funds have been the source of my derision by myself and other front pagers here at Calitics. It was a symbol of what was wrong with the current political structure in the Democratic party, giving large chunks of money to one politician, rather than investing in campaigns and or building up the party infrastructure itself. The Speaker currently has $5.1 million in his personal campaign account.
The question is now, what will Nunez do with all of that cash? The Labor Fed is concerned that it will be used to Nunez's own benefit, perhaps a future political race, rather than benefiting the Assembly Democratic Caucus, which was the stated goal when the CDP transfered the funds in the first place.
"When the speaker asked for the money, it was for one purpose -- to help elect Assembly Democratic candidates. It was not for a slush fund for the speaker. If he does the moral thing, he will return the money," said Robert Balgenorth, president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, and a member of the Federation's executive committee.
But haggling over the details of the resolution continued Tuesday. A Nunez spokesman said the language of the resolution directed the speaker to spend the money on behalf of Democratic candidates, and not necessarily return the funds to the party. But sources at the labor convention said Nunez, subect to campaign restrictions, could not spend the $4 milion as originally promised because of the $3,600 limit per candidate.
This is something that Nunez should have known at the time, same goes for the CDP. However, these campaign finance restrictions should not have prevented him from making independent expenditures. That did not happen and the Speaker has only spent $1.4 million out of his account since 2005. He has been hoarding it, but for for what.
Joe Matthews, formerly of the LAT, now at the New America Foundation has a post defending Nunez. Matthews' defense is fatally flawed. The reasons he lists for Nunez retaining the cash are no longer an issue and in one way or another have been resolved. (check the flip)
Because I'm dumb: corrected to Portantino from Portafino
Rep. Anthony Portantino got a fax last week informing him that he was no longer chairing the Education Committee. Rep. Hector De La Torre lost his chairmanship of the Rules Committee and won't even get to stay on the committee. The LA Times and the Pasadena Star News, along with Capitol Weekly, paint the moves as some combination of retribution for running for Speaker (both ran against Karen Bass) and lining up Bass' preferred leadership ahead of her taking over the Speakership.
Steve Maviglio, in his normally flowery language, said simply "it's an internal caucus matter." Both Portantino and De La Torre have said they spoke to Bass and she told them she knew nothing about the demotions. If you've been living under a rock lately, you may have missed that Education is rather a hot topic about now in the halls of the Capitol, so a shakeup at the top of the committee is notable. And the Rules Committee is always a big deal, so swapping out a recent Bass (and Nunez) competitor for Ted Leiu (who's long been in Nunez's and Bass' respective camps) and dropping De La Torre all the way off the committee, well...that's also notable.
If anything, it brings into stark contrast two competing governing theories. Some people want to govern surrounded by the folks who get to the top based entirely on their merits, some prefer to be surrounded by the folks they work best with. Certainly this isn't a cut-and-dried contrast between the two options, but I'm sure it sets (or reinforces more likely) a standard of discouraging people for aspiring to higher positions lest they be punished for it.
