Corruption

Who Is Trying to Legalize College Contract Cronyism in California?

Legislation would exempt some college employees from state corruption rules

|

Why is college so expensive these days, anyway?
UC Logo

Katy Grimes of Cal Watchdog uncovered some potentially dangerous weirdness in a California Assembly bill. Potentially dangerous weirdness is an unfortunately common component of Golden State legislation and is often not an obstacle to passage. This one has all the hallmarks of the way union workers got themselves exempted from harassment laws while engaging in picketing. Grimes reports:

Public contracts should always be subjected to stiff scrutiny. Without public scrutiny and oversight, spending other people's money is too easy.

But a new Assembly bill would not only increase the amount of money California's public universities and colleges could spend without adhering to the competitive bid process, but would also exempt state employees from felony charges of corruption.

What AB 173 would do is allow colleges to award contracts for goods or services to small businesses or "disabled veteran" businesses for up to $250,000 without having to turn to a bidding process.  After the bill made it through a committee, sponsor Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) then amended the bill to exempt University of California employees from the state's corruption laws in connection with these contract agreements, including the part of the California code that states, "Any officer or employee of the University of California who corruptly performs any official act under this chapter to the injury of the university is guilty of a felony."

Grimes reported she was unable to get an explanation from Weber's office for this change. On Wednesday, the bill went before the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

Fortunately this time, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, asked Weber about the amendment, and why it was made. Before Harkey could even complete her question, Weber interjected that she was removing the amendment. "We were asked to include it, as a request," Weber told the Committee. "It is going to be eliminated."

But Weber did not say who asked her to put the amendment in AB 173 which would have exempted state college and university employees from corruption prosecution under the California Public Contracts Code.

And as far as Grimes can tell (and I have to agree), the exemption is still in the legislation. It's even noted in italics in the legislative counsel's digest.

NEXT: Tsarnaev's Lawyer Loses Bid to Photograph Dzhokhar in Jail

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What AB 173 would do is allow colleges to award contracts for goods or services to small businesses or “disabled veteran” businesses for up to $250,000 without having to turn to a bidding process. After the bill made it through a committee, sponsor Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) then amended the bill to exempt University of California employees from the state’s corruption laws in connection with these contract agreements, including the part of the California code that states, “”Any officer or employee of the University of California who corruptly performs any official act under this chapter to the injury of the university is guilty of a felony.”

    Keeping higher education honest by legalizing bribery.

    1. my best friend’s mother-in-law makes $68/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for seven months but last month her payment was $12841 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more….. http://WWW.DAZ7.COM

      1. She must be a disabled veteran. Know what I mean, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?

        Your best friend’s mother-in-law, does she ‘go’ – eh? eh? eh?

        1. HOW ARE YOU NOT AT THE GAME

          1. I’m watching it, I don’t have the scratch to go to a playoff game. I ain’t no Fist of Etiquette here, man.

            Sid’s hatty was a thing of beauty. Beat anderson like a rented mule.

            1. Stats Canada
              ?@stats_canada
              90% of Canadian grandmothers have a thicker moustache than Sidney Crosby

              1. He looks like a mexican 12 year old with that ‘stache.

        2. She likes photography, eh? CANDID photography? I’ll bet she does! I’ll bet she does! Say no more!

          1. Is your wife a ‘goer’?, is she a sport? Nudge, nudge. Wink wink. Say no more.

  2. “But Weber did not say who asked her to put the amendment in AB 173 which would have exempted state college and university employees from corruption prosecution under the California Public Contracts Code.”

    Why, what public-spirited party would request such a thing?

  3. Who here among us wouldn’t try to legalize theft if given the opportunity?

    1. Me. Stop reverse copying me, Suthenboy. I don’t care that you “have a time machine and intend to use it”, I won’t stand for this.

  4. I bet her next resolution will be one baring Diane Harkey from questioning her motives.

  5. I’ve worked for some pretty big companies that require higher than VP approval for spending more than $10,000 on anything. Yet, the collectivists tell us government is the trustworthy side of the fence.

    1. But only when the right people are in charge

  6. “It is going to be eliminated.”

    You know who else wanted “things” eliminated…

    1. Jacques Cousteau?

      In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day.

      1. Paul Ehrlich?

        1. I almost wrote that one.

          1. White Indian does well, too.

  7. Question to COMMENTARIAT:

    True or False:

    Obama walks away from all of these scandals in a month after firing a few more toadies and giving a very important LET-ME-BE-CLEAR Speech to the Nation, summer rolls around, the nation takes a collective nap and we go live(!) with Obamacare in 2014.

    1. True.

    2. Those lap dogs really don’t take a lot of scratches until they forget the time you stepped on their tail.

    3. True,

      But if a special prosecutor is appointed, and underlings start getting threatened with being indicted, not merely fired, and those underlings have written (or taped) proof that they were operating under orders from the WH…then it could go further.

      A few of the things that separates this from the various ‘Gates, is that: 1) I don’t see a WaPo like mover of the story. I.e., respected by the vast majority of the nation. Fox and Drudge don’t count for this.

      2) I don’t think we’ve seen a Deep Throat with hard evidence yet.

      3) Most of the nation already has made their minds up about the guy, good or evil. And I think the sides are so polarized that even hard evidence of orders from the WH to have the IRS ream people for political gain, won’t change minds.

      1. Three true’s immediately. And now I know how much I’m drinking this evening.

        (pounds huge glass of water)…..

        1. Correction, four trues, and one “I had no sense of guilt.”

    4. Yes.

      I mean “true”.

    5. Well, Benghazi is over with now since the GOP was caught Dan Rathering the emails. Finished. ABC’s Jonathan Karl should out the ratfucker but he won’t do it.

      The AP deal was owned completely by Obama and he is on firm legal ground.

      That leaves the IRS “scandal” and the testimony today by the Bush-appointed IRS Commish gave Obama full cover.

      Sorry – thems the facts.

      1. Shut the fuck up you little monkey. Take your retarded talking points elsewhere. Everyone here hates you. And no one cares what you say. Tell your handlers to assign you to a different website.

      2. How many times can you get on here and repeat the same idiotic fucking lies? Is there any limit to your mendacity? You must just love shitting on a thread and having your nose rubbed in it.

        1. Eight months of whining about Benghazi? And poof – what is left? A ratfucker lied to the MSM and now they won’t touch it again.

          http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cbs…..zi-emails/

          Too bad.

          1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuGtxt84wPQ

            BUSHPIG!!!

            Get it out dipshit. And some dumb ass liberal blog, doesn’t count as a source. Stop thinking we are as retarded as you are.

      3. Palin’s Buttplug| 5.17.13 @ 9:59PM |#
        “Well, Benghazi is over with now since the GOP was caught Dan Rathering the emails.”

        Epi claims ‘way more socks than I see, but this sort of a post says shreek (or the ‘control’ who claims to be shreek) may well be.

        1. I think it probably is. There are several generic liberal assholes who post with the account. Always post the same idiotic talking points they got off Kos or some other part of the fever swamp.

          1. John| 5.17.13 @ 10:23PM |#
            “I think it probably is.”

            I’m still not sure, given the obvious ‘presume stupidity over…’ and there’s more than enough stupidity from shreek.
            Hard tellin’. I’ll beat on the dipshit when it looks fun, as in his claim that med insurance rates are somehow divorced from the Obozocar disaster. That’s a classic, regardless of shreek’s provenance.

        2. Epi is probably right. It is the same tiresome horse shit day after day. The same non sequiters. As Obama goes further and further down, shreek gets more and more pathetic.

          1. not sure why you bother anymore

            1. I shouldn’t. I just hate to see the talking points and horseshit left without any response.

              1. I dont SEE the talking points, nor do any reasonable people.

                I do see your fucking responses though. I wish you would stop it, or reasonable would adopt threaded blocking.

                1. Knowing what your opponents’ talking points are is fairly useful, even if the points themselves are stupid. I only filter people who spam or are constantly trying to push my buttons without adding substance to the debate.

      4. The treasury department knew about the IRS issues in June of last year. High ranking treasury officials. Obama very well may have known.

        Thems the facts.

        1. Irish| 5.17.13 @ 10:44PM |#
          “Thems the facts.”

          Which is reason to beat on shreek regardless of whether shreek is a sock or not.

      5. What e-mails? There’s four dead bodies and Hillary screeching “what difference does it make” on video. There’s Obama standing as the brain-dead teleprompter jockey who tossed her the department of state as a consolation prize to shut her fans up.

        -jcr

    6. It is hard to believe these will be well remembered come September, but who knows. There could still be more before the month is out.

  8. I’m surprised they didn’t exempt UC employees from felony charges for pedophilia while they are at it. I guess the prof’s union isn’t as powerful as the CTA.

  9. My favorite line from Steyn’s latest- The Autocrat Accountants:

    Oddly enough, in recent days the most compelling testimony for this view of government has come from the president himself, who insists with a straight face that he had no idea that the Internal Revenue Service had spent two years targeting his political enemies until he “learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this.” Like you, all he knows is what he reads in the papers. Which is odd, because his Justice Department is bugging those same papers, so you’d think he’d at least get a bit of a heads-up. But no doubt the fact that he’s wiretapping the Associated Press was also entirely unknown to him until he read about it in the Associated Press.

    1. Steyn kind of annoys me sometimes with his gloom and doom, all of the brown people are out breeding us, shit. But when he gets away from that, he is really a good writer.

      1. Agreed, when he sticks to the whole “Canadian English guy finding his libertarian roots in New Hampshire” schtick he’s at his best.

        “Big Government is erecting a panopticon state ? one that sees everything, and regulates everything. It’s great “customer service,” except that you can never get out of the store.”

    2. Wiretapping? I thought they just had call logs?

  10. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05…..-aide.html

    God these people are gross. All of them are just crooks. You look at Huma Abedin. She has never done anything significant or productive in her life beyond doing God knows what for the Clinton’s and stealing. That is it. She is nothing but a theif and a crook.

    1. I don’t see why this is relevant. There were a couple of emails that weren’t accurate, you ratfucking, Beckerheaded Christfag.

      Get with the program, Bushditto Rushpig.

      1. “Bushditto”. I like that one.

    2. An associate of Ms. Abedin’s said on Thursday that the arrangement allowed her to work from her home in New York, rather than at the State Department’s headquarters in Washington, and to spend more time with her child and husband.

      Somebody has to keep an eye on his Twitter activity….

      The Clintons have described Ms. Abedin as a surrogate daughter to them.

      Surrogate daughter? As in, a stand-in for Chelsea who is incapable of being a daughter? Ouch. I hope this inartful phrase was chosen by the NYT reporter rather than the Clintons themselves.

  11. These guys totally know whats going down. WOw.

    http://www.Prox-Anon.tk

  12. Thanks to shrike’s stupid link, I now know that Wayne Brady wants to beat Bill Maher’s ass in public.

    I’d pay to see that shit.

    1. priceless.

  13. It’s just cronyism all the way down.

    Anyway, I have just come up with my totally not original excuse for everything, and I used it today. It never fails. Example below:

    My boss: Hey, did you do that report I asked about last week.

    Me: Hmmm, last week, that was a really long time ago.

    My boss: Did you do it? People died because we didn’t get it!

    Me: I don’t remember, it was a really, really, long time ago.

    My boss: WTF? Did you do it?

    Me: What difference at this point, does it make?

    My boss: Ok, asshole, you’re fired.

    Me: Meh.

    My boss: Ok, look, go home and wait for your totally huge severance package, and we’ll call you when the next cabinet appointment comes up.

    / corrupt government

    1. But someone leaked an inaccurate email to the press. So your fuckup doesn’t matter. Come back to work Hyperion.

      1. Teabaggers stopped me from doing the report.

        I was cleared of all wrong doings, got a hugemongerous raise, and a big plague on my new office door, with a prefix of The Honorable.

        1. plaque, not plague, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no Egypt…

          1. Plaque? May your dental hygienist be a 55 year old cow-woman.

            1. GD it, Canuckistanian!, may your dental hygienist be a 60 year old toothless eater of whale blubber who feasts only on the flesh of you!

  14. Piers Morgan is more intellectually honest than Shrike.

    “I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them,” Morgan said last night. “But, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government.”

    You think?

    1. Who knew Piers Morgan was such a Beckerhead? If he would stop spewing Faux Limbaugh talking points for one second, he’d realize what sort of wingnut he’s being.

      /pluggertarian

    2. Hahaha. It’s all about whose ox is being gored.

      Never mind the scads of non-journalist citizens who’ve been tapped without a warrant for years; now it’s a scandal.

  15. Okay, I can’t keep it in any longer..

    Got one of these today.

    My dad straight up gave it to me. He just bought it and I was a bit surprised. Thank god nannies like Tulpa didn’t get their way or we’d of had to go to and FFL to do the transfer.

    1. Pretty….

      Obviously you should be a felon for accepting that without a background check.

      Unfortunately, I, along with a canadian great-uncle-in-law (or something) am helping to get my dad into firearms, and away from whatever the local dem party teaches him.

      1. Have you gone to the range with him yet?

        That usually gets people pretty gung-ho about shooting.

        1. Took him two or three times, several years ago. He goes shooting with his canadian brother-in-law (with an impressive collection of items lost in the river on that hunting trip last fall.)

          I need to take him to the range more, though, yea.

    2. Sweet!

    3. Image not found.

      Stop sucking!

      1. I can see it on my browser.

        It’s a taurus .22 lr/mag tracker with a 4″ barrel in brushed stainless.

        The cylinders switch out with the press of a button; it takes about 10 seconds.

        The gun is very accurate. I know, because if I can put holes in holes, then it’s the gun.

        1. It goes to the site but the pic won’t load. I Googled the model to get a pic. Nice.

    4. First they came for the mobile vendors, and I didn’t speak out because I only went to state-approved stationary locations.

      Next they came for the Mexican-product grocers, and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t drink Jew-Coke.

      Then they came for the private gun sellers, and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t sell guns privately and always, ALWAYS, kept them in state-approved and regularly-inspected safes.

      Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

      1. Look man, I’m just glad that I finally am armed again. That freak boat accident where I lost all of my registered firearms had me heartbroken.

        1. Seriously? That’s terrible. And rather expensive.

          1. Especially since his gold, silver, and ferrets were also in the boat, presumably.

        2. those are a bitch, aren’t they? I never should have taken that pile of guns in that canoe.

        3. nobody needs a canoe!

          1. Spoken like a true canadian 🙂

          2. Canoes are ok, as long as they’re not painted scary black, and with high capacity oars.

            1. I thought y’all got rid of the scary black canoes.

            2. Canoes are ok, as long as they’re not painted scary black, and with high capacity oars.

              Obviously. Boats with high capacity oars are generally rowed by some sort of galley slave contingent.

              That’s why you need a background check.

        4. FYI, usually the boating accident stories aren’t followed up with news of the acquisition of new firearms/gold/lawn darts/dragons breath ammo/whatever.

          Stick with me kid, I’ll teach you how it’s done.

    5. I don’t know much about guns, but I do recognize the Taurus when I see one. It has a distinctly “thick” look. My grandmother has always favored revolvers, especially for concealed carry (I realize revolvers aren’t normally recommended due to the greater bulge, but the holsters my family uses don’t typically have that problem), due to their simplicity and ease of use.

      1. I love my p3at, but I really don’t carry it anywhere near as much as I should.

    6. Thank god nannies like Tulpa didn’t get their way or we’d of had to go to and FFL to do the transfer.

      Sorry to “nitpick” (ie, state why your attack is wrong), but parent-child transfers were exempted under the Toomey amendment. And as you know in PA there’s already a background check requirement with even narrower exceptions than Toomey’s for handgun transfers.

      I hope it’s a case where he bought the gun for himself and later chose to give it to you, so we don’t have to worry about straw-purchase issues. But that’s none of my biz.

    7. I should add that I was looking at one of those used a few weeks ago. I’ve always wanted a 22lr revolver, and my poor Heritage Arms gun sucked so bad (the first revolver I’ve ever seen jam) I melted it down and fashioned it into an anchor for my boat. You can imagine what happened next.

    1. From a glance at your link, I agree. I am all in favor of banning Canada, or Canadia as the Canadans put it in their native language.

      1. Starting with Jim Carey.

    2. The Sequester strikes again!

  16. What AB 173 would do is allow colleges to award contracts for goods or services to small businesses or “disabled veteran” businesses for up to $250,000 without having to turn to a bidding process. After the bill made it through a committee, sponsor Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) then amended the bill to exempt University of California employees from the state’s corruption laws in connection with these contract agreements, including the part of the California code that states, “Any officer or employee of the University of California who corruptly performs any official act under this chapter to the injury of the university is guilty of a felony.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.