MANY CALIFORNIA COLLEGES WELL SET TO RESIST TRUMP’S PUSH

CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2025, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“MANY CALIFORNIA COLLEGES WELL SET TO RESIST TRUMP’S PUSH”

 

Harvard made itself the unquestioned leader among American colleges and universities when its president announced it would not knuckle under to President Trump’s attempts to dictate what can and cannot happen or be discussed on its campus.

 

The Crimson risked an immediate $2.2 billion in federal grants for everything from research on dementia to development of new forms of artificial intelligence.

 

Harvard then followed up with a lawsuit aimed at clawing back those previously authorized and awarded grants, plus another $7 billion or so in other research funds Trump’s appointees have threatened to cut off.

 

Never mind the legalities of what the government can cancel and when. When Harvard acted, other colleges that at first bent the knee (Columbia University is Example A of this) suddenly became braver and changed their minds, saying no to many Trump demands. 

 

So far, the action has not centered on California. But it has before, and it might again at any moment. After all, the move against Harvard came via a letter that was sent out before it was fully authorized, but Trump stuck by it despite the error in timing.

 

In an effort to stave off some Trump ire, several California universities had already made moves. The University of California, for example, set new rules virtually banning encampments like those that took hold during the winter of 2023-24, in the wake of the Hamas terror group’s attack on Israel, which saw about 1,450 persons killed or kidnapped into hostage status. Another move by UC banned campus chapters of the group Students for Justice in Palestine.

 

No one doubts it was Harvard’s $53 billion endowment (think of this as a savings account or ‘rainy day fund” that can be deployed in emergencies) that enabled its President Alan Garber’s defiance and his stand for protection of academic independence and freedom of expression in classrooms.

 

But what would happen if California colleges were suddenly targeted seriously? UC Berkeley, for one example, gets just over $1 billion in federal grants for research on subjects from wildfires to public health. It gets another $1.5 billion each year to operate the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory elsewhere in the East Bay. UCLA gets $1.1 billion in federal research money.

 

Amounts flowing to California State University campuses are far smaller. And none of the state universities has an endowment that could let it carry on much research or many other activities without federal funds.

 

But there are several California schools that could carry on quite well. That list is led by Stanford University’s $36.49 billion or $38 billion endowment, which ranks in the top four of American universities. (Its exact value carries varying estimates.)

 

Given that Stanford gets only about 12 percent of its operating revenue from federal funds and grants, that means The Farm could run just fine for years without help from the feds. Inconvenient, yes. Fatal, no. Especially since wealthy alumni would likely step up to contribute if Stanford felt threatened.

 

The last time Stanford previously flashed its bankroll was when it accepted reduced TV revenues for awhile when joining the Atlantic Coast Conference after the old Pac-12 folded.

 

A surprising number of other California schools could also do just fine. Pomona College, with an endowment of about $2.8 billion, according to Forbes Magazine, uses federal funds for a mere 1.4 percent of its operations. At CalTech, with an endowment Forbes places at $3.8 billion, about 9 percent of operating revenue is federal dollars. But that’s because CalTech runs the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and all its space exploration programs for NASA. Trump is not likely to interfere with that and risk becoming “the man who lost the moon.”

 

Other California colleges that might do just fine include Claremont McKenna College and Santa Clara University.

 

Yes, much of the endowment money held by all those schools was donated for specific purposes. But if any of them felt threatened, they would likely appeal to donors or their heirs to loosen those conditions.

 

So no, other than the big public universities, Trump probably can't threaten the independence of California colleges. And that will come as a relief to some.

 

-30-

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

WHO CONTROLS LAW OFFICERS? L.A. SHERIFF’S ELECTION MAY TELL

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2022, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

     “WHO CONTROLS LAW OFFICERS? L.A. SHERIFF’S ELECTION MAY TELL”

 

        For the last three years, it’s been plain that some California sheriffs are de facto beyond the control of the county supervisors who are their nominal bosses.

 

        Some sheriffs won’t discipline deputies for out-of-control brutality, many still refuse to require deputies to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in places where that is demanded of all other county employees, most don’t discipline deputies who become involved in paramilitary or ideologically extreme groups like the Proud Boys and virtually all openly resent any efforts to cut their budgets, even a little.

 

        In some ways, the conflict between civilians and sworn officers mimics the constant push and pull between national military leaders and civilians who are their supposed bosses, but often act like sycophants and wanna-be generals or admirals.

 

        If there’s a leader among the scofflaw sheriffs in California, who run departments as disparate in size and geography as Riverside and Del Norte counties, it is Alex Villanueva, the first Latino sheriff of Los Angeles County and the prime example for defiant colleagues.

 

        Villanueva ran for office four years ago as a reformer who would reverse policies of his predecessors that let deputies get away with far more brutality and other irregularities than they could if they were officers in most local police departments, which often are closely watched by city governments.

 

        He evolved into something nearly the opposite of what he indicated he would be. Most recently, he displayed apparent ignorance of the California reporters’ shield law, which forbids arresting or otherwise legally harassing news reporters for refusing to divulge sources of information they publish.

 

        In that case, Villanueva threatened a criminal investigation of a Los Angeles Times reporter for possibly accepting stolen property after she publicized a leaked video showing a deputy kneeling for several minutes on the head (a la George Floyd) of a handcuffed prisoner who had just violently resisted that deputy.

 

        When every major press organization in the state decried his threat as a violation of the shield law and constitutional free press guarantees, Villanueva backed off, declaring there had been an “incredible frenzy of misinformation.”

 

        The Times and several witnesses alleged Villanueva first saw the months-old tape just days after the incident occurred, then covered it up. The sheriff denied that, saying he didn’t know of the incident until eight months after it occurred and then took swift action.

 

        Villanueva claimed the reporter illegally got the tape from a former top aide, Eli Vera, who is now one of four credible primary election candidates to replace him. The sheriff called the tape stolen property.

 

        But the furor over the kneeling deputy tape is only one item bedeviling Villanueva’s reelection attempt. Another: despite his Latino heritage, his department is often accused of treating immigrants unfairly. A state audit this spring claimed Los Angeles County is among several sheriff’s offices displaying bias against immigrants, women and LGBTQ+ persons, saying it is one of the agencies lacking safeguards against discriminatory attitudes. This, the audit said, puts the departments at “higher risk of…being unable to effectively address the ways in which their officers exhibit bias.”

 

        Latina Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis, frequently at odds with Villanueva, in late April asked state Attorney General Rob Bonta to investigate the sheriff’s “pattern of unconscionable and dangerous actions.”

 

        Bonta already had an ongoing active civil rights investigation of Villanueva’s office, with no visible consequences.

 

        That pretty much leaves it to voters in the primary to decide whether Villanueva’s behavior in office – and by extension that of many other California sheriffs – is OK.

 

        He has substantial opposition, with not only Vera, who was a sheriff’s chief deputy before being demoted when he declared his candidacy, but also Sheriff’s Lt. Eric Strong, Los Angeles Airport Police Chief Cecil Rhambo and former Long Beach Police Chief Robert Luna in the running.

 

        Chances are Villanueva, as an incumbent, will make it at least to the November runoff election. But if he doesn’t, or if he loses then, it will be a strong statement that voters – the ultimate bosses of all sheriffs – want them subjected to much more civilian control than many have accepted for the last few years.

       

        -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

CHANGING OF STATE’S CONGRESSIONAL GUARD CONTINUES

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2016 OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

  “CHANGING OF STATE’S CONGRESSIONAL GUARD CONTINUES”

          The inevitable generational changing of California’s political guard is sure to continue next month, but don’t expect much of a shift in the party makeup of the state’s 53-member House delegation, where Democrats now dominate by a 39-14 margin.

          Change began to move quickly two years ago when patriarchs in both parties retired, including past chairmen of major committees like Democrat Henry Waxman in coastal Los Angeles County, Republican Buck McKeon of Santa Clarita and Democrat George Miller of Contra Costa County.

          This year’s departures will include Democrat Lois Capps of Santa Barbara County and Monterey County Democrat Sam Farr. All were in their 70s when they announced they were leaving.

          There will still be plenty of seniority in the delegation, though, both in age and years of service, which means even more changes are likely two, four and six years from now.

          A lot of the age and experience now resides in the San Francisco Bay area, home to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 76, and fellow Democrats Jackie Speier, 66; Anna Eshoo, 73, and Zoe Lofgren, 68. San Jose Democrat Mike Honda, 72, faces his second straight tough reelection battle this year, his political survival very much in doubt.

          Over in the Central Valley, Fresno’s Democratic veteran Jim Costa, 64, faces off a second time against well-funded Republican farmer Johnny Tacherra, who led Costa on election night two years ago. Costa narrowly survived that year on the strength of late absentee and provisional votes. A strong GOP turnout for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in the Fresno area could mean the end of Costa’s 38-year political career.

  

          Further south, a succession clash is brewing in Orange County, where former Assemblyman and ex-county Republican Chairman Scott Baugh this spring began raising money for a 2018 campaign to succeed his old “friend,” longtime Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, 68, who promptly issued a statement denying any plans to retire that soon.

          Of all these seats, the one with the best chance to change parties this year belongs to Capps, who took over for her late husband Walter in 1998. The early favorite here is Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider, a Democrat, but nine candidates are running and the race for the two November runoff slots seems wide open.

          Two other seats being vacated this year belong to Democrats Loretta Sanchez of Orange County and Janice Hahn of San Pedro. Sanchez seeks the retiring Barbara Boxer’s U.S. Senate seat, while Hahn wants a slot on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, where her father Kenneth served 40 years. There will be no party change in either district, though; both are solidly Democratic.

          But there could be a party change in the Sacramento area’s 7^th district, now represented by Democrat Ami Bera, an MD and the only Unitarian in Congress. Several Bera votes have angered left-leaning Democrats. If they desert him in November, Republican Sacramento County Sheriff Steve Jones could take this swing district.

          But the coastal district now represented by Farr looks safely Democratic, with Monterey County Deputy District Attorney Jimmy Panetta a heavy favorite. Panetta, 46, whose father represented the district many years before becoming Bill Clinton’s budget director and chief of staff, then CIA director and defense secretary for President Obama, staked his claim to the seat early and no other Democrat is seriously challenging.

          The upshot is that California’s congressional delegation will gain some youth this year, but could lose a bit of seniority. This won’t matter much unless Democrats somehow regain control of the House and give Pelosi a second term as Speaker.

          That looks unlikely, in large part because gerrymandering has made Republican dominance inevitable in much of the South, especially populous Texas.

          Still, the newcomers – almost all likely to be Democrats – from this year’s election and 2014 will be poised to give California renewed clout if and when Democrats ever regain control of Congress, something that’s improbable at least until 2022, when the next Census creates new political districts all across America.

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CRONYISM DOG HYDROGEN HIGHWAY

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

    “CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CRONYISM DOG HYDROGEN HIGHWAY”

          Looking for a new reason to distrust a state government that won’t even expel legislators when they’ve been indicted or convicted?

          Then examine $46.5 million in grants announced by the state Energy Commission in early May for building refueling stations to serve the hydrogen-powered cars due to appear on California roads as early as next year. These grants thoroughly pollute the coming hydrogen highway.

          Fully 58 percent of the money – $27.5 million – will go to one company if the commission gives its final approval. Action was due May 14, with the commission’s agenda estimating it would need just 10 minutes to dole out the funds.

          What’s wrong with that? The company getting all that cash – from vehicle license fees – is FirstElement Fuel, which has never built or managed anything. Its co-president is Dr. Tim Brown, until last Oct. 1 a senior scientist in the Advanced Power and Energy Program at UC Irvine.

          While there, Brown was the principal designer of the Energy Commission’s map for placement of hydrogen stations, most to consist of pumps added into existing service stations. Under a contract with UCI, Brown also trained Energy Commission staffers on how to use the material he developed for the commission. Some of those staffers evaluated grant applications this spring.

          If these obvious conflicts of interest aren’t problematic enough, there’s also the fact FirstElement filed a 900-page grant application barely four months after Brown left UCI. It included commitments from more than 20 service stations to allow FirstElement to install hydrogen pumps. Officials of competing companies say it’s unprecedented to recruit so many stations and develop a 900-page proposal in so little time.

          About one week after this column revealed in early March that Brown had applied for tens of millions of grant dollars under a system he essentially designed, the Energy Commission requested a written opinion from the state Fair Political Practices Commission on whether Brown was in conflict of interest. In its 40-year history, the Energy Commission never before requested such an opinion.

    That opinion emerged as a rubber-stamp document filled with legal sophistry. Example: “Dr. Brown was an employee of UC Irvine while operating under a contract with the Energy Commission. The research and education that the Energy Commission gained during that contract might have informed (his grant application), but we cannot say the contracts are the same or even that one necessarily led into the other,” the FPPC said. Translation: the state’s ethics watchdog says Brown can receive the state money because it can’t prove he drew the map to benefit himself. Even if this was possible.

          Of course, the state Supreme Court in 1980 ruled that conflict of interest laws are intended “not only to strike at actual impropriety, but also to strike at the appearance of impropriety.” The FPPC cited this passage, but then paid it no heed. FPPC general counsel Zackery (cq) Morazzini refused to answer questions about the ruling, as did Brown, his attorney and Energy Commission officials.

          Then there’s the fact that FirstElement’s proposal exposed the new company as something like a surrogate for the large international commercial fuel firm Air Products and Chemicals, which saw grants of its own pulled back by the Energy Commission after this column in 2012 revealed a pattern of cronyism in that year’s awards.

          FirstElement’s proposal says the company is a “consortium 

of partners,” with financing from Toyota Motor Sales and all 

equipment and hydrogen fuel to come from Air Products, which 

will also install the pumps. Executives of Air Products and Toyota 

for years have attended meetings of the California Fuel Cell 

Partnership (annual dues: $87,000) with Energy Commission 

staffers. This was part of what led to the earlier allegations of 

cronyism.

          So contrary to the FPPC’s convoluted opinion, the large new grants to Brown and FirstElement reek of conflict of interest and a revival of cronyism.

          Which means that if the Energy Commission, as expected, gives final approval to the announced grants, Californians will have a dirty hydrogen highway and one more multi-million-dollar reason to distrust state government.

    -30-
     Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For ‘more Elias columns, go to www.californiafocus.net

WORD OF REAL-WORLD BUDGET EFFECTS TRICKLES UP TO SACRAMENTO

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2011, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“WORD OF REAL-WORLD BUDGET EFFECTS TRICKLES UP TO SACRAMENTO”

Critics have called the springtime Jerry Brown road show – mostly staged in schools in Republican legislative districts and interrupted briefly when he needed a small growth removed from his nose – little more than a tactic aiming to pressure GOP lawmakers into allowing a special election on the tax extensions sought by the Democratic governor.

While that may be correct, the uncensored, unscripted town halls Brown has staged at least forced some politicians to hear directly from constituents about the effects of state budget cuts already made and the consequences of what might follow if there is no extension of about $12 billion in annual income, sales and car license levies that were temporarily increased in 2009.

So it was the other day at William S. Hart High School in the leafy Los Angeles suburb of Santa Clarita, where Brown met with about 150 Southern California school, police and fire officials, insisting on hearing from Hart students, teachers, parents and administrators before anyone else could say much. Maybe because of the venue, the emphasis there was almost exclusively on schools -- by far the largest state budget item -- and their supporters, students and teachers had plenty to say.

Brown as usual was accompanied by his budget director Ana Matasantos and state Schools Supt. Tom Torlakson, a former Democratic assemblyman from the East Bay suburbs of San Francisco.

“Changing from 25 students per class to 39 (as Hart has done in the last year) makes a huge difference in getting to know students and working on their strengths and weaknesses,” said the award-winning teacher of a chemistry class visited by Brown, Torlakson and local Assemblyman Cameron Smyth (a Hart alum).


Every student in the class raised a hand when Brown asked how many intended to attend college. That’s the norm at Hart, with test scores among the highest in the state.

Added a chemistry student, “Our classrooms seem a lot less personal now than before.”

Those kinds of complaints might not make much of a dent on the consciousness of politicians and taxpayers who would welcome the end of the temporary taxes, which cost the average California family about $28 per month.

So it may also have been useful for some of them to hear from Amy Daniels, head of Hart’s parent council.

“We have fine, experienced teachers taking early retirement because they don’t want to deal with 39 students in a classroom,” she said. “Our schools are sharing assistant principals. We cut out school bus service for athletics and now we’re driving our kids to away games. We’re paying extra for extracurricular activities and clubs, which therefore now add up to activities for the affluent. We’ve cut out classroom sections in chemistry and physics. Freshman sports may be eliminated. Our fear as parents is palpable. We’re worried we might not be able to provide the quality education our parents gave us.”

The police and fire chiefs in attendance didn’t speak publicly, but in private conversation several said remarks from them would have echoed the educators’.

One of those who benefited from Hart’s quality education was Smyth, a former football star at the school, who heard all this and more, but still allowed that “I don’t see where the tax increase ultimately solves the problem.”

Well first, Cameron, it’s not a tax increase. Yet. Californians are already paying the levies in question, and most barely notice. Second, the tax extension – if leaders of his alma mater are to be believed – would at least keep things from getting worse. And third, he must not have heard some of things the head of his onetime elementary school district had to say.

“Everything we’ve done, laying off 60 teachers and 90 staff and administrators, is based on an estimate of public schools losing another $2 billion next year if there’s no tax extension,” said the superintendent of the Newhall School District, Marc Winger. “But now we’re told it could be another $2.5 billion on top of that. That would make things much, much worse.”

These folks were telling Smyth that if he doesn’t at least vote to let voters decide whether or not to extend the 2009 tax increase, today’s students and tomorrow’s will not have anywhere near the opportunities he did. Maybe he listened. Maybe not. His vote will tell.

But at least he heard the voices, including Hart principal Collyn (cq) Nielsen warning that without the extension “it will lead to diminished competitiveness.” That’s especially true, others noted, in fields like chemistry and physics, where instruction cuts are coming in the very areas where American students trail behind many others.

It may have smarted for Smyth to hear these things from his constituents and former teachers. It should have, since he’s one of the reasons for the bad news he heard. Maybe Brown needs to stage similar sessions in every Republican-held district in California, so every legislator who’s now preventing a public vote can hear the same sorts of things, and just as directly.

-30-
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net