2010 Democratic Assembly Q&A with Susan Jordan
http://www.noozhawk.com/noozhawk/article/2010_democratic_assembly_qa_with_susan_jordan/
By Noozhawk Staff
NOOZHAWK: What experiences from your professional or personal life make you uniquely qualified to be an Assembly member?
SUSAN JORDAN: My decision to run for public office for the first time is the culmination of more than 40 years in the workforce in different capacities.
My dedication to community activism began in college and my early career was dedicated to fighting for reproductive choice and women’s rights. Later, as a senior partner in a national business research and consulting firm, I forged a strong 14-year career in the private sector. And for the past 15 years, as the founder and director of the California Coastal Protection Network, I have worked with grassroots communities up and down the state to defeat large-scale destructive and illegal projects that threaten the health and safety of neighborhoods and residents.
I believe my diverse professional and personal life experience is one of the greatest strengths that I will bring to public office. I have been a single working mother, raised a family, saved for college, and I know just how hard it is to juggle work, family and community activism. I have had a successful business career and I know what it’s like to start and manage a business and meet a payroll week after week. When I came up in the business world, the glass ceiling was a reality and not a metaphor — breaking through that ceiling taught me perseverance in the face of obstacles. My success in the private sector analyzing business problems and devising successful solutions and strategies for national and international companies is what qualifies me to craft successful strategies for California. As a chairwoman and member of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, I bring local government experience to the table as well, and I understand how decisions at all levels affect the lives of people in the 35th Assembly District and throughout California.
I do not fit the typical profile of most politicians running for office; at 59 years of age, I view elective office as public service and not a career. I have a proven record of standing up to special interests and taking strong stands, even if there is a political consequence to doing so. I believe my integrity and independence will enable me to make a difference in Sacramento.
NOOZHAWK: With all of California’s fiscal challenges, why are you running now?
SJ: I am running because I know we can do better, and that the residents of this district and California deserve better from the career politicians who dominate Sacramento. From my beginning as a social worker, I have worked my entire life to make this a better world to live in.
I am running now because I believe my breadth of experience, 40 years of business leadership, environmental advocacy and women’s rights activism qualifies me to address the difficult fiscal and other challenges California faces today. We desperately need legislators who understand the challenges of keeping a business afloat, who can assess the impact of regulations and taxes on our economy while holding a firm commitment to caring for the most vulnerable in our society — the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the poor.
I am also running because I am deeply concerned about the lack of women in elective office. In the Assembly, out of 80 sitting Assembly members, only 20 are women and five are termed out. In Congress, it is worse; only 17 percent of all members are women. The scarcity of women in the Legislature has a direct impact on the choices that are made on the budget and the legislation that is carried. Women need to be on an equal footing to fight for the priorities that we and our fellow Californians hold paramount.
NOOZHAWK: What is California’s most pressing issue?
SJ: The most important issue to address is the economy and job creation.
People have been hit hard during this recession and the double whammy of the housing crisis and the Wall Street meltdown have left them reeling. It seems that most if not all of the solutions that were crafted went to help Wall Street and not Main Street, and the result is a staggering unemployment rate and shuttered storefronts. People who have never sought benefits before are applying for food stamps, MediCal and unemployment insurance.
To address this issue, I believe we need to sit down, roll up our sleeves and listen to all viewpoints — including those with whom we may not always agree. This is the ONLY way we are going to dig California out of this mess.
I have met with stakeholders on all sides — those who represent business and manufacturing interests, those who are dedicated to maintaining social safety-net programs for the most vulnerable in our society, those who believe government is too big, and those who believe government is not doing enough.
And as we work to craft solutions, we have to be careful that we do not make a difficult situation worse. Balancing a budget solely through cuts to safety-net programs and education is shortsighted. For every program cut, a job is lost and a vulnerable population is shifted to more expensive alternatives. Cuts to higher education mean that we are cheating California out of a skilled workforce in the future. Overburdening business means that the backbone of our economy — 93 percent of all businesses in California are small businesses — will make recovery and getting people back to work even more difficult.
One of the first things we need to consider is re-instituting an Economic Development Agency where the director serves as a member of the (governor’s) Cabinet. We need an agency that focuses solely on bringing and maintaining business in California.
We also need to look at the creation of a revolving loan fund to help small and midsize businesses weather the recession. Tight credit markets where banks are refusing to loan money to smaller businesses, where equity lines are being closed, and where credit-card interest rates are being unilaterally increased have significantly worsened California’s chances for recovery. We need to correct this situation as quickly as possible.
Tax credits for manufacturing and new hires can also help jump-start the economy. And closing unnecessary corporate tax loopholes that benefit just a few large corporations but do not create jobs have to be rescinded.
Finally, we have to make sure that the budget gets done on time, and it is already late ... again. Every day the budget is late is another dollar out the door, another shovel-ready project delayed.
I am deeply committed to supporting job creation in our state because I believe that a vibrant economy brings prosperity to many and allows us to provide high-quality affordable education to our children and enables us to care for the most vulnerable in our society who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
NOOZHAWK: Is the partisan divide in Sacramento insurmountable? How would you overcome it?
SJ: I am not a career politician and I don’t believe in adhering to the party line when there are solutions that need to be crafted. To bridge this divide, we need to elect more representatives who will think and act in an independent fashion and not be directed by the special interests that fund their campaigns.
I have decades of experience fighting for what I believe is right — and this transcends partisan politics. I have successfully worked with people on both sides of the political aisle to devise policies on the environment and energy — because I always keep foremost in mind — what’s best for the people.
During my tenure on the county Planning Commission, I proved I could listen to all sides and make fair and balanced decisions.
However, on matters of key principles and values, I am not afraid to stand my ground and do what is right even when I am under extraordinary pressure to do otherwise — even from my own political party.
NOOZHAWK: Many financial experts call California’s state government employee pension levels unsustainable. Do you agree? How would you resolve the situation?
SJ: I don’t think there is any one answer to this question and I believe the response to the pension issue has been over-simplified and over-politicized with little reasonable discourse in the middle.
Hard-working people who made choices years ago to sacrifice Social Security benefits and salary advancement for some certainty in their retirement are not the problem here. Most government employees’ pensions are modest, with a median in the $30,000-a-year range.
I would like to see the whole tenor of the discussion changed and an independent analysis that is devoid of party politics and that carefully and methodically parses through the issue put in place.
It is always important to keep an open mind on where a problem exists and what the individual, carefully crafted solutions might be.
The first problem I think needs to be tackled immediately is the corruption within the CalPERS system itself and the lack of regulatory control over “placement agents” who steer CalPERS to investments, seal deals to invest billions dollars of CalPERS funds, and reap unconscionable and exorbitant fees in exchange. One such placement agent, Alfred A. Villalobos, a former CalPERS board member, received more than $47 million in fees for acting as a go-between for investment firms looking to do business with CalPERS. The state Attorney General’s Office has filed a lawsuit alleging that Villalobos improperly provided gifts and gratuities to pension fund officials in the case.
Legislation that would require placement agents to be registered as lobbyists and would prohibit them from receiving commissions based on the total amount of the investment deals they work on is under consideration in the Legislature right now.
NOOZHAWK: What three things should Sacramento do to get California’s economy moving? If you’re elected, how will you help implement them?
SJ: I addressed this in a previous question about the most pressing issue California faces, but to reiterate:
» Re-institute an Economic Development Agency with the head as a Cabinet-level position. We used to have one but it was eliminated by Gov. Gray Davis. State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, is carrying legislation to authorize this.
» Establish a revolving loan fund to help out small and midsize businesses. The California Manufacturers & Technology Association is working with state Treasurer Bill Lockyer to set up such a structure.
» Expand investment incentives, including a manufacturing investment tax credit with a 10-year sunset to help jump-start things. Also, a tax credit for companies that hire new employees. Any tax credit should be geared to real job creation or retention, or cost savings through energy/conservation, and new equipment that can reduce costs without displacing workers.
NOOZHAWK: Do you support offshore oil drilling in California? Why or why not?
SJ: I have been a consistent opponent to the expansion of offshore oil drilling in California.
The tragic accident in the Gulf of Mexico highlights just how vulnerable our local coastal communities would be to another oil spill. Our ocean is at the heart of much of our local economy — from tourism, to fishing, to our wonderful quality of life and retirement ambiance. Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has seen the economic devastation that an offshore oil-drilling accident can cause and has withdrawn his prior support for the controversial PXP project.
I am the only Assembly candidate who has consistently opposed new offshore oil drilling — both the PXP proposal to drill the first new offshore oil lease in state waters in more than 40 years, Venoco’s Paredon voter initiative in Carpinteria, which overrides the legitimate jurisdiction of the City Council to approve or deny a project, and the expansion of oil drilling off Goleta.
My opponent in the Democratic primary supports the PXP proposal — and continues to do so even in light of the Gulf oil disaster. He has said my opposition to it is the major reason he decided to run against me after he had publicly stated that he was supporting me.
I opposed the PXP project because I do not believe the end dates that are being cited to justify greatly expanded drilling are legally enforceable — an opinion that was confirmed by the State Lands Commission and the state Attorney General’s Office. I also believe that approval of the first new offshore oil lease in state waters in 40 years would reverse longstanding California environmental policy and set a precedent for new federal and state offshore oil leasing. This concern has been confirmed by pending legislation by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, that would open up the entire California coastline to new drilling in state waters and offer discounted royalty rates to oil companies that pay up front for new leases. Further, the Parsky Tax Commission Report also recommended opening up the entire coastline to new drilling to generate revenues for the budget. In Sacramento, the PXP proposal was used to justify both of these proposals.
Should California decide to reverse its longstanding policy against new drilling in state waters, I believe that such a major decision should be evaluated through a coherent and orderly public process with stakeholder input and debate. Should the ultimate decision be to authorize new drilling, I believe any new leases should be put up for competitive bidding and that safeguards that cover liability for businesses and communities that are likely to suffer damage from an oil spill be put in place. In the Gulf right now, BP is only responsible for covering the cost of the cleanup. There is a $75 million cap on damages to businesses and homeowners that will not nearly cover the devastation to hard-working communities that this spill is going to create.
NOOZHAWK: Do you support the legalization of marijuana? Why or why not?
SJ: I do not support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use; I do support the use of medical marijuana in controlled environments as envisioned by Proposition 215.
Current state law under Prop. 215 allows for marijuana to be cultivated on a not-for-profit, closed-collective basis for medical purposes by qualified patients and primary caregivers. The initiative did not legalize storefront dispensaries that sell marijuana for profit and I oppose the proliferation of these dispensaries in our communities.
Santa Barbara has been particularly hard hit due to a lax local ordinance; other surrounding communities had the foresight to institute strong regulations and protections that were available to them under existing state law. The dispensaries in Santa Barbara must be held to the law to protect the legitimate use of marijuana for medical purposes. And contrary to claims, the law is quite clear on this issue and the Santa Barbara City Council has always had the ability to restrict the proliferation of dispensaries in our communities, near our schools, near recovery centers and near residential neighborhoods.
The decision to legalize marijuana in California will be an upcoming ballot measure spurred in part by the projected revenue marijuana sales and taxes could bring to our state. Marijuana use, for any reason, is still illegal under federal law. I am concerned that legalization of marijuana in California before a full national debate will lead to the kind of unintended consequences we have seen under Prop. 215. Many projected revenue-generating initiatives have not had the projected results, and often have unintended consequences and substantial unanticipated costs, including costs to law enforcement.
Beyond all that, marijuana is a known carcinogen; ironically, our children are more averse to smoking cigarettes but less informed about the dangers of smoking marijuana, for which no standards or regulations for use of pesticides, etc. are in place. Studies have shown that legalization elsewhere, notably in Amsterdam in the Netherlands, has led to an increase in organized crime activity around the drug trade.
NOOZHAWK: Which California historical figure do you admire most, and why?
SJ: While there are many historical figures in California to choose from, the one I most admire is Rose Ann Vuich, the first woman elected to the state Senate. Vuich, who died in 2001 at age 74, was known for her “unswerving honesty” while serving in public office.
Vuich brought strong business credentials to office; she was a farmer, tax accountant and Democrat who was elected in a heavily Republican district. An expert in agricultural development and international trade, she authored legislation that created California’s former Trade and Commerce Agency.
Known for her business-like manner, her attention to detail and political independence, she also had a sense of humor; she kept a bell on her desk and rang it every time her colleagues addressed the “gentlemen” of the Senate to remind them that there was a “gentlewoman” in the room.
According to a 2006 resolution in her honor, Vuich was a person of integrity who took her public responsibilities very seriously and gave her constituents fair and ethical consideration of issues. Her service blazed the trail for more women to serve and was widely seen as the beginning of positive change in the formerly exclusively male bastion of the Senate.
Vuich was 50 years old when she first ran for office in 1977. That year, there were four women running and she was thought to be the least likely to win. The other three women lost while Vuich narrowly beat a Republican assemblyman with better name recognition who outspent her 2-to-1. She showed courage and determination and is inspiring to all women who seek to serve in public office.
NOOZHAWK: Should a Noozhawk replace the California valley quail as our state bird?
SJ: If it will create jobs, help balance the state budget or provide significant benefit to the people of my district, I would certainly consider this proposal. :)
Additional Resources
Click here for Susan Jordan’s campaign Web site
Click here for Democratic Assembly candidate Das Williams’ answers.
Here are the answers from the two candidates seeking the Republican Party’s 35th Assembly District nomination:
http://www.noozhawk.com/noozhawk/article/2010_democratic_assembly_qa_with_susan_jordan/