charter school

After Gov. Gavin Newsom announced this week that the U.S. Department of Justice may be investigating his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, media and pundits pounced on millions in charity payments he has solicited for nonprofits, including ones she is involved in.

Those donations, known as “behested payments,” aren’t illegal in California, but, long before Newsom started asking for them, many have found them unsavory — with good cause. A behest, after all, is by definition a command or at least a strong suggestion.

Anytime a politician is commanding money, regardless of the purpose, there is at least the appearance that the giver — Meta, Google, Blue Shield for example — may expect something in return.

It may seem absurd that the Trump administration could be investigating Newsom for questionable ethics, when Trump has hawked everything from crypto-coins to sneakers from the Oval Office. But the problem Newsom now faces is that behested payments are actually skeevy, and legal or not, they make an excellent target for pummeling the presidential contender. Especially because some of the charities are tied to his wife.

“The Newsom case has blown it wide open, but this has been an issue for years,” Sean McMorris told me. He’s the transparency, ethics and accountability program manager at Common Cause, a nonpartisan organization that has been raising alarms over behested payments for more than a decade.

McMorris said that while these payments don’t violate any laws, they are “ripe for abuse” because companies and people likely aren’t ponying up cash just to be good citizens. If you or I called up PG&E and asked them to give a few million to our favorite cause, I doubt we’d have much luck, even if it involved kittens, puppies or small children in need.

The entire system, McMorris points out, “doesn’t really work unless you’re shaking down people who you know need things from you as a politician.”

Jerry Brown used behested payments to get millions for charter schools he supported. Lesser luminaries such as mayors (including Antonio Villaraigosa, Eric Garcetti and Karen Bass, just to name the last three in L.A.) have used them for all kinds of stuff from jobs programs to fixing up official residences.

And it’s far from a Democratic thing. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, used them to pay for travel and after-school programs. Republican James Gallagher, who recently won a congressional seat, used them to fund computers for schools while he was in the state Legislature. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones has raised millions, including helping to get $800,000 in donations to fund a replica of a historic ship for the maritime museum in his San Diego district.

Trump himself could be considered king of behested payments, with his corporate-paid ballroom and birthday bash.

Literally, folks, find me a politician with an itty-bitty bit of clout, and I’ll show you a trail of behested payments stretching through their pet projects. For that reason alone, it’s unlikely that California legislators will take any action to curb them, especially now when doing so would appear as a criticism to Newsom and Democrats in general.

And, to be fair, behested payments can do a lot of good. Newsom supercharged behested payments during the pandemic, raising hundreds of millions for programs to get Californians through that social disaster.

For that reason and others, not all experts find them terribly troubling. Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor with an expertise in election and governance issues, points out that money in politics is nothing new and at least behested payments are (mostly) required to be acknowledged. Anything over $5,000 and the politician has to report it to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which keeps a public database.

That makes behested payments far more transparent than, say, dark money donations to a mysterious political action committee. And at least the money is going to a good cause, be it historical ships or computers for kids.

“I actually don’t think that they’re the evil mechanism that other people do,” Levinson said. “I mean, my feeling is like, let’s live in reality, right? People are going to want to give as much money to or close to powerful people as possible, and I think that we have a choice between money going to independent expenditure groups or political committees or going to nonprofits.”

So behested payments in and of themselves might not be much of a headache for Newsom. But some of the payments Newsom solicited went to nonprofits Siebel Newsom is involved with, and which have paid her a salary. That proximity is uncomfortable for many of us. There is no distinction for a behest given to a charity with direct ties to the politician, but maybe there should be.

Still, salaries being paid by behested payments also aren’t illegal, and it’s been done before, even by Newsom. Villaraigosa was paid through behested funds for his work as the state “infrastructure czar” back in 2022. Bass considered paying former L.A. Police Commissioner Steve Soboroff through behested-funded nonprofits for his work after the recent fires before public scrutiny pushed him to forgo the funds.

None of that is to say the Newsoms are off the hook in a federal investigation. Newsom’s office said that along with the FBI, agents from the IRS have been knocking on doors and asking questions. All of us — probably the Newsoms included — will just have to wait to see if the fine-tooth combs of the feds pick up any dirt.

If there is any lesson to be learned at this point, it’s about ambition and hubris. Behested payments are easy money for California politicians and business as usual — everyone does it. But maybe they shouldn’t. It’s not black or white.

Newsom is learning quickly what it means to have a powerful enemy like Trump, one who has shown he will use the full power of the American government for his own purposes. One who can tip the scales and slide white to gray and gray to felony.

Federal investigators do not like to come up empty-handed, and the wink-wink nature of behested payments creates just that kind of ambiguity that provides reasonable cause for investigation — a self-inflicted vulnerability that surely has every California politician nervous.

Los Angeles Unified School District incumbents — Rocio Rivas, Kelly Gonez and Nick Melvoin — surged strongly ahead in early returns Tuesday night for three seats on the Board of Education.

The first reported results were trending toward one-sided outcomes because the major political forces of recent years declined to do battle against each other: The teachers union supported Rivas, who represents a largely Eastside district; a charter-friendly retired businessman supported Melvoin, whose district is centered on the Westside. And the largest union representing nonteaching employees all but avoided the fray.

The third incumbent, Gonez, was the only candidate on the ballot in District 6, and faced one write-in challenger, Jose Sagredo. Thus, Gonez is poised to continue to represent a district centered in the east San Fernando Valley for a third and final term.

With no challengers boosted by high special-interest funding, the three incumbents had a virtually unobstructed campaign path.

If the early returns hold as expected, the Los Angeles Board of Education will continue to lean against charter schools and would stand in general agreement on most policies — including assertive support for immigrants and a continued holding pattern on the future of Supt. Alberto Carvalho, who remains on administrative leave as a federal investigation proceeds.

District 4, Westside

Well ahead in District 4 was two-term incumbent Melvoin. His challenger was Ankur Patel.

The funding advantage in Melvoin’s campaign was sizable through just before election day: Melvoin, $378,803; Patel: $22,662.

In addition, Melvoin benefited from an independent expenditure of $367,093 on his behalf by retired businessman Bill Bloomfield, who has been a major funder in recent campaigns, typically for candidates who also are acceptable to charter-school advocates.

Charters are privately operated public schools, most of which are nonunion. About 1 in 5 L.A. public-school students is enrolled in an independent charter operating within L.A. Unified.

District 2, downtown and Eastside

Also with a huge funding advantage was Rocio Rivas, who was headed toward a second term in District 2.

LAUSD Board Vice President Rocio Rivas was headed toward a second term in District 2. Her major funding source was $889,469 in an independent-expenditure campaign on her behalf, nearly all of it from the United Teachers Los Angeles union.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Rivas’ own campaign raised $66,218. But the major funding source was $889,469 in an independent-expenditure campaign on her behalf, nearly all of it from the United Teachers Los Angeles union. The union also spent more than $4,000 in communications to its members about the election.

These figures compare with $2,525 raised by challenger Raquel Zamora, who reported spending $5,089.

In Rivas’ successful 2022 run, her main funding opponent was Local 99 of the Service Employees International Union, which backed Maria Brenes for an open seat. Historically, Local 99 has not been inclined to oppose an incumbent, which Rivas has become. And, true to history, Local 99 has endorsed Rivas, but without spending money on her behalf.

An end to charter school wars

More broadly, this election cycle marks the end to a generation of bitterly contested Los Angeles school board races that became the most expensive in the country, with the L.A. teachers union and charter school advocates slugging it out to advance their vision for public education.

Charter school supporters — who had poured tens of million of dollars into races to elect board members sympathetic to their cause — largely stepped aside, a reflection of their diminished resources and evolving strategy.

The bottom line is that, if current vote-count trends hold, the board will be unchanged for the next two years.

This situation is less than ideal for charter schools. Charters with a mixed record face a tough review when they come up for renewal — about once every five years. Charter opponents want the board majority to move more aggressively to shut down charters when possible and to force them off district campuses — where, under state law, they have a legal right to operate.

Big board decisions looming

Big decisions before the board include how to manage a projected structural deficient — with union leaders calling the dire predictions an accounting mirage.

Meanwhile, Supt. Alberto Carvalho remains in limbo after a February FBI raid of his home and office. The investigation relates at least in part to a failed district chatbot project.

Carvalho maintains his innocence and would like to return to work. The board, however, has turned the reins over temporarily to acting Supt. Andres Chait.

This election cycle marks the end to a generation of bitterly contested Los Angeles school board races that became the most expensive in the country, with the L.A. teachers union and charter school advocates slugging it out to advance their vision for public education. Above, LAUSD headquarters in downtown Los Angeles.

(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)