SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Legislature has been using non-disclosure agreements to keep most information secret about the planning and construction of a $1.2 billion taxpayer-funded building that will house the offices of state lawmakers, the governor and lieutenant governor.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

Following a three-month long investigation and a series of Legislative Open Records Act requests, KCRA 3 learned project leaders required more than 2,000 people to sign the NDAs, including several current and former state lawmakers, government officials, dozens of state employees and hundreds of other consultants, contractors, architects, construction and utility workers.

For the last six years, the NDAs have served as legally binding contracts, ordering those involved in the Capitol Annex project to keep confidential a broad range of information while threatening legal action against those who don’t. Various legal experts told KCRA 3 they were alarmed by the development noting taxpayers and voters are entitled to the information. While it is legal, some state lawmakers and experts said the use of NDAs like this should be banned.

With the information protected under NDAs, the estimated price tag of the project swelled from $440 million to $1.2 Billion.

It’s been three years since the Legislature provided an update on the project. The small group leading the effort, the Joint Rules Committee, has used environmental litigation as an excuse to keep taxpayers in the dark about the project overall.

The committee most recently refused to provide KCRA 3 bid information to prove that the millions it secretly spent on Italian stonework was the most affordable option for taxpayers. The stonework is just one small aspect of the project. How exactly project leaders are spending taxpayer money overall is mostly unknown.

Click here to read the full article at KCRA

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A bill that sought to ban the use of confidentiality agreements when negotiating potential laws in California has failed to pass a state legislative committee.

The proposal by Republican Assemblymember Vince Fong failed to get enough votes to pass out of the Assembly Elections Committee on Thursday. Two Republicans voted for the bill while Democratic Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, the committee chair, voted against it.

Five other Democrats on the committee did not vote.

The legislation was inspired by last year’s negotiations over a bill that mandated a $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers. The bill, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law, includes an exception for restaurants that produce their own bread and sell it as a standalone menu item.

It’s not clear why that exception was included. The exception was also included in similar legislation that passed the year before.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

Bloomberg News reported the exception was meant to benefit one of Newsom’s wealthy campaign donors who owns Panera Bread restaurants. Newsom and the donor, Greg Flynn, denied the story. The Newsom administration said the exemption does not apply to Panera Bread restaurants. Flynn also pledged to pay his workers $20 an hour beginning April 1.

Labor unions and industry groups representing California restaurants met privately last summer to discuss the bill before coming to an agreement. The parties signed a nondisclosure agreement, which KCRA first reported.

Fong criticized that agreement. He introduced a bill that would void any nondisclosure agreement relating to the drafting, negotiation, discussion or creation of legislation. The bill would have also banned public officials from signing these agreements or asking third parties to sign them.

“Nondisclosure agreements certainly have their place to protect businesses’ proprietary and financial information. But they should not be used in the crafting and negotiating laws that affect the daily lives of our constituents,” Fong said. “The public already has a poor perception of the legislative process. Allowing the use of NDAs will further erode and corrode their trust in government.”

Pellerin, the Democratic chair of the committee, noted there has been no evidence that public officials have signed confidentiality agreements related to legislative negotiations.

Click here to read the full article in AP News