CalMatters investigates lawmaker’s police service claims

From CalMatters Digital Democracy reporter Ryan Sabalow:

I had a routine lawmaker profile story in thoughts — not an investigation — after I went to interview Assemblymember Mike Gipson in his state Capitol workplace earlier this month in Sacramento.

I knew that the Gardena Democrat was a former regulation enforcement officer whose household had suffered by the unsolved hit-and-run demise of their 3-year-old little one. I used to be intrigued when CalMatters’ Digital Democracy system flagged as a attainable story a invoice that Gipson had authored to provide households of homicide victims extra energy to stress police companies to evaluate stalled “cold-case” investigations.

It appeared like an excellent alternative to let readers find out about Gipson, who for years has been a Democratic chief in efforts to reform California’s police companies. Within the interview, he instructed me one thing I didn’t know: His companion, John Hoglund, had been killed within the line of obligation. I used to be intrigued to do extra analysis concerning the 1992 homicide after I bought again to my desk.

However issues began to not add up after I went to fact-check what Gipson instructed me. He stated he was an officer for five ½ years, however his police employment report I obtained from the Fee on Peace Officer Requirements and Coaching solely confirmed he labored as a reserve officer on the Maywood Police Division for 18 months.

I additionally didn’t see Gipson’s identify talked about in archival information accounts from 1992 that described Hoglund’s homicide, his funeral or the assassin’s court docket appearances. And I couldn’t discover Gipson amongst those that went on-line to share reminiscences and grief on Hoglund’s remembrance web page for fallen officers. That struck me as odd, as a result of I assumed, as I feel most individuals would, that Gipson had a detailed relationship with the person he described as his “partner.”

The reporting that adopted led to in the present day’s accountability story that sheds contemporary gentle on the claims Gipson has made about his police service over time.

Learn extra right here.

As President Donald Trump and his administration challenge a flurry of government actions and directives to cut back campus analysis funding, crack down on undocumented immigrants and rein in variety efforts, the College of California should stroll a skinny tightrope between the federal insurance policies it decides to aggressively oppose and ones that obtain a extra measured strategy, writes CalMatters’ Mikhail Zinshteyn.

In February the administration deliberate to enact a coverage capping funds that the federal Nationwide Institutes of Well being gives universities for scientific analysis. The UC receives greater than $2 billion in grants from the institutes and has been pushing again in opposition to the plan. Its Workplace of the President joined one lawsuit and the system endorsed one other filed by California Lawyer Basic Rob Bonta to dam the cap.

However on different points, the college seems extra muted and even compliant. Whereas it publicly states that it helps variety and immigrant college students no matter their authorized standing, it not too long ago eradicated its variety assertion requirement for potential school members.

Learn extra right here.

With a possible payout value upwards of $1 billion, Uber and Lyft drivers rallied Wednesday in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego to focus on a longstanding wage-theft lawsuit in opposition to the rideshare corporations.

As CalMatters’ Levi Sumagagsay explains, the lawsuit seeks again pay for drivers who labored for the businesses from 2016 to 2020. It alleges that underneath a retroactive regulation that took impact in 2020, drivers have been to be thought of workers and entitled to minimal wage and different advantages.

Uber and Lyft by no means complied with the regulation, and as a substitute poured record-breaking quantities of cash on the time to efficiently persuade voters to go Proposition 22 in November 2020. That measure allowed the businesses to proceed classifying drivers as unbiased contractors who would obtain some advantages, however not full employment rights.

The lawsuit seeks to carry Uber and Lyft accountable for the time earlier than Prop. 22 kicked in. Rideshare Drivers United, a gig staff group, estimates that drivers who filed claims are owed not less than $1.3 billion.

Public companies at the moment are in negotiations to probably settle the swimsuit, court docket paperwork present, with Lyft’s subsequent mediation session scheduled for April 8. If no settlement is reached, the case then goes to trial, which might probably start in 2026.

Learn extra right here.