Fletcher spent campaign funds to fight sexual assault claims

S1: This week on Kpbs roundtable. Former San Diego County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher has been using campaign money to fund his defense against sexual assault allegations , and the move is raising eyebrows.

S2: So I think there's a real question as to whether or not this is a legal use of campaign funds , and this is a case where we're potentially pushing the lines of what is allowed.

S1: Then a state audit released this week casts doubt on the effectiveness of California's homelessness spending. That , and our weekly roundup coming up next on roundtable. Welcome to Kpbs roundtable. I'm Scott Rod. Former San Diego County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher has been fighting a sexual assault lawsuit in court since last year , and spending campaign funds to do it. Plus , a state audit found big problems with how the city of San Diego tracks spending on homelessness. The Kpbs roundtable starts now. A little over a year ago , Nathan Fletcher was the leading candidate to replace Senator Tony Atkins in the state Senate , but allegations of sexual assault and harassment led to him dropping out of that race and ultimately resigning his county supervisor seat. Former San Diego Metropolitan Transit System employee Gracia Figueroa accused Fletcher of multiple instances of sexual assault during her time at MTS , and filed suit against him last year. Fletcher has denied the allegations and recently filed a defamation case against Figueroa in response. This week , we learned that Fletcher has been using campaign funds from his abandoned state Senate run to pay for his defense against those allegations. I'm joined by Kpbs investigative reporter Amita Sharma to discuss the latest in the case. Welcome back to roundtable , Amita.

S3: Oh , it's good to be with you , Scott.

S1: So let's start just at the ground level.

S3: He's a well-known and controversial political figure in this region. And you might argue , even across the state , he's a former marine who fought in the Iraq War. He served in the state assembly as a Republican and was widely seen as a rising star in the Republican Party. But then something really dramatic happened that earned him quite a few enemies. And that's back in 2011 when he entered the race for San Diego mayor. He was still a Republican at the time , but then the local Republican party , the San Diego County Republican Party , decided to endorse his opponent , Carl DeMaio. And Fletcher , then in 2012 , said , that's it. I'm going to leave the Republican Party and I'm going to be an independent. A year later , after former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner resigned under a cloud of sexual harassment allegations , Fletcher decided to run again for mayor , but this time as a Democrat. He he did lose. Um , and then I think it's , what , five years later , in 2018 , he ran for the Board of Supervisors and won from district four. That's the seat that he resigned from after the sexual assault lawsuit was filed by former MTS worker Graciela Figueroa. And I should also mention that Fletcher is married to former state lawmaker Lorena Gonzalez.

S1: So a political career that had its twists and turns , but certainly in recent years he was continuing on that rise. But Fletcher's political ascent came to an abrupt halt last March when he suspended his campaign for state Senate. And as you referenced , he faced the lawsuit for sexual assault allegations breakdown for us.

S3: Fletcher pretty much shocked everyone here in our political world in San Diego when he said that he was dropping out of the state Senate race , and that is a race that he was widely expected to win handily. He said that he was dropping out because he needed treatment for PTSD and alcohol abuse. Then just a few days later , a woman by the name of Garcia Figueroa , who was a former spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transit System , filed a lawsuit , and she alleged that Fletcher sexually harassed her and sexually assaulted her. And then just one day after that surfaced , Fletcher said that he was resigning his seat from the Board of Supervisors.

S1: And at the time , he was also the chairperson of MTS. And that's where their professional paths crossed. You've been following this lawsuit closely over the last 12 months.

S3: Fletcher is trying to get Figueroa to turn over messages between Figueroa and a friend. Or at least someone he calls a friend. He thinks that those messages might be exculpatory , that they might exonerate him somehow. Figueroa says that those messages are privileged because that so-called friend is actually her mental health counselor. And you know , Scott , I should note that Figueroa herself told the judge that because she has separated from two different sets of lawyers. Now , there is a hearing before the judge in the case last Friday. As of that point , Figueroa still did not have a lawyer , but she. Do tell the judge that she plans to have new lawyers by the next hearing , and that is scheduled for April 26th. However , I should say it does appear like the case might be at an inflection point. It's unclear why. As of a week ago , she still didn't have a new lawyer , and it's hard to imagine just how her lawsuit moves forward if she can't find one.

S1: And there was an interesting development in recent weeks. Fletcher filed a countersuit against Figueroa , alleging defamation. And it should be noted , Fletcher has consistently throughout this lawsuit claimed that this relationship was consensual. He's admitted that there was an extramarital affair , but he has said all of this has been consensual. You broke the story about the defamation lawsuit.

S3: And basically he's saying that Figueroa was well aware that what happened between them was consensual. And he actually says that she was the one who initiated contact and went after him. Fletcher is saying that ultimately , Figueroa decided to use the interactions between them to extort millions of dollars from him , and that when he said no , she publicly accused him of sexual assault by filing the civil lawsuit against him , and he says that the effect of that lawsuit has really devastated his reputation , his career and his ability to make money in the process. Figueroa , for her part , says that the complaint is meant to silence her. It's meant to drag out the case , and she basically says it's absurd and has no basis.

S1: On the heels of the MeToo movement , there's been a spike in defamation lawsuits being filed by people accused of sexual assault against their accusers. You've looked into this a bit. Give us the broader context of what's been happening here nationwide.

S3: But victims rights advocates like this woman , Los Angeles law professor Victoria Burke , whom I spoke to yesterday , points to a mother Jones piece a few years ago that found between 2014 and 2020 , there were at least a hundred defamation lawsuits that were filed in sexual assault cases or sexual harassment cases. Now , these cases really , or the defamation lawsuits really gained notoriety once the Me Too movement went viral in 2017. The concern about these defamation lawsuits is that they are basically retaliatory by the accused against the accuser and for society at large. If you have these retaliatory lawsuits , you will never get to the truth of what's going on , because victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment will not speak out for fear of being financially crippled by one of these defamation lawsuits. It's basically cheaper for the victim to be silent and to go away quietly. Advocates say the reason for the spike in these affirmation lawsuits around the time of the MeToo movement is because that's when people started to see really tangible consequences for the accused. Some of them were fired , some of them faced criminal charges , civil lawsuits , and some of them lost really lucrative contracts. So that's why advocates say these defamation lawsuits were being filed. As to where Fletcher's defamation lawsuit against Figueroa fits in to all of this , it's hard to tell , but he has offered up screenshots in his lawsuit of numerous text messages that appear to suggest , at least that Figueroa was encounters with him were not against her wishes. Now she has said again that nothing that took place between them was consensual. So , Scott , now it's my turn to ask you questions. I'm going to flip the table on you.

S1: All right ? All right.

S3: There was another development in this Fletcher case that you and I have been discussing. In fact , a story that you broke yesterday , you found that Fletcher has been using campaign money from his abandoned state Senate run to pay for his legal bills in the alleged sexual assault lawsuit.

S1: And Fletcher has spent $323,000 so far that we know about from his abandoned state Senate campaign. And there may be more. That was as of the end of 2023. So there's been another three months of proceedings. So that means probably more legal bills have piled up. But again , $323,000 is what we know he spent from his campaign so far.

S3:

S1: However , the laws are also a bit squishy and there's some room for interpretation. So I reached out to the California Fair Political Practices Commission , which is the commission that enforces and regulates campaign finance. And a senior Legislative Council there told me that , quote , a candidate , even if they withdraw from the primary , can expend campaign funds for purposes reasonably related to a political , legislative or governmental purpose. She also said that if litigation is unrelated to the activities of the committee or campaign , campaign funds may not be used to pay for legal costs associated with that litigation. So fairly specific , but there's still a little squishiness and some room for interpretation.

S3: So I know that we live in an entirely different political world these days when someone contributes to a campaign. Scott. Is the expectation now that , hey , some of this money might ultimately be used by the candidate or the one time candidate to defend himself or herself in a lawsuit ? Yeah.

S1: I mean , one expert I spoke to , an expert on campaign finance said , you know , buyer beware at , you know , in this day and age when you give money to a candidate , I agree , I think most people would assume that they're giving money for this person to represent them and their district in the state legislature or in whatever capacity they're running for. But , you know , this expert suggested that , yeah , in this day and age , you have to anticipate that that candidate could use the money however they see fit , as long as they believe that it fits into the state laws around campaign finance.

S3:

S1: I spoke with Jessica Levinson. She's a professor at Loyola Law School. And here's what she thought about Fletcher's use of campaign funds.

S2: So I think there's a real question as to whether or not this is a legal use of campaign funds. And I think it's fair to say that this is probably not what the Fppc and those who drafted the statute intended. And this is a case where we're potentially pushing the lines of what is allowed.

S1: I also spoke with Alison Hayward. She's a former commissioner on the Fppc. She also said that this appears to fall into a legal gray area. But she went to step further and said , you know , even if this is legal in today's day and age , where people are very cynical and jaded about politics and politicians. She said she doesn't think that Fletcher should have used this money to pay for his legal defense in this sexual assault case , again , even if it was legal , she kind of drew an ethical line.

S3:

S1: We did everything by the book. He said that this lawsuit filed by Figueroa only happened because he was running for state Senate. And he claimed that without that candidacy , Figueroa wouldn't have filed the lawsuit. So they're looking at it as we're defending Fletcher in his capacity , in a sense , as this former Senate candidate , and that these campaign funds , as a result , should be open for use to defend Fletcher since this was the thing that ended his candidacy , essentially. And again , they're claiming that Figueroa would not have filed the suit had he not run for office.

S3:

S1: I'll also be looking to see if there's a fair political Practices commission complaint filed against Fletcher , and then the commission may look into whether or not this use of campaign finance funds is allowed. I'm going to wrap this conversation up by taking the hosting hat back , if you don't mind , and ask you , I'm handing.

S3: It over to. You.

S1: You. Yes. Thank you. I'm going to ask you the same question.

S3: So so there's a lot to look out for.

S1: Well , we'll be keeping an eye out for all of your reporting on this topic. Amita Sharma is an investigative reporter with Kpbs. Amita. Thanks for being here.

S3: Oh , it's good to talk to you , Scott. As always.

S1: When we come back , a newly released state audit looks into what's working and what isn't when it comes to California's spending on homelessness.

S4: It basically found that across the board , neither the state nor those two cities studied can really accurately account for exactly how much was spent , where the money went , and whether it was spent on programs that ultimately were successful.

S1: You're listening to Kpbs roundtable. You're listening to Kpbs roundtable , I'm Scott Rodd. Earlier this week , the state auditor released a widely anticipated audit of California's homelessness spending. It found that California has failed to account for billions in funding for homelessness programs. California allocated $24 billion over a five year period to address homelessness , but the audit shows not much is known about the effectiveness of that spending , and it's resulting in calls for increased oversight and transparency. Marissa Kendall joins us now to tell us more about what the audit found. She covers homelessness for Calmatters. Marissa , welcome back to roundtable.

S4: Thanks for having. Me.

S1: Me. So this audit is composed of two parts , one looking at five statewide programs and the other drills down on spending in two cities , San Diego and San Jose. So top line here.

S4:

S1: Again , the audit focused on five state programs. Break those down for us. What are the programs and how well are they working or not working ? Yeah.

S4: So out of the five programs studied , three of those the auditor found there's just not even enough information to determine if they're working or not. And I think maybe most concerning is the homelessness , Housing Assistance and Prevention Program , otherwise known as Hap , which is really the state's main way of funding local homelessness programs , was one of the programs that they just could not determine if it's working or not.

S1: Hearing that there just wasn't even enough information to go on is sort of baffling , just given how much money is going towards this , these efforts and how much it's talked about by state lawmakers , state leaders , and down at the local level. You know , two of those projects did show value , though , project Homekey and the other focused on on homelessness prevention. Tell us about those programs and what the audit found.

S4: So Homekey was really one of Governor Gavin Newsom signature programs , and it helps cities and counties buy existing buildings , hotels and other types of buildings and turn them into homeless housing. And the auditor found that it was , quote unquote , likely cost effective. And it was really basing that basically , on a monetary level , it's a lot less expensive to convert rooms into homeless housing under Homekey than it is to build them brand new from the ground up. The other program that was likely effective was a Cal Works Housing Support program , which gives financial help to families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. And the auditor found that is also much more cost effective because it's a lot less expensive to help prevent someone from losing their housing than it is to help them once they've already ended up on the streets.

S1: Let's go back to those other three programs where the state auditor just wasn't didn't have enough information to really fully assess them , you know , help us understand those programs , what they were meant to do. But then also like , what does that mean ? I mean , did the state auditor just say , look , we can't assess these ? Or was were they able to identify and tease out at least some understanding of what was going on with the programs ? Yeah.

S4: So the three programs were the state's rental assistance program , which helped people pay their rent and other expenses during Covid. The Encampment Resolution Fund , which is another big Newsom program that's supposed to help cities and counties clear specific encampments and the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention program , which I mentioned , which is really kind of the main homelessness program in the state right now. Um , and , yeah , the auditor basically said , look , we we just don't have enough specific data to say yes or no if these are working , for example , the the big , um , funding program , the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention program , uh , the auditor studied those results for four major counties , and it found that nearly one third of people who left placements funded under that program left for quote unquote unknown destinations. Um , and that data is so ambiguous , you know , who knows where those people went that it makes it impossible to tell if it's working , according to the auditor.

S1:

S4: Um , you know , we often struggle getting data around homelessness. Um , you know , that's always been a challenging part of my job , but I did expect a bit more of concrete answers from this audit , to be honest.

S1: All right , let's talk about what the audit found in San Diego. Because because it did focus in particular again on two cities , San Diego and San Jose. The mayor and the city council here are constantly talking about their efforts to address and prevent homelessness.

S4: But San Diego has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and cannot exactly account for , you know , exactly how much was spent , where it went , and how well it's working , according to the auditor. Uh , the two , uh , two of the main issues that the auditor found was that San Diego did not do a good job of , uh , collecting data to determine how well its contracted programs are working. So when the city pays a nonprofit or another contractor to run , like a shelter program , for example , um , and also another big area is San Diego is really investing a lot in , um , improving conditions in street encampments because , you know , the city doesn't have enough housing. We have large encampments. So the city is investing in things like medical care , showers , toilets , things like that for people living in these encampments. And there's not much data there , apparently , to show what kind of impact that's having.

S1: Was San Diego identified as a test case to look at at the start of the audit , or did it emerge in the course of the audit as an example of a city that was struggling to identify where money was going and how effective the spending was ? Yeah.

S5:

S4: So San Diego was sort of a surprise last minute reveal. When this audit was first authorized. It was supposed to focus on statewide programs and on San Jose. And then the auditor was supposed to pick one other city to focus on. So various lawmakers were sort of lobbying for their cities. Um , and San Diego was chosen. It does give sort of a good geographic mix. You know , we've got one Northern California city , one Southern California city. And they're both obviously large cities with big homeless populations.

S5: So there are.

S1: A lot of players in the equation when it comes to trying to address homelessness. You know , you have the federal government , you have a state government. And then it trickles on down to local and you have contractors. So what role do cities play in the effort to address homelessness ? And why does it matter if a city can't say where all the money went ? Yeah.

S4: You know , there's there's been a little bit of sort of finger pointing back and forth in terms of who's to blame for tracking all this information. Um , the main state agency that's tasked with this is the California Interagency Council on Homelessness. And in their statement , they said , well , you know , the cities are really responsible for tracking this information because they're the ones who are setting up and implementing these programs. Um , you know , which is true , the cities and the counties generally receive the funds and then set up the programs and decide , you know , where the funds are going to go. But then Mayor Matt Mahan in San Jose sort of pointed the finger back at the state , saying , look , we get a lot of different types of state funding from a whole plethora of different grants , and each grant has , you know , different requirements for reporting and metrics. And it's not always clear to us. Exactly. You know , what information we're supposed to be tracking and giving to the state.

S1: You know , I recall that big cities , you know , mayors from big cities were were pushing have been pushing for more money to address this problem. But I guess in this situation , more money , more problems , I guess when it comes to at least tracking where that money goes. How has the City of San Diego responded to the audit ? Yes.

S4: So , um , San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria , in a statement , he really defended the city's approach to homelessness. He said the city has served more than 11,000 people last year. Um , he basically said , you know , we can use this audit as a tool to understand how much more needs to be done. And then he did put in a plug for continued funding. He said , you know , we hope to impress on state leaders the need for adequate and ongoing funding for California's biggest cities. And that has long been a sticking point that the governor tends to parcel out. Um , you know , just year by year , one time grants , rather than guaranteeing an ongoing permanent source of homelessness funding and cities , county , cities , counties and nonprofits all across the state have really taken issue with that.

S1: That's interesting. Uh , we can't tell you exactly where the money has gone , but we would like more of it. Please. Um , contracted homelessness service providers are a big piece of the city's effort to reduce homelessness. Here's what Path's Hannon Scrapper told Kpbs Metro reporter Andrew Bowen earlier this week.

S6: It also really focuses on trying to meet people's basic human needs , right ? Like all our outreach teams have water and food and blankets and clothing and , um , like first aid kits on them so that as you encountering people , you're able to really start with , like building trust by meeting their basic human needs.

S5: And , you.

S1: Know , as providers are trying to address those basic human needs. It's also difficult to track and get accurate data on who they are , where they've been and where they where they're going.

S4: And it's really just an estimate of how many people there are. It's it's really hard to count people. Um , and when I gather data from various nonprofits serving the homeless community , especially when they talk about exit data , you know , tracking where people went when they exited a homeless shelter or some type of housing program. I often see a quote unquote unknown destination. And it's it's hard to know why that is if it's because the person leaving didn't didn't say where they're going or if it's because the nonprofit didn't ask.

S1:

S4: Um , a lot of the problems that were presented in San Diego were also , um , obvious in San Jose , according to the audit and one of the legislators I talked to about this said , you know , if this is going on in those two large cities , you know , we can almost guarantee this is happening in other cities throughout California. But the audit really only focused on those two.

S1:

S4: But I think now that this has come out , uh , you know , a lot of people are talking about this. I think there's a lot of interest now in , um , sort of adding more oversight to California's homelessness strategies. So I wouldn't be surprised if there were other audits. Um , there is another audit planned , you know , separate from this , not through the state , but there's another audit being planned in Los Angeles , for example.

S1: On the topic of oversight , the audit calls on agencies to better track and report on homelessness spending. What would that look like and when might that better tracking become a reality ? Yeah.

S4: So the audit put forward several recommendations that it wants the state and the two cities to implement by September. And those included things like , you know , creating one unified place where all of this data would go and beefing up their various tracking measures. Both San Jose and San Diego responded , saying they already have taken certain steps to try to improve things. San Diego , for example , has hired a couple people that are supposed to deal with this type of oversight.

S1:

S4: Um , two of the legislators who really pushed for this audit , um , one was Republican , uh , Josh Hoover and the Assembly. And he said , you know , we really need to pause spending on homelessness until we can get to the bottom of this. And , uh , Senator Dave Cortez , who's a Democrat , he had the opposite response. He said , you know , the homelessness crisis is so bad. Now is not the time to stop spending. Um , but I do think we might see some bills in the legislature this session that sort of deal with this issue of accountability and try to codify some of the Audit's recommendations.

S1: As Governor Newsom weighed in on this issue.

S4: He has not. When I reached out to his office for comment , I was redirected to the California Interagency Council on Homelessness.

S1: There's been a good amount of reaction from public officials to the audit , maybe not from Governor Newsom , but from others.

S4: But I walked down my street and conditions don't look any better. There's still giant encampments that I pass every day on my way to school or on my way to work. And , you know , our leaders are failing us. I think for those people , this audit really just proves their point. You know , it really vindicated what they were saying. Um , and just sort of proved that the current the current process is not working.

S1: So what comes next ? You'd mentioned some potential legislation that may emerge.

S4: I mean , it is a tricky budget year. You know , we have such a deficit. And , um , in his initial proposal , Newsom didn't really slash homelessness funds that had already been promised , but he also didn't promise additional funds. Um , so it'll be interesting to see , you know , what comes with that. If this audit is used as an argument for defunding some of these programs.

S1: I want to ask you about another story you published this week. This one talks about how San Diego's public encampment ban , which went into effect last summer , is being held up by some state lawmakers as a model that the state should adopt. But your story brings up questions about how effective the ban has been. What issues did your reporting find ? Yeah.

S4: So , um , I went down to San Diego and , um , really tried to investigate what was going on in the ground and how well the band was working. Um , and I found that , you know , while by some metrics , um , it had been a success , you know , uh , the number of tents , uh , downtown , for example , had been cut in half by other measures. It was really less clear , you know , there were more people camping in other places , like along the riverbed , um , all along highway , on and off ramps. Um , which kind of kind of suggests that people were being moved but not necessarily having their homelessness end in.

S1: You write that there are some key differences in what a proposed statewide encampment ban might look like versus what the city of San Diego did. Help us understand those differences.

S4: Uh , Senator Brian Jones , uh , proposed , uh , Senate Bill 1011 , which is which would essentially create a camping ban statewide that's really modeled closely off of San Diego's ban. So it would prohibit , uh , camping near schools and places like that , and it would prohibit even camping along sidewalks if there is shelter available. Um , one key difference in that approach that Mayor Gloria pointed out is San Diego at the same time it launched that camping ban , it also opened up some safe sleeping sites , which are basically , you know , city sponsored giant tent camps where , um , you know , up to about 500 people can legally be intense and they have access to amenities like showers , toilets and food. Um , and the statewide bill would not require cities to do that. Uh , you know , Senator Jones said , I'm not going to mandate cities do something without providing the funding. But Mayor Gloria said , you know , that's really problematic because you can't just tell people where they cannot go. You have to provide somewhere for them to go.

S1: But my understanding is Jones's bill has gotten some bipartisan support from Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento.

S5:

S4: He has three Democratic co-authors , and it's going up for its first hearing next week. So it'll be interesting to see what happens there. Yeah.

S1: Yeah. We'll be keeping an eye on it for sure. All right Marisa Kendall is a reporter with Calmatters covering homelessness in the state. Marissa , thanks for speaking with us today.

S4: You're welcome.

S1: Next up on Round Table , we talk about some other stories we've been following this week on the weekly roundup. That's next on Round Table. Welcome back to roundtable. It's now time for our weekly roundup of stories we've been following. Joining me now is Andrew Bracken. Andrew. Hey , Scott. First top of the list.

S7: And I know that's kind of like against popular opinion. It is. I mean , I even saw a headline saying , you know , everyone wowed by the eclipse.

S1: Um , this was the one thing that brought everyone in America together for a brief moment. And yet , here you are.

S7: Well , I'm sorry , I just didn't. Maybe if I was in the the totality zone , I will say my wife really wanted to go to the the zone of totality. Um , but she injured her leg. We weren't able to travel. We couldn't put it together. So , you know , I was just working and went outside and took a look for a couple minutes , but I hate to say it. Yeah. I didn't know what to expect. I just , uh , it didn't change my life. Wow.

S1: You're zagging where everyone else did. I thought it was pretty cool. I made one of those little old school cereal box contraptions where you , you know , poke a hole in it , and you look at the , the shadow , and , uh , I know my my fiance and I went outside halfway through the day and checked it out. And actually , as we were looking into the cereal box , some people were walking past and they wanted to look too. So it was actually kind of a cool neighborhood moment. So I am not truly as jaded as you are about this.

S7: And seeing the people you know in other parts where they're like on their lawn chairs or whole gatherings around it. I guess the other thing I didn't realize until now is that there are more solar eclipses to come. And I realized this one was special because it , you know , like completely through the heart of the United States , parts of Mexico. But there's going to be another 1 in 5 years , granted , in a different part of the world. But I didn't realize that either. I thought this was it for my lifetime.

S1: You're over it. You were so jaded about this eclipse. Well , let's move on then. Uh , what else , uh , what did get your attention this week ? Because clearly the eclipse did not know.

S7: Well , one thing was , there was a change in the San Diego County Republican Party. Paula Witzel was the chair up until earlier this week , when she was replaced by Corey Gustafson. And it's a kind of result of a little drama with the party's endorsement of a candidate in the primary election last month , they had endorsed Andrew Hayes for the 75th Assembly District over fellow Republican Carl DeMaio. And then Witzel had made an effort to change that endorsement to DeMaio. And from as a result of that , she's no longer chair.

S1: It's interesting. Yeah. I mean , it's it is a very kind of like local story , but but curious nonetheless. I actually covered this race for Kpbs , and De Mayo came in a pretty strong first place , and Hayes actually almost lost the second place spot to go on to the general election to a Democrat. And this is a , you know , heavily Republican district. So maybe that factored into it the fact that de Mayo , I think he had over 40% of the primary vote , and Hayes had closer to about 19%. So maybe that factored into it. But after having covered this race , I thought that that development was pretty interesting.

S7: And you're right , both Republicans did make it. So they're going to stick with the endorsement for Hayes. Now. They're not going to change that. And we'll see. I mean , those party endorsements can boost candidates. So we'll see how that plays out. But I mean , if you think you have some other political news for California as well , right ? Yeah.

S1: I mean , one thing that caught my eye this week is this Politico story that Javier Sierra , the current Health and Human Services secretary under President Biden , is considering a run for governor in California in the 2026 election. He was previously the California attorney general. And this is an interesting addition to what's already a crowded field. We have the lieutenant governor , Melanie Lennox , who's said that she's interested in running state Senator Tony Atkins , uh , you know , familiar name for folks down here in San Diego. She's thrown her hat in the ranks. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurman has also announced , and there are others who are kind of hinting at it. So this is a crowded field and this is , you know , this would be another big name already in a , you know , field of folks who have a lot of name recognition. It would also mean that Javier Becerra , if he does throw his hat in the ring , if he does , you know when he would be leaving the Biden administration. I think that would be a blow to the Biden administration to have your Health and Human Services secretary , you know , bow out in order to go be governor somewhere else. So a lot of moving pieces to this story. It was very interesting to read.

S5: About , and.

S7: Still a couple of years to go before that election. Obviously , we need to get through the presidential election in the fall. But yeah , still interesting to see how that's kind of shaping up already. Yeah.

S1: Yeah. You know , these things percolate for years in advance. It is interesting to see that. But for sure , the big hurdle of the 2024 election for all of us to get through for our sanity , that's that's first before we can start thinking about 2026. All right.

S7: This video series. The series called Where's My Village ? About childcare and the costs and how often inaccessible it is , and just how it's kind of a broken industry. Uh , one thing you know , she was on roundtable last month , and one thing she brought up was just this idea of more workplaces providing child care. And there's a Wall Street Journal piece about this , and it kind of profiles a coffee company , Red Rooster Coffee in Virginia. And just about their effort , they found it's really hard to kind of retain workers and things. So one thing they decided they opened a child care facility. And I think employees pay into it. They say , you know , virtually all their employees that have kids or had kids have participated in it , but they had to hire a teacher. You know , there's a lot of like , regulations with it. I just thought it was really interesting. And it did note that , you know , they are seeing an uptick in the number of companies that offer child care , you know , for employees. So another sort of I don't know if it's a full solution to fill in the gaps. Obviously the government doesn't subsidize child care the way other countries do. Some other countries in Europe elsewhere do , but I just thought it was interesting and reminded me of , of of Tanya's great series on that.

S1: Yeah , absolutely fits in with that for sure. It's it's wild how expensive child care is and especially like infant care and how there are waitlists even before the child is born. I mean , that's just it's it's crazy how parents have to anticipate that , you know , there's already so much going on for them. So before child's born , you have to be thinking about , hmm , let me get on a waitlist so I can make sure that I have care for for my child. It is interesting to see private companies taking these steps. It's also a reflection of just the fact that the system or the industry is broken. It's not providing , um. The services that's needed and also the services at a cost that's affordable. Right.

S7: Right. And I guess there are questions of like how efficient that is of a coffee company having to get into the the child care business. You know , I think it notes that , you know , other people can bring their kids in outside of the company. But I imagine that opens up to a lot of different , different kind of hoops they need to jump through just to make that work. Right. So yeah , it does kind of reflect. It doesn't seem to be the ultimate solution. Yeah.

S1: Yeah. I also imagine in places in countries where child care is part of , you know , it's provided by the government , they would be looking at something like that and scratching their heads and saying , what a weird thing for for a coffee company or any other private company to have to , you know , stand up their own child care for their employees. Moving on , Andrew , give me your $0.02 on $0.99 stores.

S7: Yeah , this was the Los Angeles Times. Did this article on the history of , you know , this Los Angeles company , $0.99 only stores. They're closing their doors and there's about 20 of them in San Diego County. But this LA times piece by Andrea Chang and Lawrence Sarmiento kind of tells the whole story of founder David Gold. And you know how he kind of just had this idea of like , oh , this was a magic number to sell things at and just to sell everything at $0.99. But it also became a very large company , grew out , you know , far beyond California. And something that I think is coming out in some of the reporting on this is that it's also , you know , something that a lot of communities , particularly low income communities , have relied on these stores. They may be in food deserts or not have available , you know , shopping. And it's provided a pretty important service for some low income communities. And now they filed for bankruptcy last weekend and the stores are going to be closing. They're doing like going out of business sales now. And I think they're expected to end later this month.

S1: That was the first thing I thought of was how these stores , these dollar stores were have been supplanting for years. Traditional grocery stores , especially in , like you said , lower income communities , more rural communities. And it seems like as that's unfolded over the years , now , suddenly there's this big change that's going to happen , because also , Family Dollar said that they're going to be closing nearly a thousand stores nationwide. So these stores that have popped up that are selling , you know , limited goods at very cheap that have , you know , like I said , replaced a lot of those more traditional stores and , you know , grocery stores.

S7:

S1: Well , that's our weekly roundup. Andrew Bracken , thanks for being here.

S7: Thank you Scott.

S1: Thanks for tuning in to Kpbs roundtable. We'd love to hear from you. You can email us at roundtable at pbs.org , or leave us a message at (619) 452-0228. You can also listen to our show Any Time as a podcast. Kpbs roundtable airs on Kpbs FM at noon on Fridays and again Sundays at 6 a.m.. Roundtable is produced by Andrew Bracken. Rebecca Chacon is our technical producer. Brooke Ruth is our senior producer , and I'm Scott Rodd. Thanks for listening.