Connect with us

California

After exam fiasco, California State Bar faces deeper financial crisis

Published

on

After exam fiasco, California State Bar faces deeper financial crisis


The California State Bar’s botched roll out of a new exam — a move that the cash-strapped agency made in the hopes of saving money — could ultimately end up costing it an additional $5.6 million.

Leah T. Wilson, executive director of the State Bar, told state lawmakers at a Senate Judiciary hearing Tuesday that the agency expects to pay around $3 million to offer free exams to test takers, an additional $2 million to book in-person testing sites in July, and $620,000 to return the test to its traditional system of multiple-choice questions in July.

Wilson, who announced last week she will step down when her term ends this summer, revealed the costs during a 90-minute hearing called by Sen. Thomas J. Umberg (D-Orange), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to find out what went so “spectacularly wrong.”

Chaos ensued in February when thousands of test takers seeking to practice law in California sat for the new exam. Some reported they couldn’t log into the exam because online testing platforms repeatedly crashed. Many experienced screen lags and error messages, struggled to finish and save essays and complained of multiple-choice questions that were worded improperly and included typos.

Advertisement

“The question is, how did we come to this place?” Umberg said at the beginning of the hearing. “And how do we make sure we never ever come back to this place?”

Last year, the State Bar was on the verge of a financial crisis when it announced a plan to develop a new bar exam: its 2024 budget forecast a deficit of $3.8 million in its admissions fund, which deals with fees and expenses related to administering the bar exam. The fund, it warned, faced insolvency in 2026.

The agency made plans to ditch the traditional national bar exam, which requires test takers sit in-person, and develop its own exam that would allow for remote testing. The State Bar promoted its plan as a “historic agreement” that would save up to $3.8 million a year.

It’s unclear how much the State Bar could pay next year if it goes back to experimenting with its own exam. Its expenses are likely to shift as it pursues a lawsuit against Meazure Learning, the vendor that administered the February test.

But the cost to the State Bar is not just financial. After the exam debacle, the agency faces the embarrassment of reverting to traditional in-person exams in July and the prospect of more scrutiny.

Advertisement

After hearing from February test takers, law school deans and leaders of the State Bar, the Senate committee approved an independent review of the exam by the California State Auditor.

Test taker Andrea Lynch told lawmakers she faced constant disruptions during the exam from proctors, technical glitches and computer crashes. Near the end, as she prepared to begin a final section of the exam, a message popped up telling her her exam had been submitted before she’d even seen the questions.

“This was just not a technical failure,” Lynch told lawmakers. “It was a systemic failure, a breakdown in the integrity, accessibility and fairness of one of the most important professional milestones in the legal profession. I urge this committee to consider what it means when a test intended to uphold justice fails to deliver it to its own applicants.”

The State Bar has filed a civil complaint against Meazure Learning in Los Angeles Superior Court, accusing the vendor of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract by claiming it could administer a remote and in-person exam in a two-day window.

But critics of the State Bar argue that agency leadership bears responsibility for failing to take enough time to develop the new test.

Advertisement

Jessica Berg, Dean of UC Davis School of Law, told lawmakers that the State Bar’s rush to roll out of the bar exam and lack of transparency throughout the process caused financial and emotional harm to the test takers and significant financial and reputational harm to the State Bar and the state of California.

“The problems that we saw with the bar exam were absolutely predictable and they rest on two pieces of what was going on here — problems with the substance of the exam and problems with the administration of the exam,” Berg said.

The hearing explored problems with the exam’s multiple-choice questions.

Two weeks ago, the State Bar revealed that its independent psychometrician — who measures the reliability of exams and recommends scoring adjustments, but is not a lawyer — drafted a subset of 29 multiple-choice questions using artificial intelligence.

Under questioning by Umberg, Wilson, the State Bar’s executive director, admitted “no lawyer assisted in the initial drafting.” She said she did not find out until after the exam that some questions were drafted by Chat GPT.

Advertisement

Wilson also admitted that the State Bar did not copy edit test questions ahead of the exam.

Asked when she learned that some multiple-choice questions had typos, Wilson said after the exam “when I saw it on Reddit.”

Then, Sen. Umberg raised a new concern: the fairness of exam grading.

The State Bar announced Monday that the pass rate for the February exam was 55.9%, the highest spring pass rate since 1965. Last February, the pass rate was significantly lower at 33.9%.

“I don’t think anyone here has any interest in going back and revisiting this issue for those who pass the bar, but what it tells me is that there are issues with respect to grading,” Umberg said.

Advertisement

“How do you account for this huge disparity between what happened in the February bar in terms of passage rate and what’s happened historically?” he asked.

Alex Chan, an attorney who serves as chair of the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners, said that despite the bar exam’s problems, the grading process remained rigorous and consistent with previous administrations. He attributed the high passing score to the California Supreme Court’s approval of his committee’s petition to lower the total raw passing score for general bar exam takers to 534 points or higher on the essay, performance test and multiple-choice questions.

“The scoring adjustments were not designed to be lenient in any way,” Chan said. “They were designed to be fair and measured in light of the circumstances and the unprecedented and well documented technical failures.”

Wilson also noted that the February 2025 test takers had a higher average raw score on the written section of the bar exam than their 2024 or 2023 cohorts. “This is without any psychometric adjustment,” she said. “So looking apples to apples, these 2025 test takers performed better.”

“So this deviation was because they were smarter,” said Umberg. “What would the passage rate have been if the score wasn’t lowered?”

Advertisement

Donna S. Hershkowitz, the State Bar’s chief of admissions, said the overall pass rate would have been 46.9% — still significantly higher than normal— if the minimum raw passing score had not been lowered.

“I’ll be curious as to what happens next year when we use the old format,” Umberg said. “In any event — again to assure those who pass — we’re not going to go back.”



Source link

Advertisement

California

Gavin Newsom proposes $350B California budget — kicks the can on debt

Published

on

Gavin Newsom proposes 0B California budget — kicks the can on debt


California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a record-high $350 billion state budget Friday that makes “historic” investments in areas like education — but kicks the can on paying down federal debt, foisting costs onto struggling employers.

Newsom’s budget incorporates a $43 billion windfall tied to the stock market that he touted in his State of the State speech Thursday, bringing his office’s estimated deficit down to $3 billion — the state’s fourth deficit in a row. The budget plows billions into maintaining education, health care, and other programs but ignores a $20 billion federal loan for Covid unemployment payments — a situation one legislator called “alarming.”

Ignoring the loan means small businesses are on the hook for the state’s debt, said state Sen. Roger Niello of Fair Oaks.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a record-high $350 billion state budget Friday REUTERS

“We already have the highest unemployment in the nation and we’re putting this additional burden on our employers. It makes absolutely no sense,” Niello said.

Advertisement

The budget includes $662.2 million in mandatory interest payments, but there is no money going towards the principal.

Since July, the total balance has ballooned to $21.3 billion, and private employers in California pick up the tab under federal rules. Employers pay an $42 extra per employee this year and growing, per KCRA

Every state expect California has paid off the Covid-era loans.

“That is an alarming thing because [Newsom is] basically saying that businesses and employment are not a priority to him and that’s troubling,” Niello added.

At 5.5%, California’s unemployment rate was the highest in the country as of November.

Advertisement

Newsom’s $350 billion budget proposal is about $30 billion higher than this year’s budget, thanks largely to federal healthcare cuts that forced costs onto the state and mandatory set-asides in areas like education.

Newsom’s finance director Joe Stephenshaw highlighted record spending on education. California Governor Gavin Newsom

At a budget briefing Friday, Newsom’s finance director Joe Stephenshaw highlighted record spending on education— amounting to a record $27,418 per K-12 student, $5.3 billion for the University of California system, $15.4 billion to community colleges, and $1 billion to needy schools — along with $500 million towards local homelessness prevention, $195 million in new public safety spending, $3 billion for the state’s rainy day fund and $4 billion for school reserve funds.

The budget includes some cuts to climate-related spending and housing and homelessness, per Calmatters. And it does not include any direct funding for Prop. 36, the anti-crime measure supported by nearly 70% of voters in 2024 — a move Republicans blasted.

But even with Newsom’s unexpected windfall, analysts expect deficits to grow to as high as $35 billion in the coming years as expenditures outpace even optimistic revenue projections.

Newsom and the state Legislative Analyst create separate budget projections, and the governor’s has historically been far rosier on the revenue side. The legislative analyst projected a $18 billion deficit in the coming fiscal year, while the governor calculated $3 billion.

Advertisement

Under Newsom, the state’s general fund spending has increased by 77% partly owing to new programs spun up when the state was flush with cash, according to Republican legislators.

Newsom’s $350 billion budget — the last before he leaves office next year — does little to confront ballooning expenses, dumping the problem on the future governor and Legislature, according to Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones.

“This is more of the same from a lame-duck governor content on leaving the rest of us to pick up the financial pieces when he leaves office,” Jones said in a statement.  

Democrats in the legislature were more measured in their responses.

Advertisement
Newsom’s $350 billion budget proposal is about $30 billion higher than this year’s budget, thanks largely to federal healthcare cuts. California Governor Gavin Newsom

“During these times of uncertainty, we must craft a responsible budget that prioritizes the safety and fiscal stability of California families,” said State Senate Leader Monique Limón in a statement.

Newsom and legislators will refine the budget in the coming months towards a final proposal in May.

One major unknown is how California will handle a loss of about $1.4 billion in funding due toTrump administration changes to low-income health care and food programs.

Last year, Newsom was force to scale back a controversial plan to provide Medicaid coverage for illegal immigrants after costs spiked, forcing California was forced to borrow $3.4 billion, Politico reported.

Newsom’s budget didn’t fully explain what would happen to immigrant health care under federal cuts, and Stephenshaw struggled to answer detailed questions from reporters — saying Newsom’s office was still awaiting guidance from the feds.

Advertisement

“As we work through the May revision, this is something we’ll be well aware of and we’ll make those decision at that time,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

How Trump’s tariffs ricochet through a Southern California business park 

Published

on

How Trump’s tariffs ricochet through a Southern California business park 


  • Tariffs impact businesses in Rye Canyon differently
  • Supreme Court may rule on Trump’s emergency tariffs soon
  • Some businesses adapt, others struggle with tariff costs

VALENCIA, California, Jan 9 (Reuters) – America’s trade wars forced Robert Luna to hike prices on the rustic wooden Mexican furniture he sells from a crowded warehouse here, while down the street, Eddie Cole scrambled to design new products to make up for lost sales on his Chinese-made motorcycle accessories.

Farther down the block, Luis Ruiz curbed plans to add two imported molding machines to his small plastics factory.

Sign up here.

“I voted for him,” said Ruiz, CEO of Valencia Plastics, referring to President Donald Trump. “But I didn’t vote for this.”

All three businesses are nestled in the epitome of a globalized American economy: A lushly landscaped California business park called Rye Canyon. Tariffs are a hot topic here – but experiences vary as much as the businesses that fill the 3.1 million square feet of offices, warehouses, and factories.

Advertisement

Tenants include a company that provides specially equipped cars to film crews for movies and commercials, a dance school, and a company that sells Chinese-made LED lights. There’s even a Walmart Supercenter. Some have lost business while others have flourished under the tariff regime.

Rye Canyon is roughly an hour-and-a-half drive from the sprawling Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And until now, it was a prime locale for globally connected businesses like these. But these days, sitting on the frontlines of global trade is precarious.

The average effective tariff rate on imports to the U.S. now stands at almost 17%–up from 2.5% before Trump took office and the highest level since 1935. Few countries have been spared from the onslaught, such as Cuba, but mainly because existing barriers make meaningful trade with them unlikely.

White House spokesman Kush Desai said President Trump was leveling the playing field for large and small businesses by addressing unfair trading practices through tariffs and reducing cumbersome regulations.

‘WE HAD TO GET CREATIVE’ TO OFFSET TRUMP’S TARIFFS

Rye Canyon’s tenants may receive some clarity soon. The U.S. Supreme Court could rule as early as Friday on the constitutionality of President Trump’s emergency tariffs. The U.S. has so far taken in nearly $150 billion under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If struck down, the administration may be forced to refund all or part of that to importers.

Advertisement

For some, the impact of tariffs was painful – but mercifully short. Harlan Kirschner, who imports about 30% of the beauty products he distributes to salons and retailers from an office here, said prices spiked during the first months of the Trump administration’s push to levy the taxes.

“It’s now baked into the cake,” he said. “The price increases went through when the tariffs were being done.” No one talks about those price increases any more, he said.

For Ruiz, the plastics manufacturer, the impact of tariffs is more drawn out. Valencia makes large-mouth containers for protein powders sold at health food stores across the U.S. and Canada. Before Trump’s trade war, Ruiz planned to add two machines costing over half a million dollars to allow him to churn out more containers and new sizes.

But the machines are made in China and tariffs suddenly made them unaffordable. He’s spent the last few months negotiating with the Chinese machine maker—settling on a plan that offsets the added tariff cost by substituting smaller machines and a discount based on his willingness to let the Chinese producer use his factory as an occasional showcase for their products.

“We had to get creative,” he said. “We can’t wait for (Trump) to leave. I’m not going to let the guy decide how we’re going to grow.”

Advertisement

‘I’M MAD AT HIM NOW’

To be sure, there are winners in these trade battles. Ruiz’s former next-door neighbor, Greg Waugh, said tariffs are helping his small padlock factory. He was already planning to move before the trade war erupted, as Rye Canyon wanted his space for the expansion of another larger tenant, a backlot repair shop for Universal Studios. But he’s now glad he moved into a much larger space about two miles away outside the park, because as his competitors announced price increases on imported locks, he’s started getting more inquiries from U.S. buyers looking to buy domestic.

“I think tariffs give us a cushion we need to finally grow and compete,” said Waugh, president and CEO of Pacific Lock.

For Cole, a former pro motorcycle racer turned entrepreneur, there have only been downsides to the new taxes.

He started his motorcycle accessories company in his garage in 1976 and built a factory in the area in the early 1980s. He later sold that business and – as many industries shifted to cheaper production from Asia – reestablished himself later as an importer of motorcycle gear with Chinese business partners, with an office and warehouse in Rye Canyon.

“Ninety-five percent of our products come from China,” he said. Cole estimates he’s paid “hundreds of thousands” in tariffs so far. He declined to disclose his sales.

Advertisement

Cole said he voted for Trump three times in a row, “but I’m mad at him now.”

Cole even wrote to the White House, asking for more consideration of how tariffs disrupt small businesses. He included a photo of a motorcycle stand the company had made for Eric Trump’s family, which has an interest in motorcycles.

“I said, ‘Look Donald, I’m sure there’s a lot of reasons you think tariffs are good for America,” but as a small business owner he doesn’t have the ability to suddenly shift production around the world to contain costs like big corporations. He’s created new products, such as branded tents, to make up for some of the business he’s lost in his traditional lines as prices spiked.

He pulls out his phone to show the response he got back from the White House, via email. “It’s a form letter,” he said, noting that it talks about how the taxes make sense.

Meanwhile, Robert Luna isn’t waiting to see if tariffs will go away or be refunded. His company, DeMejico, started by his Mexican immigrant parents, makes traditional-style furniture including hefty dining tables that sell for up to $8,000. He’s paying 25% tariffs on wooden furniture and 50% on steel accents like hinges, made in his own plant in Mexico. He’s raised prices on some items by 20%.

Advertisement

Fearing further price hikes from tariffs and other rising costs will continue to curb demand, he’s working with a Vietnamese producer on a new line of inexpensive furniture he can sell under a different brand name. Vietnam has tariffs, he said, but also a much lower cost base.

“My thing is mere survival,” he said, “that’s the goal.”

Reporting by Timothy Aeppel; additional reporting by David Lawder
Editing by Anna Driver and Dan Burns

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Up to 20 billionaires may leave California over tax threat | Fox Business Video

Published

on

Up to 20 billionaires may leave California over tax threat | Fox Business Video




Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending