California
Former Newsom advisor received $50,000 payout after leaving state job amid federal probe
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, left state service with two things: a federal corruption investigation and more than $50,000 in pay for vacation time she accrued but never took.
State payroll records reviewed by The Times show Williamson used approximately $30,000 in unused vacation time to remain on California’s payroll through Jan. 31 — seven weeks after Newsom’s office indicated she had departed — before collecting an additional $22,000 lump-sum payout for the hours she had left.
Large cash-outs for departing state workers with hundreds of hours of time off on the books have been a recurring issue in California. The state’s unfunded liability for vacation and other leave owed to employees has ballooned in recent years to $5.6 billion, fueled by generous time-off provisions and a long-standing failure to enforce policies that cap most employees’ vacation balances at 640 hours.
Many state workers accumulate large balances of unused vacation after decades of being on the government payroll. The typical public employee retires with more than two decades in public service, according the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Their unused time off is paid when they leave state employment at their final rate of pay.
Williamson, however, amassed 462 hours of unused leave in less than two years on the job. She earned $19,612 a month as the governor’s chief of staff.
John Moorlach, director at the conservative think tank the Center for Public Accountability at the California Policy Center, said that a job like Williamson had probably involved incredibly long workdays but that the pace in which employees accumulate days off is a major financial burden.
“A normal blue-collar worker would say, ‘Really? Really?“” said Moorlach, a former Republican state senator from Orange County. “You don’t find this perk in the private sector.”
Williamson notified Newsom in November 2024 that she was under federal investigation and was put on paid administrative leave through Dec. 16, the governor’s office said.
Federal charges against Williamson, which were filed in November 2025, allege she siphoned $225,000 out of a dormant state campaign account belonging to gubernatorial hopeful Xavier Becerra and illegally claimed $1 million in luxury handbags and travel as business expenses on her tax returns. She pleaded not guilty to the charges.
A status conference in Williamson’s case was moved to April 16 after she recently underwent a successful liver transplant and due to the large volume of discovery — more than 280,000 pages so far — according to court records filed last month.
Williamson’s attorney, McGregor Scott, did not respond to a request for comment.
State payroll records show Williamson earned $40,000 in regular pay in 2025, which the state controller’s office said included her December 2024 and January 2025 paychecks. The governor’s office said Williamson’s December 2024 paycheck included 11 days of paid administrative leave, and the remainder of both paychecks was covered by her unused leave.
With her final cash-out of $22,000 in remaining time off, she made a total of $62,000 last year — all tied to administrative leave and unused vacation time rather than time worked.
“That’s shocking, honestly,” said Assemblyman Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), adding that stockpiled vacation time overall is something the state Legislature should look into.
The state paid $453 million in unused leave benefits to state workers in 2025. That was an average of more than $20,000 to the 21,000 employees who received a lump-sum check. The amount paid to departing or retiring state workers has steadily increased each year. In 2024, the state paid $413 million for unused time off.
“Obviously, employees are an important part of our state and they accrue vacation time,” Hoover said. “But, if this is something being used to pad people’s salaries … we need to look into that and possibly reform that.”
Last year, 80 state employees took home at least $250,000 in unused time off, and 1,081 employees were paid more than $100,000. Those numbers have been increasing each year. For example, the state paid 16 state workers more than $250,000 for unused time off in 2010, and 309 employees were paid more than $100,000.
In 2024, the state paid out a record $1.2 million to a prison supervising dentist for unused time off. Last year, the top amount paid for unused leave was about $650,000 to an assistant fire chief with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
The state owed nearly $5.6 billion to state workers for unused vacation and other leave benefits in 2024, according to the most recent financial accounting report issued by the state controller’s office. Although that unfunded liability held steady when compared with 2023, it has risen sharply from pre-pandemic amounts.
In 2019, the state owed $3.9 billion for employees’ unused time off before COVID-19 curtailed travel and work-from-home policies resulted in fewer workers taking time off. State employees have argued that under-staffing at state agencies can make it difficult to take vacations.
Nick Schroeder, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office, said the state has plans to reduce unfunded liabilities for pensions and retiree healthcare, but that isn’t the case with unused time off.
“There isn’t a plan to address it,” Schroeder said.
When an employee retires with a large leave balance, the department where that person worked last is on the hook for the amount.
“It can be a big effect on that individual department’s budget,” Schroeder said.
During budget deficits — including in the current fiscal year — the state has cut employee pay or deferred annual raises in exchange for additional days off, a strategy that helps balance budgets but also adds to workers’ growing vacation balances.
In Newsom’s January budget proposal, which estimated a $3-billion deficit, the governor recommended providing $91 million in ongoing funding to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to help the prison system pay departing employees for their unused time off. The department said that from 2020 to 2025, it paid about $130 million annually on average to employees leaving state service, according to a Legislative Analyst’s Office report.
When employees cash out banked leave, the state pays them not only for the hours they have accumulated, but also for the additional vacation and holidays they would have earned had they taken that time off.
That means a person with 640 hours of vacation would also be paid for all of the vacation and holidays they would have earned had they taken those 80 days off. Each hour of leave is paid based on an employee’s final salary — not what they were earning when the time was accrued.
Most private-sector employers cap vacation accrual between 40 and 400 hours and stop employees from earning additional time once they reach those limits. Some companies have moved in the opposite direction, adopting “unlimited paid time off” policies. Under those systems, employees do not accumulate vacation days that can be banked or cashed out, but critics say the policies can lead to workers taking less time off because there is no guaranteed number of days and employees may feel pressure not to appear absent.
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., said there appears to be little appetite in the state Capitol to address California’s burgeoning vacation liability.
“This problem is systemic within California government and no one seems willing to take it on,” Coupal said. “At the same time, they are clamoring that there is a budget crisis. I suspect they will continue to kick the can down the road.”
California
HGTV names 2 Northern California towns amongst best suburbs in the U.S.
Five favorite walkable, bikable cities in America
USA TODAY 10Best readers voted these five cities as the most walkable in the nation. Check out the full list of 10 Most Walkable Cities on 10Best.com.
Scott L. Hall, USA TODAY
A lifestyle television network recently released a list on its website of the hottest suburbs in the city, with two in California
Home and Garden Television, or HGTV as it’s most commonly known, released its list of the 20 hottest suburbs in the country for those hoping to escape city life.
HGTV partnered with Suburban Jungle, a website that advises people move from cities to suburbs, to create the list.
The channel’s website cited entertainment, seasonal festivals and local theater programs as just a few perks to suburban living.
So, what are the best suburbs according to HGTV?
What are the best suburbs in the U.S.?
Among the list of the 20 hottest suburbs around the U.S., two California towns near San Francisco made the cut.
Mill Valley, a small town in Marin County, has an estimated population of about 13,904 as of 2024.
The city is just outside San Francisco and is known for its Mill Valley Film Festival amd live performances at Sweetwater Music Hall or Throckmorton Theater are available to residents.
“Mill Valley has a one-of-a-kind natural environment and access to nature: It borders Muir Woods National Monument, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Mount Tamalpais State Park and the San Francisco Bay,” said Pam Goldman, head Bay Area strategist for Suburban Jungle to HGTV.
Redwood City was the second California town among the hottest suburbs in the country. It is located in the heart of Silicon Valley and about 27 miles from San Francisco, HGTV says.
The city has an estimated population of 82,982 as of 2024 and several tech companies. Despite the tech presence, the town maintains a close-knit feel and has several year-round community events on Broadway, as well as seasonal events such as Oktoberfest and Music on the Square, the home and garden website said.
“Redwood City has lots of energy and youthful vibes, and it’s also right between San Francisco and San Jose,” Goodman said.
Top 20 hottest suburbs, according to HGTV:
- Chappaqua, New York
- Larchmont, New York
- Summit, New Jersey
- Port Washington, New York
- Greenwich, Connecticut
- Westport, Connecticut
- Glencoe, Illinois
- La Grange, Illinois
- Needham, Massachusetts
- Winchester, Massachusetts
- Lafayette, Colorado
- Littleton, Colorado
- Bethesda, Maryland
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Boca Raton, Florida
- Wesley Chapel, Florida
- Mill Valley, California
- Redwood City, California
- Dunwoody, Georgia
- Milton, Georgia
Ernesto Centeno Araujo covers breaking news for the Ventura County Star. He can be reached at ecentenoaraujo@vcstar.com, 805-437-0224 or @ecentenoaraujo on Instagram and X.
California
Contributor: California law limiting bail is clear. Will judges keep ignoring it?
Gerald Kowalczyk tried to buy a hamburger with credit cards he found on the floor. Then, while presumed innocent, he spent months in a California jail — not because a judge determined he was dangerous, not because he threatened anyone, but because the court set bail at $75,000 for a man who couldn’t afford it, then simply denied bail altogether, in defiance of the law. Last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously said no more. The court held that pretrial liberty is the norm; incarceration before conviction for any crime is the rare, carefully limited exception. If courts choose to condition freedom on a monetary payment it “must” be “an amount that is reasonable.”
For years, California courts ran an unconstitutional shadow detention system. The mechanics were straightforward: Set bail at an amount the defendant cannot pay and the result is the same as ordering detention outright. As the court explained in its Kowalczyk ruling, pretrial detention requires strong evidence of a serious charge and “clear and convincing evidence establishing a substantial likelihood that the defendant’s release would result in great bodily harm to others.” Instead, as Justice Joshua P. Groban explains in concurrence, courts have used money bail to detain poor people accused of nonviolent offenses with “devastating repercussions for their employment, education, housing, access to public benefits, immigration status, and family stability.”
This wasn’t a bug. It was the system.
Last week’s ruling closes that loophole — unambiguously and unanimously. Courts can no longer use unaffordable bail as a backdoor detention order. Where detention isn’t authorized, bail must be set at an attainable amount, based on the defendant’s actual circumstances. The ruling builds directly on the Humphrey precedent from 2021, a California Supreme Court decision that first held wealth-based detention unconstitutional and a case I helped bring.
I know how hard these victories are to win. I also know how easily they can be ignored.
Even after Humphrey was decided, across Santa Clara, San Mateo and Alameda counties, judges asked about a defendant’s financial circumstances exactly once out of nearly 250 observed cases. In more than 95% of hearings, judges cited no legal standard at all when ordering detention. More than 90% of people jailed pretrial were charged with offenses that didn’t even qualify for detention under the California Constitution: shoplifting, driving without a license, vandalism. These findings came from Silicon Valley De-Bug, a community organization whose members spent years watching what happens in arraignment courtrooms.
The system didn’t follow the rules set out in Humphrey. We must ensure the system makes good on the unanimous ruling in Kowalczyk.
Start with public defense. California is one of just two states that contributes no funding to trial-level public defense, leaving the 58 counties with no state standards or oversight. The result is a patchwork of wildly unequal and inadequate representation. Last week’s ruling requires courts to make individualized findings about flight risk, public safety, alternative release conditions and ability to pay — which means defense attorneys must be present at or before arraignment, prepared to make ability-to-pay arguments, demand findings and challenge unaffordable bail on the record. In counties where public defenders carry caseloads of 100 or more, that is not happening. It cannot happen without resources.
Then there is the question of alternatives. The ruling requires judges to consider conditions of release — drug treatment, check-ins, social services referrals, in serious cases ankle monitoring — before resorting to money bail or detention. But these options exist only where counties have invested in pretrial services outside of law enforcement, programs such as San Francisco’s Pretrial Diversion Project. Most haven’t. A constitutional right to alternatives is hollow without alternatives for judges to choose from.
Finally, the Judicial Council, which makes policy for California courts, should establish monitoring standards, reporting requirements and training protocols that ensure courts no longer impose unnecessary or unconstitutional pretrial incarceration.
Kenneth Humphrey spent 250 days in jail for $5 and a bottle of cologne. Gerald Kowalczyk spent months inside for a hamburger. Behind each of them are tens of thousands of Californians who spent similar time behind bars unjustly, who lost jobs and homes and custody of their children, because the system treated their poverty as grounds for imprisonment.
The Supreme Court has now said clearly what our Constitution has since 1849: Pretrial liberty is the norm. Pretrial detention is the carefully limited exception. There is a good reason for the presumption of innocence: 1 in 3 California arrests does not lead to any conviction, and upending people’s lives by jailing them pretrial is so destabilizing it actually increases future crime.
Let’s ensure this presumption of innocence means something in practice if you, or your loved one, need it.
Chesa Boudin is the former district attorney of San Francisco and the executive director of the Criminal Law & Justice Center at UC Berkeley School of Law.
California
29 youths busted with fake IDs at California restaurant
Twenty-nine people were busted with fake IDs inside a sushi restaurant on California’s Central Coast on April 23, according to the San Luis Obispo Police Department.
Undercover agents with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control busted the underage drinkers at HaHa Sushi and Ramen on the 1000 block of Olive Street. Inside the restaurant, agents saw “a large group of youthful-appearing individuals” ordering and drinking alcohol, the San Luis Obispo Police Department said.
“In accordance with state law, agents contacted and identified the members of the group, discovering no one was 21 years old and every person was in possession of a fake identification card,” police said.
During the investigation, 29 people were cited and released for possession of a fake ID. Six of these suspects were arrested for being minors in possession of alcohol. All of the suspects were cited and released from custody at the restaurant.
“Preventing the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors helps increase public safety by reducing DUI arrests and collisions,” the San Luis Obispo Police Department said. “Statistics have shown that young people under the age of 21 have a much higher risk of being involved in a collision than older drivers. About 25% of fatal crashes involve underage drinking, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”
-
Wyoming20 seconds agoAttorney Says Wyoming GOP Can’t Claim Autonomy When It ‘Sat On’ Rights For 40 Years
-
Crypto6 minutes agoBermuda Moves to Next Phase of On-Chain Economy Initiative | PYMNTS.com
-
Finance12 minutes agoEfTEN United Property Fund unaudited financial results for the 1st quarter of 2026
-
Fitness18 minutes agoShould you sync your exercise time to your chronotype?
-
Movie Reviews30 minutes agoBlue Heron Review: Some Things Last a Long Time • The Austin Chronicle
-
World42 minutes agoThe Iran War and Angry Voters
-
News48 minutes agoFederal Agents and Los Angeles Police Arrest 18 in Drug Raid
-
Politics54 minutes agoJudge Says F.B.I. Can Keep 2020 Election Records Seized From Georgia