Tech Extension Service Has a Booster--But Where’s the Money?

Fifty years ago, a federal program of putting college professors in corn fields and farmers in classrooms seemed like a radical idea.

As it turned out, Congress gave a vital technological boost to farming when it launched the Agricultural Extension Service. With federal aid, the university-sponsored program of applied research helped American agriculture make quantum leaps in crop yields and land management.

Assemblyman Sam Farr (D-Carmel) figures that the experiment in farming is the right formula for keeping California technology businesses competitive.

Farr’s AB 3625 would set up the California Applied Research and Technology Extension Service. To be housed in state universities, the service would offer start-up technology firms access to the latest scholarly thinking.

The bill calls for the creation of three academic centers: one in Southern California emphasizing aerospace and electronics, one in Central California concentrating on marine and environmental sciences and one in the San Francisco Bay Area focusing on biotechnology.

“Technology transfer between private enterprise and public universities is necessary if California expects to expand its access to emerging global markets,” contends Farr.

Although the bill is packed with hyperbole about competitiveness, higher education and scientific advancement, it falls short on the funding front. A high-level academic and private sector advisory committee is recommended, but missing from the legislative proposal is a plan for funding the centers.

Oil Spills Mean Good News to Small Drillers

California petroleum companies that produce oil from inland wells think they’ve discovered a silver lining in the devastating offshore spills that hit Huntington Beach and Prince William Sound.

“If you accept the fact that California needs oil, we are the best friends of environmentalists who are fighting offshore oil production,” says Tom Hunt of the California Petroleum Assn., based in Yorba Linda. Its members include 700 independent oil companies that produce oil onshore in such locations as Bakersfield and Long Beach.

These small businesses “operate wells that earn royalties for California companies, generate pay checks for California workers and pay taxes to the state of California,” Hunt said.

The association’s themes--protectionism, small-is-better and environmental protection--have hit a responsive chord in Sacramento.

Assemblyman Ted Lempert (D-San Mateo) excluded onshore oil companies from his proposed 50-cents-per-barrel fee to fund a $500-million offshore clean-up kitty. But to gain the exemption, the oil produced inland would have to remain in California or be pumped through a pipeline, according to Tom Carroll, a Lempert aide.

Nevertheless, experts say the environmental damage from onshore oil production shouldn’t be underestimated. Drilling sites often remain polluted long after a well is shut down, and difficulties can arise from the disposal of drilling muds and other byproducts.

Parental Leave Bill Is Nearer to Passage

By the end of summer, the last chapter in the six-year saga of Assemblywoman Gwen Moore’s drive to guarantee job leaves for California’s working parents may finally be written.

The Los Angeles Democrat’s latest bill, AB 77, would require companies to permit both men and women employees to take up to four months of unpaid leave if they use the time to tend to a newborn infant, a seriously ill child or parents or grandparents in bad health.

Only one committee vote away from passage, the bill was approved by the Assembly last year and is expected to go to the full Senate by August. Moore has proposed similar legislation since 1984.

An amendment to exclude a company’s five highest paid employees from the benefits of the legislation was Moore’s latest salvo to satisfy the bill’s critics. Also, only companies with 25 employees or more at each corporate location are to be covered by the requirement.

However, these and other compromises have been unsuccessful in mollifying opposition from the Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers Assn. Both groups have consistently fought the measure and are still dissatisfied “with parental leave mandates,” according to Chamber lobbyist Fred Main.

A more ominous obstacle may be Gov. George Deukmejian.

In 1987, Moore convinced her peers in the Legislature that the measure had merit, but Deukmejian vetoed the bill. He argued in his veto message that existing laws provided adequately for parental leave. Current state statutes only offer disability leave to pregnant women for a six- to 16-week period.

This year, Moore expects her amendments to help the governor “see the light on parental leave,” according to Amy King, her legislative assistant.