Accountability Vanishes as Newsom Fills State Jobs With Loyal Insiders, Not Experts

Governor Gavin Newsom’s latest round of appointments, announced this week, has sent ripples through California’s political landscape. From environmental health to corrections and water management, the governor has tapped a slate of insiders and loyalists to steer critical state agencies. While Sacramento paints this as a step toward expertise and progress, a closer look reveals a troubling pattern: a calculated effort to entrench power and advance a narrow agenda at the expense of accountability and competence.

Take Kristina Thayer, the new Director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Her resume boasts years at the EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, but her appointment reeks of a broader strategy to double down on regulatory zeal. Similarly, Jason Johnson’s elevation to Undersecretary of Operations at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation raises eyebrows, given his long tenure within the same system he’s now tasked to reform. These moves aren’t about fresh perspectives; they’re about stacking the deck with allies who’ll toe the governor’s line.

What’s at stake here isn’t just who fills these roles but what they represent: an administration intent on consolidating control over California’s future. From water policy to prison management, Newsom’s picks signal a vision that prioritizes ideological purity over practical governance. For taxpayers and business owners already strained by the state’s regulatory maze, this is a red flag.

Thayer’s appointment to lead the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is a case study in Sacramento’s regulatory obsession. Her track record at the EPA, particularly in risk assessment, suggests she’ll push for tighter environmental controls, likely at the expense of California’s struggling industries. The state’s economy, already battered by high taxes and energy costs, can ill afford another layer of bureaucratic red tape. Yet Newsom seems undeterred, betting that voters will applaud his green credentials while ignoring the economic fallout.

This isn’t a new tactic. Since 2019, Newsom has packed state agencies with appointees who share his vision of aggressive environmental regulation. The California Water Commission’s new member, Davina Hurt, with her background in climate policy advocacy, fits this mold perfectly. Her appointment comes as the state grapples with water allocation disputes, where farmers and urban communities often lose out to environmental mandates. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, while necessary, has already strained rural economies with its pumping restrictions. Hurt’s presence on the commission risks tipping the scales further toward ecosystem priorities over human needs.

Contrast this with the federal EPA’s recent shift under new leadership, which emphasizes streamlining permitting and prioritizing domestic energy production. California’s refusal to align with this pragmatic approach underscores a disconnect between Sacramento’s elite and the working families who bear the cost of overregulation. The Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, which curbs agency overreach, should serve as a wake-up call for state leaders, but Newsom’s appointments suggest he’s doubling down instead.

In the realm of criminal justice, Jason Johnson’s appointment as Undersecretary of Operations at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation demands scrutiny. His decades-long career within the department, while impressive, raises questions about whether he’s the right choice to tackle California’s troubled prison system. The state’s incarceration rates, though lower than the national average, remain plagued by recidivism and overcrowding. Johnson’s insider status suggests more of the same rather than the bold reform taxpayers deserve.

Nationally, criminal justice reform has taken divergent paths. States like Texas and Georgia have embraced smart-on-crime policies, blending rehabilitation with accountability to reduce costs and recidivism. California, however, seems stuck in a cycle of half-measures. Newsom’s administration has pushed decarceration and parole expansion, yet violent crime rates in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco continue to fuel public unease. Johnson’s appointment, alongside Joshua Prudhel as Warden of Sierra Conservation Center, hints at continuity rather than a course correction.

A truly innovative approach would prioritize public safety while addressing systemic flaws. Instead, Sacramento’s focus on appointing loyalists risks sidelining the voices of law enforcement and victims’ advocates. The National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice, of which Johnson is a member, has pushed for equity-focused reforms, but without a clear commitment to deterrence, these efforts may fall short of restoring public trust.

Newsom’s appointment strategy isn’t just about filling vacancies; it’s about shaping California’s future in his image. Megan Mekelburg’s role as Deputy Secretary for Legislation at the Natural Resources Agency and Matthew Sage’s command of the State Threat Assessment Center reflect a broader trend of placing trusted allies in positions of influence. These appoin ≋ments, often requiring no Senate confirmation, bypass the checks and balances meant to ensure accountability.

Historically, gubernatorial appointments have been a tool for advancing policy, but Newsom’s approach feels more like a power grab. The state’s water management, environmental regulation, and corrections systems are too critical to be left to a cadre of insiders. California’s challenges, from drought to crime, demand leaders chosen for merit, not allegiance. Yet the governor’s picks, like Peter Stern to the California Horse Racing Board and Dyan Whyte to the Mining and Geology Board, suggest a preference for those who won’t rock the boat.

Opponents of this approach, including business leaders and taxpayer advocates, argue that California needs a governance model that values transparency and competence over party loyalty. The state’s appointment process, while legally sound, lacks the public scrutiny needed to prevent cronyism. When roles commanding six-figure salaries or critical policy influence are filled by those with deep ties to the administration, it erodes trust in government.

California stands at a crossroads. Newsom’s appointments, while framed as a commitment to expertise, reveal a deeper intent to centralize power and advance a regulatory agenda that stifles growth and innovation. From environmental overreach to a corrections system in need of bold reform, these choices will shape the state’s trajectory for years to come. Taxpayers, business owners, and everyday citizens deserve leaders who prioritize their needs over Sacramento’s ambitions.

The solution lies in demanding greater scrutiny of the appointment process. Senate confirmation, where required, must be more than a rubber stamp. Public hearings, merit-based criteria, and a commitment to diverse perspectives can restore faith in governance. California’s future depends on leaders who value accountability over ideology, and it’s time for voters to hold their governor to that standard.