At Tuesday night's gubernatorial candidates debate, Republican Meg Whitman had this to say about political insiders:

"You know what drives me crazy about career politicians? They refuse to accept accountability."

That statement echoed today as Whitman revealed, in a pre-emptory move that came hours before the situation was about to be publicly disclosed, that she had employed an undocumented housekeeper and nanny for nine years before dismissing her last June.

Whitman said she fired Nicki Diaz after her longtime housekeeper -- whom she described as almost "a member of our extended family" -- in June 2009 after Diaz revealed that she was in the country illegally. So, by her own admission, Whitman knew the facts of this situation almost from the moment she declared her candidacy for governor more than a year ago.

It was no secret that the issue of public figures employing undocumented workers is newsworthy and of public interest (remember Zoe Baird, President Clinton's ill-fated first nominee for attorney general?). Whitman could have gone public with the story, and even used it as an example of why a foolproof system for employers to verify the residency status of workers is so important. But she chose instead to keep it under wraps, but, judging from the documentation and comprehensive response of her campaign team this morning, prepared herself for the contingency that news of the situation might become public.

The subject of illegal immigration, of course, has come up multiple times during the campaign, most recently in last night's debate when Whitman reiterated her opposition to providing a pathway to legal residency for those who have lived in the country for a number of years as part of a comprehensive immigration reform law. Her GOP primary opponent, Steve Poizner, made illegal immigration a centerpiece of his campaign. There were multiple opportunities for Whitman to disclose the situation on her terms.

She chose not to. Dealing with that decision to avoid accountability might well be driving her crazy about now.

Gubernatorial debates are typically somewhat splashy, but largely insignificant events. Unlike presidential debates, they do not warrant a live, prime-time broadcast carried by all the networks.

But there can be moments when something that happens during a debate breaks through and becomes a pivotal news story -- withness Bill Simon's stunt in a 2002 debate with Gray Davis in which he asked Davis during the debate whether he'd ever received a campaign contribution inside a state office, received a blanket denial, then released a photograph alleging proof that Davis had accepted a check inside the lieutenant governor's office. The stunt backfired on Simon after it turned out the photo was not taken at a perfectly legal, private fundraising event.

The whole affair revealed Simon as an amateurish bumbler and almost certainly hurt his chances of winning.

It's doubtful that such theatrics will play out Tuesday at the first debate between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman -- but it has the potential to be very important nonetheless. This week's Field Poll showed them tied at 42 percent to 42 percent. And with three debates scheduled over the remaining five weeks before Election Day, a mistake or a homerun from either candidate could help tip the evenly balanced scale.

Unfortunately, none of the three debates will be held in Southern California, so the prospect for a live broadcast on an English-language station in the Los Angeles market is uncertain. Since Univision is the sponsor of an Oct. 2 debate in Fresno, that debate will be broadcast on the Spanish-language network's L.A. affliliate.

The first debate -- Tuesday, on the UC Davis campus -- will be broadcast on Southern California Public Radio. It will also be streamed at debate.ucdavis.edu.

Yesterday I spoke about the fall California elections to two combined classes at Moorpark College, a group of about 100 students in all. When the subject of Proposition 19 came up, I mentioned that the annual national survey on useage of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs last week reported that 20 percent of college students are current users of marijuana -- that is, have used it at least once in the past month.

I asked the students whether, based on their own observations, they thought that figure was too high. No response. I asked whether they thought it seemed about right. No response. I asked whether it seemed too low. 100 hands immediately went up (miraculously, after having sat through an hour of me yapping, all were paying attention to the question).

I did not ask how many were registered to vote. But it strikes me that if exposure to marijuana use and marijuana users is that universal among suburban college students, those who do vote are highly likely to back a change in a legal system that criminalizes the behavior of so many people they know.

Arguably the two highest-profile issues on the Nov. 2 ballot are the propositions that would legalize marijuana and stop the state's groundbreaking efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That's why the Ventura County League of Women Voters has chosen to spotlight those two initiatives at a forum that will take place tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon in Oxnard. The event will be at California Lutheran University's Oxnard center, 2201 Outlet Center Drive. The Proposition 23 (climate change) portion will begin at 2:30. The Proposition 19 (marijuana legalization) portion will begin about 3:30.

Representatives from both sides will be attending to make their cases and to take written questions from the audience. I will be moderating the event, and am looking forward to two interesting presentations. It's open to the public, and please consider stopping by and having some challenging questions in mind. There's nothing I'd like better than to have some tough questions from the audience to put to the proponents and opponents and each of these initiatives.

One of the most important voter blocs in determining the fate of Proposition 23, the initiative that would effectively block implementation of California's landmark global warming law, is minority voters.

Historically, blue-collar workers in minority communities are very sensitive to economic arguments, particularly arguments that relate to a potential loss of jobs. California's double-digit unemployment rate has hit particularly hard in minority communities, so it would seem that Prop. 23 supporters would find a sympathetic audience among Latinos and blacks for their assertions that the California law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would stifle job creation.

It is therefore very significant that a coalition of 80 community-organizing groups in Latino, black and Asian communties has been formed to oppose Proposition 23. Among them is Ventura County's Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE).

The concern among these groups is that passage of Proposition 23 would exacerbate health problems in minority communities that are more likely to be situation near heavy industrial sources of pollution.

"Proposition 23 will hurt low-income communities and people of color first and worst," said Communities United campaign manager Ian Kim of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. "This Dirty Energy proposition will make air pollution worse and jobs more scarce, especially in communities already burdened by too much pollution and poverty."

In an endorsement that has twice proven to be pivotal in California gubernatorial races, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association today announced it is backing Attorney General Jerry Brown, the Democratic nominee for governor.

In the 1990s, support from the union that represents prison guards was critical in two races: the 1990 victory of Republican Pete Wilson and the 1998 win of Democrat Gray Davis. The union spends heavily on political races, and unlike most other public employee unions, is equally likely to support a Republican as a Democrat.

The union's clout, however, has arguably been weakened in recent years, as it has been engaged in a years' long battle with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. That hostility led the union to back Democrat Phil Angelides in 2006, a departure from its historical pattern of backing what it considers to be the likely winner.

In announcing the union's endorsement today, President Mike Jimenez said his members believe Brown's experience better position him to lead California through difficult times. He also said Brown is better positioned to address issues involving prisons.

"California prisons are facing a crisis," he said. "There is tremendous need for reform and a pragmatic approach and understanding of the crisis that we see within the correctional system. Simply building more prisons is not the solution. We need a governor that understands the nuances and is willing to bring all of the stakeholders to the table in a concerted effort to collectively resolve this ongoing problem."

New voter registration numbers released today by the secretary of state show that the upward trend in Democratic voter registration in Ventura County has peaked. The numbers show that while both parties have lost voters since the June primary, the Democratic losses have been greater. The result: The Democratic edge in Ventura County has been trimmed by about 1,000 voters -- from a 13,404-voter advantage in June to an advantage of 12,411 as of Sept. 3.

The most recent numbers:

Democrats -- 166,830, or 40.03 percent
Republicans -- 154,419, or 37.05 percent
Decline-to-states -- 75,667, or 18.15 percent

At this point before the last gubernatorial election, in 2006, Republicans outnumbered
Democrats by about 8,000 voters -- evidence that these numbers can turn around pretty fast. Over the last four years, Democrats have gained 20,000 voters in Ventura County, while Republicans have actually lost about 150.

Just in time to inform the debate over California's Proposition 19, the initiative to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana for those 21 and older, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has released its annual report on drug useage in the nation.

It shows that marijuana useage is slightly on the rise, after having dropped off the last few years. It reports that 7.3 percent of the population (from age 12 upward) used marijuana within the past month in 2009, up from 6.7 percent the previous two years. The biggest jump was among the 18-25 cohort, where the rate of current marijuana use jumped from 16.5 percent to 18.1 percent. Among college students, about one in five, or 20.2 percent, smoke pot currently in 2009.

In California, the overall rate of past month useage was slightly lower, 6.7 percent.

As for national figures for other commonly used drugs: 51.9 percent are current users of alcohol and 27.7 percent are current smokers of tobacco.

Proponents of Proposition 19 might look at these figures and reasonably ask what college students are learning about respect for the law when the law makes it a crime to do what one out of five of their peers do on a regular basis.

The College Board, the entity that administers the SAT college-entrance exams, released state-by-state results from the Class of 2010 this week, revealing some encouraging news for California.

They show that not only did California students improve their scores over 2009 in all three subject areas -- critical reading, math and writing -- but that the pool of students who took the test last year (210,9266) was the largest and most diverse ever (63 percent were minority students). In addition, almost half (43.9 percent) of those who took the test said they intended to become the first generation in their families to attend college.

The college matriculation rates of Latinos, who make up the largest segment of California's student population, has been an issue of great concern, as economic projections show that it must improve if the state is to maintain a sufficient workforce into the future.

Also encouraging for the public schools is that the results show that there was virtually no difference between the 85.5 percent of test-takers who attended public schools and the entire pool of test-takers. Public-school students scored higher in math (520 vs. 516), the scores were identical in critical reading (501), and public-school students lagged slightly behind in writing (499 vs. 500).

There's nothing new about elected officials having staff members who take time off the government payroll to work on their bosses' campaigns, but the recent online release of legislators' payrolls revealed a healthy commitment to that practice by Ventura County's husband-and-wife legislative team of Tony and Audra Strickland.

Among the individuals on Audra Strickland's payroll are:

-- Darin Henry, her senior assistant, who is paid a monthly salary from the state of $4,543, an annualized rate of about $55,000. Henry's political mailing firm was paid more than $1.3 million during the last election cycle by the combined campaigns of the Stricklands. In addition, he was paid $39,000 for campaign consulting by Audra Strickland. Henry and his wife, Rebecca, are members of the Ventura County Republican Central Committee.

-- Joel Angeles, her chief of staff, who is paid a state salary of $8,393 a month, an annualized rate of just over $100,000. During his boss' last campaign, Angeles was paid about $33,000 from her campaign account.

On Tony Strickland's payroll are:

-- Legislative director Chris Wangsaporn, at a salary of $7,252 a month, or an annualized rate of $87,000. During the last campaign cycle, Tony Strickland paid Wangsaporn more than $100,000 for consulting.

-- Legislative aide Matt Guthrie, at a salary of $5,060 a month, an annualized rate of about $61,000. In his last campaign, Tony Strickland paid Guthrie $20,000 for consulting and the two Stricklands combined paid him more than $30,000 for "campaign paraphernalia and miscellaneous."

During that 2008 state Senate campaign, former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson paid her former chief of staff Janice Rocco $13,000 for consulting. Rocco now holds the same position for Assemblyman Dave Jones of Sacramento, and is paid a state salary of $8,579 a month, an annualized rate of $103,000.

Usually when a politician says everyone is going to have to "get a haircut," it means bad news -- as in, "To balance this budget we're going to have to make cuts across the board, and everyone is going to have to get a haircut."

Not so much in campaigns for mayor in Simi Valley.

Councilman Steve Sojka, teaming with a local hair salon, announced this afternoon that anyone who makes a campaign contribution can get a free haircut next Tuesday (Sept. 14) at Nioxin Hair and Scalp Spa at the Simi Valley Town Center, from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Perhaps optimistically, Sojka's announcement says appointments are highly recommended.

Political campaigns sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to try to spin facts to suit their objectives, but a statement issued this afternoon by the folks opposed to Proposition 19, the initiative to legalize marijuana, is so contorted that one can only guess what mind-altering activities its authors must have had to engage in to come up with it.

A Survey USA poll conducted for four California television stations showed the initiative leading 47 percent to 43 percent, with 10 percent undecided.

So what's the news, as interpreted by the No on 19 group? "A majority of voters is opposed or uncertain."

Well, yes, 43 plus 10 does equal 53. But there is that inconvenient fact that more people who've made up their minds are in favor of allowing Californians to legally purchase and possess small amounts of pot than are against the idea.

It is true that, as a general rule, initiatives that do not have significant majority support at this stage in a campaign are typically in trouble. But the new polling numbers suggest that both supporters and opponents have their work cut out for them between now and November. The public is basically split on this issue, and 9 in 10 voters have pretty much made up their minds. The effectiveness of the campaigns will very much matter.

Another way of looking at the poll numbers is that opponents must win over 71 percent of the undecided in order to defeat it, while supporters need to win over only 31 percent of the undecided in order to win.