As part
of our on-going look at the reasons for California's dysfunctional government,
we have asked a number of current and former legislators for their views on just
what is causing the problem.
Long-time SOCa supporter and State Senator,
Loni Hancock has written recently about her take on what are the structural
problems in our system of governance and what reforms we need to undertake to
return our system to its former visionary glory.
She has submitted the following observations
based upon her service on the newly created Joint Select Committee on Improving
State Government which was formed by the legislature to consider how to reform
and fix this terribly and unquestionably broken system. -- HBJ
Here are her latest thoughts:
From the desk of Senator Loni Hancock:
The cry for reform of California's governance system continues to grow. As of November 5, there were no less than twenty-two initiatives either already in circulation or awaiting a title and summary from the Attorney General that deal solely with California's governance process.
The proposals range from lowering the vote threshold to pass the state budget to the establishment of a constitutional convention to changing the way local government is funded to a part-time legislature. The ideas are from all across the political spectrum - conservative to liberal.
One thing is clear, Californians want reform. The challenge will be finding consensus on which reforms should be advanced.
Two weeks ago, the Legislature began its own effort to look at reforms. The Joint Select Committee on Improving State Government held its first of five scheduled hearings. The witnesses ranged from Bill Hauck, the former Chairman of the California Constitutional Revision Commission to former Republican Assembly Leader Robert Naylor to the current Democratic State Treasurer Bill Lockyer. Surprisingly, there was agreement in all the testimony - the deterioration of professionalism in the state legislature has had a dramatic impact on its ability to solve California's problems.
According to research provided to my committee earlier this year, the Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee, the National Conference on State Legislatures concluded that California is one of three states with the nation's strictest term-limits law - limiting Senators to two four-year terms (up to a total of 8 years) and Assemblymembers to three two-year terms (up to a total of 6 years). Since California's term-limits remain relatively popular with voters, completely eliminating term-limits is not politically feasible. However, amending the law to allow legislators to serve all their time in one house would allow them to develop policy expertise without eroding the intent of the law.
Last year's effort to amend the law to allow legislators to serve a total of 12 years in either house, Proposition 93, did just that. However, it included a provision that would have allowed sitting legislators to remain in office. This provision sank the initiative; the public voted it down 53.5% to 46.5%.
After listening to the testimony at the Senate Committee hearing, I am convinced more than ever that we must make another attempt at "softening" the term limits law. To that end, I have authored SCA 24, which would, like Proposition 93, change the total number of years an individual can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12 years. The measure will allow an individual first elected to office in November 2010 to serve three four-year terms in the Senate or six two-year terms in the Assembly or a combination of the two.
However, unlike Proposition 93, individuals who have served or are currently serving in either house will not be able to extend their terms - they will be bound by the existing law.
SCA 24 will allow Legislators to develop policy expertise, reduce the number of legislators looking for "the next office to run for" and reinstill confidence in the legislative process. I believe that this change to term-limits can find consensus and is an important piece in our effort to reforming California.
From the desk of Senator Loni Hancock:
The cry for reform of California's governance system continues to grow. As of November 5, there were no less than twenty-two initiatives either already in circulation or awaiting a title and summary from the Attorney General that deal solely with California's governance process.
The proposals range from lowering the vote threshold to pass the state budget to the establishment of a constitutional convention to changing the way local government is funded to a part-time legislature. The ideas are from all across the political spectrum - conservative to liberal.
One thing is clear, Californians want reform. The challenge will be finding consensus on which reforms should be advanced.
Two weeks ago, the Legislature began its own effort to look at reforms. The Joint Select Committee on Improving State Government held its first of five scheduled hearings. The witnesses ranged from Bill Hauck, the former Chairman of the California Constitutional Revision Commission to former Republican Assembly Leader Robert Naylor to the current Democratic State Treasurer Bill Lockyer. Surprisingly, there was agreement in all the testimony - the deterioration of professionalism in the state legislature has had a dramatic impact on its ability to solve California's problems.
According to research provided to my committee earlier this year, the Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee, the National Conference on State Legislatures concluded that California is one of three states with the nation's strictest term-limits law - limiting Senators to two four-year terms (up to a total of 8 years) and Assemblymembers to three two-year terms (up to a total of 6 years). Since California's term-limits remain relatively popular with voters, completely eliminating term-limits is not politically feasible. However, amending the law to allow legislators to serve all their time in one house would allow them to develop policy expertise without eroding the intent of the law.
Last year's effort to amend the law to allow legislators to serve a total of 12 years in either house, Proposition 93, did just that. However, it included a provision that would have allowed sitting legislators to remain in office. This provision sank the initiative; the public voted it down 53.5% to 46.5%.
After listening to the testimony at the Senate Committee hearing, I am convinced more than ever that we must make another attempt at "softening" the term limits law. To that end, I have authored SCA 24, which would, like Proposition 93, change the total number of years an individual can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12 years. The measure will allow an individual first elected to office in November 2010 to serve three four-year terms in the Senate or six two-year terms in the Assembly or a combination of the two.
However, unlike Proposition 93, individuals who have served or are currently serving in either house will not be able to extend their terms - they will be bound by the existing law.
SCA 24 will allow Legislators to develop policy expertise, reduce the number of legislators looking for "the next office to run for" and reinstill confidence in the legislative process. I believe that this change to term-limits can find consensus and is an important piece in our effort to reforming California.
Comments (0)
