The stalled budget crisis in Sacramento is a reminder that our fulltime Legislature is a massive failure, and it's time for a big change. The majority of Californians have said in a recent public opinion poll that they would support a part-time Legislature. After all, lawmakers working fulltime can't even get a balanced budget.
Let's not forget how long this budget mess has been going on. Lawmakers should have passed a balanced budget by last July 1. They refused to do it, and now we are rolling into a new budget season and California is on the verge of bankruptcy if nothing is done.
And this is how arrogant the fulltime Legislature has been during this process: Many of them took junkets when they should have been doing the people's work. Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, skipped a special session on the budget so she could go on a junket to India. And then she got reappointed budget chair for not doing her job.
That one appointment by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg shows just how out of touch the legislative leaders are. Do you think your boss would keep you around if you skipped your company's most important meeting of the year? In Sacramento, they reward people for not doing their jobs.
State Controller John Chiang is another self-serving politician. While he spends millions on furniture for his various offices, he's sending IOUs to Calfiornians in place of their income tax refunds. While he fights the governor on furloughing state employees, he doesn't want to pay venders who have performed services for the state. Maybe we should make the constitutional offices part-time, too. They aren't doing their jobs either.
And don't forget about the secret bonuses the state Senate gave staffers. You can read about that gift of taxpayer funds by clicking here.
I say put the part-time Legislature question on the ballot, and see how voters respond. The latest Capitol Weekly/Probolsky Research Poll reported that 51% of those surveyed favored a part-time Legislature, with 36% opposed.
The stalled budget is merely a symptom of a political system that no longer serves the public. The California Legislature has become a self-serving body that creates jobs for its pals and serves as a launching pad for politicians seeking higher office.
We need a citizen Legislature that has members who have other jobs for much of the year. Part-time lawmakers would understand how their decisions affect workers and their families. This fulltime Legislature is a failure and it's time that we all admit it.
I'm not so sure, Jim. I think, in a few more years, with any luck at all, we can get rid of enough Republicans in the Legislature that the Democrats will be able to do everything they want. They'll be able to spend unfettered and tax accordingly. We'll need a full time Legislature at that time just to pass all of the laws we really need to protect our citizenry. Let's not jump the gun.
Not this issue again (rolling my eyes)! What exactly does this issue mean by part-time? Are we putting this is terms of hours on the job, say like 24-30 hours a week (assuming that a full time legislature job is 40 or more hours a week)? Or are we talking the number of days, weeks or months in the year the state legislature will convene to do its work? please enlighten me.
Jim, the gentleman who posted before MOI sums up the dilemma facing the 'good' folks of California.
So long as folks in California refuse to face the truth, the situation in Sacramento will continue to fester. Transfixed by the horrid drama, they stand in place and watch the lava flow down from the erupting volcano and watch everything be laid waste.
When California is ruined totally and completely, the good folks will cluck tongues and shake heads and still not get the message.
There once was 'Camelot', and the dream was allowed to die. More's the pity, that.
I used to lobby in states with part time legislatures and all I can say is be careful what you wish for. In New Mexico, legislators and interest groups met year around crafting deals in total secret. Then the "part time" legislative session would begin and the whole deal was raced through the committee process with little public discussion.
For better or worse, a full time legislature gives the public the time to review legislation, comment, and get involved in the process.
Let's not forget that the last time the public was upset with the legislature we ended up with term limits. I hope we can be a bit more thoughtful this time around.
A part-time legislature? Sounds like a good idea to me, especially the part about legislators should have real jobs in the real world, like the rest of us. Boren nails it!
Mr. Boren; you are advocating to abolish a perfectly good system because of the imperfect legislators. But when an entire legislature goes sour it is a reflection upon the people who put them there. We must not frivolously endanger California's system of Checks and Balances to punish the unbalanced legisltors whom we checked in. I like Mr. Jones' reservations about a "part time legislature" He is right...what is part time?
I have pointed out several times what is meant by part-time legislature, but I'll repeat my proposal for the benefit of those who say I have not been specific about the definition of a part-time legislature.
The part-time legislature would meet for 120 days each year to deal with state business. Lawmakers, who now introduce 2,000 bills a year between them, would only be able to introduce a handful of bills -- maybe three for each of the 40 Assembly members and 80 state senators. There would be an emergency provision so that legislators could be called back into session to deal with calamities, such as an earthquake or flood. They would not get state cars or gasoline credit cards, but would be a per-diem for each day they are in session. If they did not pass a budget on time, they would not be paid at all.
At the end of the session, they would go back to their homes and make a living outside of state employment.
A fulltime legislature is a recent thing. . . It came into existence in 1966. But instead of creating a professional legislature, the system has created career politicians who use their legislative seats to run for another office. That was never the intent of a fulltime legislature, but that has been the result. It's time for a change.
Apparently, I missed the detailed set-up last time. It makes a lot of practical sense not to engage them full time. But I still would not like to change away from the bi-cameral system. My quarrel is with the legislators not with the legislature. I can foresee one problem. Who will want to take off from their business or professional services for those 120 days. I can see it work for the five folk on the Clovis City Council, but what about the complex affairs of state? Thanks for responding to our concerns.
Blah, blah, blah. It ain't gonna happen. It's too late. The takers and the receivers are in charge now. They'll never give up their gravy train. And the Legislators don't care about California any more than Obama cares about America. They only care about themselves, their power and their vision of fairness for all. Relax. Enjoy the ride. It's over.
Interesting dilemma. I'm not sure what I think yet. One downside I can think of is that many employers would not allow folks to take 120 away from work nor leave at a moments notice for emergencies. It would seem only those well off or self employed (generally in a thriving business to be able to leave it). It limits the choices to a select few and slants that in favor of the elite.
I know this idea has been kicked around before, but maybe it's time has arrived for: A unicameral state legislative body. If it was developed as a proposition in conjunction with the consolidation of all special districts, cities and counties into administrative districts, it may bring the State of California into the 21st. century. I would venture to say the cost savings by eliminating overlapping and duplicative functions and services. This might make the our State and our budget State a least manageable.
Please quit calling representatives our leaders, they are neither.
I say that the legislators including the Governor should not be paid one cent until the annual state budget is passed. Let them stay full time but not collect anything until they complete their jobs. This is crazy
Jim: I understand your premise, but I think part of your idea is a step backwards. The parts that makes sense, viz. withholding wages for work or duties not performed make sense. What doesn't make sense is/are the underlying problems that are to great to fix. Examples of why they won't be fixed are many, e.g. Political parties, special interest groups, etc. have hijacked the legislative process. Our legislators very rarely poll their constituency on what they may consider a viable issue(s) or prioritize issues that matter the most to the taxpayers. You may be the exception, however, in all of my years as a California voter I haven't once received a personal inquiry from a legislator asking what my feelings, thoughts, or suggestions on a particular bill or issue.
As you well know a representative form of government is hogwash, it never has been and it will never be. These are not protestations of an angry man, but a man who says it time to change the game James.
I think Mr. Boren has it right. Its a shame that it has come to this, but the legislature has worked essentially full time to produce part time results, and poorly done at that. And that applies to Republican and Democrat alike! Like when Prop 13 was enacted, its time for citizens to exercise their control over government again instead of the other way around. If firing the whole bunch is not possible and making them part time is the best we can do, then I say lets get on with it.
Instead of part-time, how about remaining in session 365 days a year and never leave their district offices? The technology is available to not only give them the feeling of being on the floor of the Senate or Assembly, but to allow the vigorous debate need and called for in our State Constitution. They could caucus this way. They can hold their committee meetings this way. When an individual is going to testify in front of our legislator's they could do if without having to travel to Sacramento. This is the true solution to shrinking the size of the government. No longer would our Senators and Assembly need two offices. They would only need one office in district (sure they would most likely need to add a couple of staff in district seeing they will now handle the work load for both the district and Sacramento). No pre diem would ever be paid. The best part is the lobbyists and special interests would find themselves in the backseat, while the voters would be driving the car.
Right now our state legislators are not paid to be in Sacramento 365 days. They currently are paid pre Diem for Monday-Thursday. They get a week off in November for Thanksgiving, a month at Christmas, and a week at Easter with about another 11 days of government recognized holidays. On top of this they get a months vacation on a non election year and three months on an election year. This means on in an election year they spend 118 days in Sacramento which they are paid pre diem for. In a non-election year they spend a total of 172 days.
There are 365 days a year. Half of that is 182 1/2 days. Now if there is 52 weeks in a year then this would mean there is 104 days in a full year of weekend days. Half of that is 52. Take the 52 from 182 1/2 days and guess what?
It comes to 130 1/2 days they would be in Sacramento in session. This means in a non-election year the state will save 41 1/2 days of pre diem pay, but in an election year there will be an increase of days of paid pre diem by 12 1/2 days. Their offices will still be staffed, even if they are not paid to be there.
Look the biggest problem is Sacramento is the lobbyists and special interests who bombard the newly elected officials and eventually are the ones they listen to. There is no reason for our government to operate in the Stone Ages!
The reason I know this is I know an individual who was in office in the 90's. They sat me down and explained how the pre diem works along with the days they are required to be in session in Sacramento.
The problem with the California political system is rooted in the decades long decision to limit the ability of local government to raise property taxes. True that no one wants their taxes increased, but local taxes should be used for local projects (Prop 13). Using state taxes collected to pay for projects that don't affect individuals within their community is a real problem.