Civic momentum is building for a fundamental overhaul of California's dysfunctional system of governance, but the precise shape of reform – as well as the method by which it could occur – remains cloudy.
The two major governance reform organizations – foundation-supported, bipartisan California Forward; and the Bay Area Council, a consortium of corporate CEOs – appear to be muting their differences over strategy and adopting an informal agreement on joint action.
The former will press the Legislature to embrace change through a constitutional revision commission, and if that falters, the latter's preference for a constitutional convention, called by voters, would come next.
Both efforts, however, must contend with an inherent reluctance among voters (as shown in a new San Jose State University poll) to make deep-seated change, to trade the known for the unknown, no matter how much they dislike the status quo.
Reform could be incremental and marginal, changing one part of the governmental structure and then seeing how that works before proceeding to the next change. But incrementalism also could dissipate civic energy without making sufficient change to be effective.
Much of the forthcoming debate will revolve around the division of political power – retaining or abolishing the two-thirds legislative votes for budgets and taxes being just two examples.
California has a very diffused governance structure, having widened the "checks and balances" concept so far that the authority to act, and be held accountable for outcomes, has been hamstrung.
Who, for instance, is truly accountable for a public education system that infuriates everyone, satisfies no one and is clearly failing its kids and the larger society? There are so many political cooks that the broth is always spoiled.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is one who believes that such diffusion is damaging, citing not only the proliferation of independently elected constitutional officers who often work at cross-purposes but also the increasing intervention of judges. As Schwarzenegger told a forum on governance recently, "I think it's not productive for the state to have so many chefs in the kitchen."
The thrust of Schwarzenegger's reform proposals has been to move closer to the parliamentary system of his native Austria and most of the world's democracies, in which power – and the burden of being accountable for consequences – is consolidated in the hands of the chief executive.
Should California start with a clean sheet of paper and entertain something as different as a parliamentary system, and/or proportionate representation in the Legislature to give minor parties a voice and/or a one-house legislative branch? Or should we be content with one-step-at-a-time changes, such as redistricting reform, open primary elections and the like?
Let the debate begin.
Call The Bee's Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, www.sacbee.com/walters.
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.