PD Editorial: Fix-it plan

Sunne Wright McPeak, a veteran of state and local government, succinctly described the state of California's public sector during a legislative hearing this week:

“Not only is California broke,” she said, “it's broken.”

McPeak is on the board of California Forward, a nonpartisan foundation that wants to improve state government by creating a more sensible budget process, increasing accountability for lawmakers and shifting responsibility for some programs — and the revenue to pay for them — to cities and counties.

California Forward's plan won't solve all the state's problems, but it is a good first step.

No one who witnessed the partisan bickering and ineffectual leadership that has characterized Sacramento in recent years can credibly argue that structural reforms aren't desperately needed. In its most recent ranking, the Pew Center on the States gave California a D-plus for its fiscal systems, tying Rhode Island for dead last. In a recent poll, the Legislature's approval rating was 17 percent.

Several individuals and organizations are pressing reform plans or advocating for a constitutional convention. Among them is a panel appointed by the governor to rethink the state's tax system, which is due to report its findings soon. California Forward, which started its review of state government 18 months ago, unveiled its reform plan last week.

The plan includes:

• A two-year rolling budget, with a three-year plan for capital investments. This would make it harder for lawmakers to rely on accounting gimmicks, such as providing services in one fiscal year while pushing the expenses into the next year. In addition to setting spending levels, state budgets would include program goals as a basis for assessing their effectiveness.

• Requiring legislators to identify funding sources for new programs.

• Giving counties authority to distribute property tax revenue and giving local governments control over more of their revenue, better protecting them from raids by the Legislature.

• Allowing cities, counties and school districts to raise money for long-term purposes with majority approval from voters, and encouraging consolidation of districts to reduce overhead costs.

• Modifying term limits so legislators could serve 12 years in the Assembly or the state Senate (instead of a combined 14 years), which would help foster expertise and, in turn, reduce the influence of special interest groups, which have no term limits.

The California Forward proposal also would eliminate the two-thirds vote to pass a budget, though not for raising taxes. Without changing both rules, there's ample room for more budget stalemates.

But without political reforms that make elected officials truly accountable to voters, such as open primaries, neither party has shown itself worthy of that much power.

The California Forward proposals have been presented to the Legislature and were discussed at a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday. We'd like to see them placed on the ballot as a constitutional revision. But, given the Legislature's recent track record, we won't be surprised if it takes a series of initiatives or a constitutional convention to fix a dysfunctional system that's only getting worse.