Governor portrayed as a villain

The way legislators tell it, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the villain in the saga that has played out in the Capitol in recent months.

First he took hostage a year’s worth of their work -- about 1,000 pieces of legislation -- threatening to veto the bills until lawmakers sent him a budget. Then, with a spending plan finally in place, he rejected their proposals at a record high rate, 35%, and called it collateral damage.

Schwarzenegger infuriated legislators by saying the 85-day budget delay -- also a record -- left him no time to deal with minor legislation. Lawmakers predicted high tension again next year, when the state will face another cash crunch and unresolved fights over healthcare and the water supply.

Assemblyman Alberto Torrico (D-Newark) called Schwarzenegger’s power play “a total abdication of his responsibility as governor.”

“I think he’s going to have to decide whether he’s going to go back to making bad movies or staying in politics,” Torrico said. “He’s strongly disliked by Democrats and Republicans alike.”

Others say Schwarzenegger finally flexed his gubernatorial muscle and aggressively used his authority as arbiter of the Legislature’s proposed changes to California’s law book.

“If Schwarzenegger . . . sticks with it,” said Tim Hodson, executive director of the Center for California Studies at Cal State Sacramento, “the Legislature is going to have to say, ‘OK, we’ve got somebody who’s perfectly willing to veto for reasons unrelated to the legislation, and we’re going to have to recalibrate our relationship with him.’ ”

Schwarzenegger told reporters this week that each bill received fair consideration.

“We have normally 30 days to sign bills but because of the delay in the budget, we only had 10 this year,” he said. “But I can assure you that every bill got full attention.”

He denied that any vetoes were punitive, saying, “I’m not into that at all.”

But some legislators said the rejections sure felt like punishment.

They included Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), who proposed to save taxpayers about $5 million a year in legal costs by requiring state agencies and the University of California to write boilerplate language for the more than 1,000 service contracts they sign each year rather than start from scratch each time.

The bill had no opposition. But Schwarzenegger nixed it, applying the same veto message he issued for about 120 others he rejected: “The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 state budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of the year’s legislative session. Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest priority for California. This bill does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time.”

Laird, who chairs the Assembly budget committee, fumed. He described the governor’s reaction as “a fit of pique” and noted that Schwarzenegger had failed to persuade his fellow Republicans to support his version of a spending plan.

“I think the process didn’t work because he didn’t have very much truck with legislators,” said Laird, who will have to leave the Assembly next month because of term limits, “and the way he responded to our bills is going to lessen his ability to have influence with legislators.”

Even Republicans pleased by the veto of Democratic bills they had voted against were upset by Schwarzenegger’s boilerplate rejection of proposals that had been in the works for a year or more.

“I think it’s a slap to all the voters who send their legislators here to Sacramento to work on the issues they care about,” said Assemblyman Doug La Malfa (R-Richvale).

Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) was among those angry at having several of her bills vetoed with no explanation.

“The governor is clearly playing a game of payback,” Romero said. “Playing payback is not the best way to smooth relations and win friends.”

Schwarzenegger spurned 415 of this year’s 1,187 bills, a higher percentage than the 25% veto record set by Gov. Gray Davis in 2000 and above Schwarzenegger’s roughly 20% rejection rate in previous years. In plain numbers, though, Schwarzenegger merely nipped at the state record: Former Gov. George Deukmejian killed 436 bills in 1990.

Typically, most of the legislation sent to Schwarzenegger involved incremental adjustments to the law, narrow matters in a lawmaker’s district or legal changes of interest to small groups of people.

Despite his stock veto message, Schwarzenegger gave specific reasons for most rejections, even on obscure bills such as those to capitalize “delta” in state law references to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; allow a Sacramento Catholic girls’ school to use National Guard Armory property as a parking lot; and permit funeral directors to return pacemakers to manufacturers.

On more substantial proposals, the governor generally sided with business interests. The California Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday hailed him for rejecting nine of 10 bills they called “job killers.”

He vetoed bills to outlaw certain mortgage lending practices; impose fees on Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland port cargo; stop health insurers from canceling people’s policies after they get sick; and require retailers to better protect their customers’ credit card numbers.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) said she would encourage all members to reintroduce their vetoed legislation next year. She acknowledged being frustrated with Schwarzenegger but said she would not let that spill into next year’s policy and budget negotiations.

“Even though it was a very difficult year,” she said, “it’s important not to personalize things.”

--

nancy.vogel@latimes.com

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com