Child Care Bill Stalled--Why?

With the critical need for child care that faces so many California parents, it’s distressing to see a proposed bill that reasonably addresses the issue stymied in the Legislature.

It’s even more exasperating when such a bill is sidetracked on a technicality that might have been waived, or even worse, because of political game-playing. But that seems to be the case with Senate Bill 566, introduced by state Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) and co-authored by Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim).

The bill, which would provide low-interest, tax-exempt bond financing for the private financing of child care centers under the state’s industrial development bond program, was being carried by Bergeson for the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

The county board sought the legislation following a study by the Orange County Commission on the Status of Women, which had been told to find alternatives for financing critically needed child care facilities. The commission reported that Orange County alone has a need for about 650 new child care centers, and the supervisors thought that the use of the revenue bonds might help prompt private builders and employers to develop those centers.

But when the bill came before the Assembly Public Investments Committee, which is chaired by Assemblyman Richard Robinson (D-Garden Grove), Robinson said he couldn’t hold a hearing on it because of a legislative rule against voting on measures that have last-minute amendments, as the bill did have. Bergeson wanted to strike the amendment, which had been added by another legislator (who had agreed to have it stricken), but the committee adjourned.

And now there is a controversy over how major or minor the amendment was and whether the rule should have been waived and a hearing held. Bergeson has been trying to persuade Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) to order a special session of Robinson’s committee to hear the bill, but Brown hasn’t budged.

Brown, and Senate President pro tempore David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), have both authored other child care bills that call for $50-million state appropriations.

Some people backing the Bergeson bill contend that rules are waived all the time and suspect that Robinson really acted out of anger because the county gave Bergeson and not him the bill to carry. Robinson, a strong supporter of day care, says he doesn’t oppose the bill and his action was procedural and not a “hatchet job” or anything personal.

Bergeson doesn’t oppose the other pending bills. In fact, she is a co-author of Roberti’s measure. All Bergeson wants the Legislature to do is look at all available options, including one that would involve the private sector and not require a state appropriation.

Bergeson’s approach makes sense. We don’t know whether petty party politics, pique or procedure is holding up state action, but whatever the reason the necessity for more physical facilities to house child care centers is too urgent to be subjected to further unnecessary delay. The Legislature, the governor and the private sector all seem to agree on the need. It’s time they finally did something about it.