Van de Kamp’s Strong Opposition to Prop. 51 Stirs Dissent Among Staff

California Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp’s outspoken stand against Proposition 51 on Tuesday’s ballot has stirred an unusual amount of dissent among his deputies who must defend state agencies against the “deep pockets” lawsuits that the measure would curb.

Van de Kamp said in an interview that the internal dissension comes as no shock but did say that some of the reaction from outside his office was a “surprise.” He has received several letters from political supporters upset with his stand.

The attorney general said the position he stated in a widely aired 30-second television commercial may be the most strident he has ever taken, but he added, “I didn’t think it was that harsh. But we will take a look at it post-mortem. . . . There is always a better way of doing things.”

Several of his deputies who defend the state against suits that might be affected by the measure were taken aback by the tone of Van de Kamp’s television commercial.

Clients’ Interest

“There is profound disgruntlement with what is perceived to be a departure from the interests of clients of the attorney general,” said one deputy who has served under the last three attorneys general.

“This is the only law office that I can think of that represents public entities and is on record in opposition to Proposition 51,” said another veteran attorney, who asked to remain anonymous like others who were critical of Van de Kamp’s role as a leading spokesman against the measure. “Our clients would do much better under Proposition 51 than without it.”

Displeasure over Van de Kamp’s political stands is not new. For example, some deputies want Van de Kamp to oppose Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird’s reelection in the November election. He remains neutral, saying that any stand would create potential conflicts because his deputies appear regularly before the high court.

The difference now is that Van de Kamp has taken such an outspoken role. As a result, veteran deputies say, dissent over his stand is more widespread than over any other political position he has taken.

‘Political Stand’

“It is the only time I know of that deputies have looked at a political stand (taken by the attorney general) and been so uniformly uncomfortable with it,” said a deputy attorney general, a veteran of three administrations.

In the commercial, Van de Kamp, who has long opposed limits on liability such as those that would be imposed by Proposition 51, says his job is to ensure that murderers and rapists are punished and toxic polluters are stopped.

Van de Kamp goes on to say, “The chemical companies behind Proposition 51 say that toxic waste polluters who cause cancer shouldn’t be held fully accountable.

“Californians are fed up with letting wrongdoers off easy,” he concludes.

“I was appalled. I was absolutely horrified,” a veteran deputy said, recalling her reaction to the message. “. . . I haven’t heard anyone justify it or even try to justify it.”

“People were very upset,” another deputy said. “Some people went so far as to say it was outright fraudulent. I think it was misleading.”

Court Rulings

Proposition 51 is designed to reverse state Supreme Court rulings that the wealthiest defendants can be forced to pay an entire award of “non-economic” damages, even if they are only partly to blame, while defendants who are unable to pay but are more culpable may pay nothing. Non-economic damages include such things as emotional distress, and often make up the bulk of awards in a suit.

Several deputies said they see only passing application of Proposition 51 to polluters, but acknowledged that there could be cases in which passage of the measure might restrict damage awards to people injured by toxic waste.

They said the measure would have a much more direct effect on governmental agencies, which often are the so-called deep pockets defendants and are forced to pay the entire amount of non-economic damages.

“I don’t think anybody is going to look at a 30-second commercial as being exceptionally thoughtful,” said Assistant Atty. Gen. Michael J. Strumwasser, one of Van de Kamp’s chief aides who defended Van de Kamp’s ads. “It’s not a medium conducive to thoughtfulness. What you see coming out is his strong feeling on this issue.”

Strumwasser said he checked the commercial at Van de Kamp’s request for accuracy and is convinced it is factual.

Accuracy of Ad

However, while Van de Kamp called on Strumwasser to check the ad’s accuracy, the attorney general said he decided to do the commercial without consulting his Justice Department staff.

Van de Kamp defended the ad, saying that when it is analyzed “line for line, word for word, it is accurate.” However, he also said, “There is not a heck of lot that you can do in that (30-second) time period.”

Van de Kamp said he has heard little reaction to his stand from within the ranks of his deputies, but noted: “I would imagine there is a split on that issue. . . . Lawyers are free thinkers, and I do not discourage that.”

Van de Kamp, who is running unopposed for reelection to a second term, estimated that deep pockets awards cost the state agencies that his deputies defend about $900,000 a year. He said local governments pay far more and have a hard time finding insurance because of the large damage awards and settlements.

“Local government is hurting--no question about that,” he said.

Officials Upset

He added, however, that local officials who criticize his stand are upset because he is “the messenger who brings the bad news.”

“They would all like to be assured that this would solve their problems,” he said.

Van de Kamp has answered criticism from political supporters by sending them a fuller statement of his position than what appears on the commercial. The 4 1/2-page statement, titled, “Insurance Ills and Snake-Oil,” says the “cure” to higher insurance rates being offered by the initiative is “straight out of the medicine shows of the Wild West.”