Gann Asks Court to Take Name Off Ballot Pamphlet for Prop. 61

Anti-government crusader Paul Gann, stung by a court ruling requiring the state to inform voters that his ballot measure to limit public employee salaries could cost taxpayers $7 billion, declared Tuesday that he wants his name removed from the official ballot pamphlet argument.

“By taking out and amending portions of the ballot arguments and the rebuttal, it does not (reflect) Mr. Gann’s intent anymore, and so he doesn’t want his name on it,” said his secretary, Joanna Gibson.

Despite the setback by the court, she said Gann, who co-authored property tax-cutting Proposition 13 in 1978, will continue to seek approval of his salary-cutting plan.

In a letter delivered at midafternoon to Superior Court Judge John M. Sapunor, Gann asked that his name be removed from both the voter pamphlet argument in favor of Proposition 61 and in a rebuttal to an argument against it. Gibson said an appeal to the court ruling also was filed.

At the close of business Tuesday, Sapunor had not acted on the letter.

The ballot pamphlet is scheduled to go to the printer today. A spokeswoman for Secretary of State March Fong Eu said that unless there is a further court order, the ballot materials would be turned over to the printer in their current form.

The controversial measure, which will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot as Proposition 61, would set the governor’s salary at $80,000 a year and limit the maximum pay of state and local officials and employees to $64,000, or 80% of what the governor is paid. Currently, the governor’s salary is $49,100 and is scheduled to increase to $85,000 next year.

In addition, Proposition 61 would prohibit public employees from accumulating unused vacation and sick leave and carrying it over into the next year. As a consequence, opponents argued, the first-year cost to taxpayers of “buying out” the unused vacation and sick leave could total $7 billion--an estimate provided by the Legislature’s nonpartisan budget analyst.

The proposal has drawn heavy fire from public employee organizations, the University of California and various top-level local government officials, as well as the influential California Taxpayers Assn. and the California Chamber of Commerce. The groups argue that the initiative would make it all but impossible to attract qualified professionals to a wide variety of state and local government jobs.

Gann’s arguments in favor of Proposition 61 were challenged in a suit brought by Californians for Quality Government, a coalition of business, labor, health, law enforcement and education organizations.

On Monday, Sapunor ruled that the ballot summary and other voter materials must include the legislative analyst’s estimate that the buy-out could cost taxpayers $7 billion. The analyst also indicated that the measure in the long run could save taxpayers $250 million a year.

Sapunor also struck down a major section of Gann’s proposed ballot argument that contended that the proposal would limit the pensions of about 16 former state officeholders, including Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown. Opponents argued that Gann’s explanation was misleading.

Additionally, the judge struck from Gann’s rebuttal to the argument against his initiative an assertion that the proposal would affect only 7,000 employees, “while exempting Civil Service employees.”

Richard P. Simpson, executive vice president of the California Taxpayers Assn. and chairman of Californians for Quality Government, praised the judge’s ruling as a “tremendous victory” for taxpayers.

“We can’t afford Proposition 61,” he said.