Getting Stomped by a Flawed System : Speaker’s Power Keeps Assembly in Line, Not on Its Toes

What does the present political squabble between Speaker Willie Brown and the so- called “Gang of Five” dissident Democrats who have defied Brown in the Assembly mean to the average voter in California? It means a secondary status for the issues as they become mere bargaining chips in the quest for and the protection of the Speaker’s power. It means that the people, as usual, are the real losers.

Power games have always been an integral part of politics, but now the power games are becoming the ends and not the means. Nowhere is this perversion of the process more evident than in the office of the Speaker of the Assembly.

When I was elected to the Assembly after a tough primary race in 1982, I envisioned entering a political process in which I would influence key issues in California as a representative of the greater East Los Angeles area. I envisioned opportunities to debate, challenge and provide constructive ideas and put them into action. And I envisioned a process of leadership that facilitated for freshman members like myself a chance to emerge as champions for public policy. Unfortunately, I quickly became disillusioned by the process andits leadership.

As I reflect on the current leadership fight, I can see that it is not a change in leadership that is needed, but a change in a flawed system. Though there have been whispers of coups, there is rarely any mention of reform. And reform is the only answer to a system that allows so much power to be concentrated in the hands of one person.

It is the Speaker, in effect, who decides which committees legislators will sit on; how many staff members they will be assigned; which of their bills will be heard, and when (if ever); how many square feet of office space they will have, how many phones, even how many waste baskets. In short, the legislators’ budget and bills, Democratic and Republican alike, rest in the hands of the Speaker. His tools? The power of appointment as well as control over the Office of Majority Services, the Assembly Office of Research and the Rules Committee.

An even more deadly threat is the Speaker’s political power to control future campaign contributions--to decide where and how the huge war chests that are collected from special interests will be spent.

And how does all this power affect the real business of government? In my opinion, negatively.

I remember attending my first Democratic Caucus budget meeting while the state was facing its biggest deficit in its history, only to listen to a discussion that was focused on California reapportionment and on ensuring that Democrats get elected and keep a majority. And, not unexpectedly, the Republican Caucus was debating the same issue from the perspective of the GOP.

While the public waited to see how the state would balance the budget, care for its important social programs and not increase taxes, the politicians were in heavy debate about their party’s maintaining the Speakership or attaining it.

Today’s battle is no different. If you clear the smoke on the issues raised by the “Gang of Five”--auto and health insurance reform and AIDS testing for prostitutes--you will find political gamesmanship at its best. When there is an obsession with power, it is not only the issues that get lost. It is the well-intentioned legislator as well. And there are many talented, even brilliant, people in Sacramento who offer exciting new proposals for our most difficult challenges.

Unfortunately, the all-powerful Speaker system stomps on them all to often. For it is the voice of the sycophant, the loyalist, the game player that the system rewards, and it is the challenger that it punishes. Playing along is the name of the game. Those members earn the best committees, the best issues, an easy reelection, everything on a silver platter. Bucking the system earns accusations of not being a team player or a party loyalist. But the party-loyalist charge holds no water. In fact, many Republicans, including those with powerful committee chairmanships, are also part of the team that protects the Speaker’s power. There is only one team, based on power and the art of politics, when there should be many teams, based on issues.

While in Sacramento I found many frustrated soul mates, as well as those who magnanimously turned over their conscience for a piece of the action.

The responsibility for reform is in the hands of those who are elected. By working with good-government advocates on decentralizing the power, we can begin to disrobe this shameful process on behalf of the people. This also means that the media will have to focus on the more substantive role of government and less on its games. And, finally, a properly informed public needs to hold its elected officials accountable--at election time and during their tenure.

That’s the hope. Otherwise, whether it is Willie Brown or the “Gang of Five,” things will stay the same. A power shift, which is what all the in-fighting is about, is not a power change. It is only a game that benefits those who choose to play it.

As Speaker Brown has told Assembly Democrats time and time again, first vote the Speaker, then your conscience or your district. Poor us.