Brown Throws Down Gauntlet to His Foes

While leaving the door open to some changes in the way he runs the Assembly, Speaker Willie Brown on Tuesday flatly ruled out any “reforms” that would reduce his power, even if that ultimately leads to his ouster.

“I don’t know why there should be any need to diminish (the Speaker’s authority) and I certainly would not do that in the interest of simply Willie Brown’s survival,” the embattled Speaker told reporters at a press conference.

Brown, who met privately on Monday with two of the five dissident Democrats who have been challenging his authority, also accused the rebel faction and the GOP of acting hypocritically by demanding one particular reform: a measure that would bar legislative leaders such as himself from funneling their campaign contributions to other candidates.

Brown, and to a lesser extent other legislative leaders, including the Republicans, have used the technique to underwrite campaigns of colleagues facing tough elections and, in return, expect to be supported in their leadership posts.

By refusing to negotiate on this and other changes sought by his opponents, Brown, in effect, has thrown down the gauntlet, declaring that the only way for his foes to curb his power would be for them to round up the votes to either oust him or ram through the changes without his backing.

“There may be modifications of the delivery system but it will not reduce the power of the speakership,” Brown declared.

Condit to Press for Changes

Assemblyman Gary Condit of Ceres, one of the “Gang of Five” dissident Democrats, immediately vowed to press for changes “with the help of the Speaker or without his help and support. We’re willing to negotiate a settlement that would reform the house. If that does not occur, we are willing to continue trying to do that through legislative efforts and even take it to the voters if necessary.”

In past weeks, a handful of disgruntled Republicans and the five dissident Democrats have been looking for enough votes to oust Brown from the speakership. Those efforts fell short, however, when the remainder of the Democrats lined up behind Brown, as did most Republicans, who wanted assurances of a GOP replacement.

Although the rebel Democrats declared a temporary truce in their move to overthrow the Speaker, they joined the GOP earlier this week in bringing to the Assembly floor the politically charged measure that would ban campaign fund transfers and thereby undermine Brown’s power base. The bill is scheduled for a vote on Thursday, but a procedural motion to force a showdown on the issue also drew support from two mainstream Democrats who have supported Brown in the past.

Asked about that on Tuesday, Brown said he assumes that the Democrats voted for the measure “based on what they considered their appropriate political posture and their appropriate political survivability.”

Exhibiting bitterness over the vote, the Speaker said those who support the measure ought to be questioned about their use of the technique to prop up their own campaigns. He pointedly noted that the five rebel Democrats, over the years, received about $2 million in contributions he had solicited.

“You ought not to let any member cast a vote on that particular issue without pointing to the hypocrisy,” Brown told reporters.

Aside from the ban on campaign contribution transfers, the dissident Democrats have demanded a long list of changes in the way the Speaker runs the Assembly.

Among those are curbs on the Speaker’s power to punish members who oppose him, a constitutional amendment making it illegal for any legislative leader to coerce a vote from a state lawmaker, and a six-year limit on the term of a Speaker. Today, the Speaker may remain in his post as long as he can muster a majority of votes. Another of the “reforms” would increase legislative terms from two to four years in the Assembly and from four to six years in the Senate.

Transfer of Powers

Republican Assemblyman William H. Lancaster of Covina also has submitted changes on behalf of a GOP task force. In effect, they would transfer many of the powers now vested in the Speaker to a rules committee with strict limits on its authority to act.

Brown said he plans to meet with Lancaster later in the week and emphasized that his refusal to consider any reduction in his own powers extends to that Republican plan as well.

Should any changes emerge from the meetings, Brown said, they should not be viewed as a “concession to anyone.” The Speaker also noted that rules changes require a two-thirds vote of the Assembly.

In a spirited defense of keeping his power, Brown declared: “I think it’s important for the delivery system that we have a central authority some place, someone who has the responsibility and can be looked to for direction and for blame. . . . We have seen the power of the Speaker exercised by practically all of my predecessors under some circumstances and, even on occasion, by me. In view of that, I don’t know why there should be any need to diminish that.”