Special-Interest Bills Being Swept Toward Approval

Dozens of narrowly drawn special-interest bills are moving quietly through the Legislature, swept along in a final crush of measures as lawmakers rush to end their 1989 session by midnight Friday.

Among these largely unheralded bills--which have a way of slipping through with little debate or opposition--is one pushed by car dealers that would raise the fees they can charge customers for processing documents by $10 per vehicle.

The increase could cost car and truck buyers in California $23 million a year if Gov. George Deukmejian signs the measure into law.

Another bill awaiting final approval would give a reprieve to as many as 6,000 portable school classrooms that were due to be replaced or repaired because they fail to meet the state’s tough earthquake standards. Sponsored by companies that lease and manufacture the classrooms, the proposal has yet to receive a negative vote, despite the opposition of the state Seismic Safety Commission--which warns of possible disaster during a major quake.

The sponsors of these and other such measures argue, sometimes persuasively, that their bills deserve approval on the merits. But in the dizzying final days of the legislative session, agendas grow and the chances of a special-interest bill slipping through without examination grow as well.

“Every member will vote two or three hundred times today and the potential of something going through without getting a member’s attention is high,” Assemblyman Lloyd G. Connelly (D-Sacramento) said Wednesday.

And while press and legislative attention is on the big, unresolved issues being negotiated between the governor and the Legislature, “the smaller bills just move through,” Connelly said. But he is one of several lawmakers who try to identify “the most repugnant” special-interest bills and defeat them.

At a recent press conference, Deukmejian--who served in the Legislature for 16 years--reflected on attempts to reduce the influence of special-interest groups in the Capitol: “Special interests have been around the legislative process and government since government began. . . . They’re always going to be around.”

A year ago, all narrowly drawn special-interest bills suddenly became suspect when FBI agents armed with warrants swept through the Capitol offices of four lawmakers and two aides. The agents collected legislative records concerning two special-interest bills that were actually written by undercover FBI agents as part of an elaborate Capitol sting operation dubbed Brispec (for Bribery--Special Interest).

Posing as businessmen, the agents offered campaign contributions and honorariums in exchange for support of bills that would supposedly allow their phony companies to start up a shrimp processing plant near Sacramento. Like many other special-interest bills, the seemingly innocuous measures had little difficulty winning legislative approval. But they were vetoed by Deukmejian, who had been tipped off about the sting by the FBI.

The continuing corruption investigation has spurred a wide-ranging ethics reform proposal. But it apparently has not prodded the legislators into a closer examination of tightly drawn special-interest bills. And lobbyists for these interests are working the Capitol corridors in full force as the legislative session nears an end.

The state’s car dealers, for example, want to increase the maximum fees they can legally charge customers for registering and licensing an estimated 2.3 million new and used cars each year.

This year, the dealers got what they asked for in a bill by Sen. Ralph C. Dills (D-Gardena), which raised the fee from $25 to $35 per vehicle beginning in January. The measure won final legislative approval late last week and now rests with the governor.

It moved through the Legislature with no opposition from the public, said Loren V. Smith, lobbyist for the Motor Car Dealers of Southern California.

“We would have heard if consumers were complaining,” Smith said, claiming that the actual cost for processing the required registration and licensing forms has grown to $45 per vehicle.

The issue of the safety of portable classrooms in event of a major earthquake was supposed to have been settled two years ago with a bill that required all school structures, including portables, to meet strict quake safety standards set by the office of the state architect by September, 1990.

But as many as 6,000 portables purchased by individual school districts do not meet that standard and the districts want to continue to have waivers from the stringent new requirements.

A bill initiated by the California Assn. of Relocatable Classrooms--a group of companies that manufacture and lease portables--would give districts more time to replace the structures as long as they meet certain safety standards set by the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

The portables that meet those standards are not as strong but are just as safe as those that get the state architect’s stamp of approval, said Robert P. McGrath, who runs a firm that leases portables to school districts. “There is no difference in safety between those two types of portables,” he said.

Said the bill’s author, Assemblyman Charles Bader (R-Pomona): “If my bill doesn’t go through, (thousands of portable classrooms) are going to have to be replaced in a short period of time . . . at a cost that would be paid for no appreciable increase in safety.”

But the executive director of the state Seismic Safety Commission, L. Thomas Tobin, argues that the tougher standards could make a significant difference in an earthquake. “If this (bill) goes through, after the next earthquake we may look at hundreds of damaged classrooms.”

Among the other special-interest bills that have or will be considered as the legislative session winds down in a frenzy are:

* A still-pending measure pushed by Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines Inc. that would freeze the fees that large cities charge pipeline operators. The bill, by Sen. Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale), was described by a lobbyist for the city of Long Beach as “a giant windfall” for pipeline companies.

* A bill by Sen. William Campbell (R-Hacienda Heights) that would give a $1.4-million tax break to millionaire developer Kenneth Behring, owner of the Seattle Seahawks. Behring wants to avoid paying a 7% sales tax for 160 classic cars he plans to donate to UC Berkeley.

* A proposal by the California Cattlemen’s Assn. that would make it easier to punish trespassers. Currently, trespassers can only be fined if they have been personally asked to leave the property and then refused. But the bill by Sen. Barry Keene (D-Benicia) permits punishment for ignoring private “no trespassing” signs even without a verbal warning.

* A measure initiated by Rorer Pharmaceutical Corp. that would help companies wishing to add their products to a list of drugs that may be prescribed to Medi-Cal patients. Rorer has been seeking approval for Azmacort, an inhaler used by patients with severe asthma. But the drug has been kept off the approved list because the state Department of Finance contends there are not enough Medi-Cal funds to pay for the prescriptions. The bill, by Assemblyman William J. Filante (R-Greenbrae), would allow Rorer and other drug companies to win quick approval if the budgetary issues are resolved.