CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS PROPOSITION 112 : A Crackdown on Ethics Has One Big Catch: Salary Hikes

There is little question that California voters today want more honesty in their state government. But are they willing to pay for it with higher salaries to legislators?

That, in essence, is the question posed by Proposition 112 on the June 5 ballot.

The proposed constitutional amendment is a sweeping measure that would impose new ethical standards on legislators and other state officials. It would ban outside speaking fees, put a limit on gifts and require lawmakers to hold their meetings in public.

But there is a catch. Proposition 112 also would create an independent seven-member commission with the authority to grant a substantial pay increase to legislators, the governor and other elected state officials. Any salary hike approved by the commission would take effect without a vote of the Legislature itself.

Placed on the ballot by an overwhelming majority of the Legislature, the proposal is a classic legislative compromise between the demand for honest government and a desire for higher pay.

By linking the question of stricter ethical standards to a likely salary increase, legislators stand to benefit whether Proposition 112 passes or fails: If the measure is approved, legislators can expect a substantial pay raise; if it loses, they can argue that their current ethical conduct has been vindicated.

For Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) and other legislative backers of Proposition 112, the primary goal of the ballot measure is to counter the public perception that corruption is rampant in the state Legislature.

One legislator, former Sen. Joseph B. Montoya, was forced out of office earlier this year after his conviction on seven corruption charges. Former Sen. Paul Carpenter, now a member of the State Board of Equalization, has been indicted on similar charges. And most voters think it is commonplace for lawmakers to take bribes, The Los Angeles Times Poll found last December.

So far, the campaign over Proposition 112 has remained low key, pitting legislative leaders and citizen groups against a handful of politicians who object to the proposed salary commission.

Supporters like Roberti and the citizen watchdog group Common Cause contend that the ballot measure will impose the strictest ethical standards in the nation and will reduce the self-interest of legislators in the decisions they make.

“It puts in the Constitution and guarantees in the Constitution a number of reforms that have been long overdue,” Roberti said. “We felt that something should be done and we should be the ones doing it. Even though this will make stricter rules for the Legislature, I think there will be a sigh of relief. There will be clear guidelines of what should be done.”

But opponents of Proposition 112, including liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, argue that such steps as a ban on speaking fees and a limit on gifts should be adopted independent of any salary commission.

“To hide the pay commission and bury it in an ethics package I think was trying to perpetrate a fraud against the people,” protested Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy (R-Monrovia). “They’re saying to people: ‘Pay me more money and I’ll be honest.’ ”

Specifically, Proposition 112 would require the Legislature to ban speaking fees, limit gifts and restrict lobbying by legislators and other state officials who leave office. In addition, it would require that legislative meetings take place in public and it would subject legislators for the first time to conflict-of-interest penalties.

The Legislature has already adopted a bill to carry out some requirements of the proposition. In addition to outlawing honorariums, the measure would limit gifts to legislators to $250 from each donor per year, but would allow trips paid for by nonprofit groups or foreign governments.

The legislation also would prohibit legislators and state officials who leave office from lobbying their former colleagues for 12 months.

The most controversial element of Proposition 112 is the creation of the California Citizens Compensation Commission, with all its members to be appointed by the governor.

Two members would come from labor organizations and two from the business community. The remaining three would come from the general public and would include an expert on compensation matters and a member of a public interest group. No one who has ever worked for the state would be eligible to serve on the panel.

Under current law, the Legislature can raise its own salary--but no more than 5% a year. It also has the power to set its own benefits, such as insurance and medical care.

Proposition 112 would lift the 5% cap and give the commission the job of deciding on the entire compensation package for the legislators, the governor and other elected state officials.

The panel would evaluate the duties and hours of the elected officials, keeping in mind that “state officers do not receive, and do not expect to receive, compensation at the same levels as individuals in the private sector with comparable experience and responsibilities,” the proposition says.

Supporters of the measure, including the League of Women Voters and the California Chamber of Commerce, argue that the commission would eliminate a fundamental conflict of interest for legislators--the ability to set their own pay.

“I think the majority of the public would like the Legislature to be disinterested in that matter and have it decided by an independent agent,” Roberti said.

The ballot measure’s backers contend that legislators deserve a pay raise. Most lawmakers, they point out, must maintain two residences, one in their district and one in Sacramento, on a salary of $40,816 a year plus a tax-free expense allowance of $88 a day, a state-subsidized car and other perquisites.

Mountjoy and other opponents say the commission will open the door for a huge pay increase, such as tying legislators’ to the $94,344 salaries of Superior Court judges.

Mountjoy contends that such a pay raise is the only reason the measure is on the ballot. Only the salary proposal requires voter approval of a constitutional amendment, he points out; all of the ethics standards contained in the measure could be enacted by the Legislature itself.

Another opponent of the proposition is Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), who argues that legislators need honorariums to supplement their pay and that they should be allowed to accept them.

Without the ability to receive money, poor and minority legislators will not be able to support themselves while in office and the Legislature will become a bastion of the wealthy, she contends.

“In our rush to try to be ethical, we’re not thinking through the impact on people who do not have outside wealth or outside income,” Watson said. “I see the Legislature going to the landed gentry and the independently wealthy. In the future, they will be the only ones who can run for office and maintain their office.”

Watson has already demonstrated her need for additional income. Last December, she agreed to pay a $21,075 fine for using campaign funds to pay for personal items such as travel, a family reunion, clothing and jewelry. The senator admitted no wrongdoing in agreeing to settle a suit brought by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp.

Van de Kamp opposes Proposition 112, but for different reasons. A Democratic candidate for governor, he argues that it is wrong to link higher ethics in government to the salary commission. He is sponsoring his own ethics initiative for the November ballot that would enact similar new standards for legislators without any pay raise provision.

“I frankly think if you’re going to have pay increases for legislators, for constitutional officers, it should come by (legislators) who are fully accountable to the people at the ballot box,” Van de Kamp said.