Should We Take the Initiatives? : Term Limits: Will they solve Sacramento’s paralysis? Is the institution skewed, or is it <i> this </i> Legislature, <i> this</i> governor?

In the midst of the Vietnam War, an American briefing officer was called upon to explain a U.S. action. “It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it,” he said.

Today, there is some feeling--out there among press and pundits--that the political equivalent of this “scorched earth” tactic is sweeping the country.

Look at Massachusetts, which knocked out incumbents left and right in the September primary. Look at Oklahoma, which, on the same day, became the first state to limit the number of terms that legislators can serve. Polling figures suggest rising disaffection with incumbents.

Now all eyes are on California. Will this bellwether political behemoth supply the next shock wave when legislative term limitations appear--twice--on the November ballot?

* Proposition 140 is a Draconian measure championed by Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum. It would limit Assembly members to six years in office, state senators and statewide elected officials to eight, abolish legislative pensions and slash the Legislature’s budget by at least 38%.

* Proposition 131 is one of three initiatives qualified by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp as part of his unsuccessful campaign for governor. The measure would limit statewide elected officials to two consecutive four-year terms, and limit members of the state Board of Equalization and state legislators to 12 consecutive years in office. It would also provide partial public funding for state election campaigns, impose contribution and spending limits and enact various ethics reforms.

These two measures address the fundamental restructuring of California state government--particularly the legislative process. Term limitations strike at the heart of the full-time Legislature--whose apparent malfunctioning has fueled voter dissatisfaction.

It’s time for Californians to focus on these new proposals--what they mean, where they come from and where they might take the state.

What voters need to understand is neither of their term-limitation initiatives is about term limits. Proposition 131 is about using limits to achieve a liberal agenda of campaign financing and ethics reforms. Proposition 140 is largely a mean-spirited attack on government and politicians--Schabarum’s retribution on a system that has thwarted his ambitions. It is a “drive-by initiative,” bent on shooting down whatever stands in its way.

Proponents of both initiatives argue theirs will open up a stagnant system dominated by unaccountable career politicians and make state and legislative office more competitive. You can’t argue that there are some people in this state’s Legislature who have overstayed their welcome--let alone their usefulness. You can’t argue, in the wake of the convictions of state Sen. Joseph B. Montoya and former state Sen. Paul B. Carpenter, that corrupt politicians don’t feed at the public trough. But neither initiative guarantees that when the rascals are thrown out, they won’t be replaced with another set of rascals--or worse.

Proposition 140’s term limitations can turn an Assembly member’s tenure into more of a six-year job interview than a stint in public service. Faced with a need to provide for an almost immediate life-after-office, legislators may jockey to please special interests who can channel business to law firms or persuade corporations to hire former legislators as senior vice presidents of something. Others might jump through the governor’s hoops, angling for judicial appointments or favorable consideration of potential employers’ legislation.

Studies indicate that women and minorities gain greater access to office when seats open up. But how can less well-off candidates, people with less flexible employment, workers who need to be vested in a pension, take time off to dabble in legislative service for six years? Will legislative service again become a form of noblesse oblige?

Will attorneys and others who can afford time away from their professions, or who are retired, once again dominate the legislative process? Is that what we mean by “citizen legislator”?

Will limits solve the problems that paralyze Sacramento? Is it the institution that is out of whack? Or is it this Legislature, this governor?

Let us not forget that a good deal of the responsibility for the policy gridlock lies with the happenstance of a divided government. Republican Gov. George Deukmejian has been obdurate in his policy demands on the Democratic-controlled Legislature. Hard-core conservative Republicans have often been unwilling to unite behind the governor’s weak leadership. Neither initiative solves that.

And legislators may feel even less compunction to follow their leaders than they do now--knowing that everyone will be gone soon and punishment fleeting.

Will Schabarum’s machete approach to the legislative budget accomplish what he insists he wants it to do--tame a bloated bureaucracy and bring legislators back into policy?

So the legislative staff has become overly politicized. What makes anyone think it will be the political staff that gets axed? How many legislators will go to Sacramento for six or eight years in a serious attempt to make policy, anyway?

And there is some speculation that district offices will feel the budget ax. Hey, legislative life may be too short to want to be responsive to a “nudgy” constituency.

Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown of San Francisco has argued against term limitations because they will lead to dominance of the Legislature by the staff, bureaucrats and special interests. Well, he’s partly right; it will lead to even more dominance by those groups than there is now.

Despite the “good-government” rhetoric, the fate of California’s term-limitation initiatives may turn on the campaigns waged around them--specifically, on whether the legislative leadership can raise the estimated $5 million or so needed to defeat the propositions and on how the opposition campaign is run.

Each initiative contains a potential “poison pill.” In Proposition 131, it is public funding. For 140, it may well be Schabarum--and not only because he tends to come off in the media as mean-spirited. Proposition 140, its opponents argue, is “a blatant power grab by Los Angeles contributors who have been wining and dining ‘Mr. Downtown Los Angeles,’ ” as they’ve dubbed Schabarum. Nice touch--the rest of California loves to hate L.A.

Of course, if voter disaffection with government corruption and hubris reaches critical mass, all bets are off. Whether that happens could well be a matter of timing.

The Legislature is out of session until after the election, so the stupidity of the weeks-long budget deadlock will fade. But: Will the FBI sting produce more juicy indictments right before the election? Will the economy bottom out? Will voters be too wrapped up in the Persian Gulf crisis to care?

We are approaching the 25th anniversary of Proposition 1A, which started the legislative reform movement and gave us the professional Legislature we have today--warts and all.

In a state as burgeoning and complex as California, 25 years is a long time. We may need to remodel the machinery of government. But that calls for institutional change--not institutional punishment.

We revamped California government in the ‘60s through the use of a Constitutional Revision Commission, which took a comprehensive approach to reform. That was recently suggested by Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento), to help loosen the state’s fiscal straitjacket.

Why stop there? Why let the perversion of the initiative process continue to chip away at the foundations of a truly representative and responsive government? This may be the election to “Just Say No” to all those complex, confusing, competing proposals on the ballot--and not give Sacramento any more excuses for failing to make policy. Give those leaders who want to shape policy the opportunity to do it.

We may be up against a clock--and a public mood--that could destroy the system before it can be saved. We have only until November to decide.