Family Sick Leave? : Questionnaire

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates in contested primary races and were returned this month. Answers have been edited to fit the available space.

Q. Gov. Deukmejian recently vetoed legislation that would have granted workers as much as four months of unpaid leave every two years to care for sick children, spouses and other family members without fear of losing their jobs. Do you favor this type of legislation?

Allert: Yes. This type of legislation is especially significant for members of the growing “sandwich” generation--those who are still raising their own families and also caring for their elderly parents.

Boland: No.

Najbergier: Yes. And it should be paid leave!

Q. The Legislature approved a 4.7% cost-of-living raise for school employees, and Gov. Deukmejian reduced it to 3%, placing the difference in an account for special education programs. Should this money be used for salaries?

Allert: Yes. Retaining quality teachers is a top priority for educational funding.

Boland: No. Voters passed a mandatory reserve under Proposition 98. The governor acted within the mandate of the California electorate.

Najbergier: Yes. Considering the rate of inflation, 4.7% is already a ridiculously small raise.

Q. Proposition 128, the so-called Big Green initiative on the November ballot, seeks to eliminate ozone-depleting chemicals by the year 2000, phase out pesticides known to cause cancer and require that trees be planted in all new developments. Do you support this initiative? Allert: Yes. This measure is necessary to protect California residents from health-limiting pollutants in our air, water and food.

Boland: No. Existing scientific evidence does not warrant the radical steps taken under 128. Poorly written initiatives end up costing taxpayers far more than originally envisioned. This proposition falls into that category.

Najbergier: Yes. But Proposition 128 is only a small beginning toward making this planet a safe living environment.

Q. Proposition 130 on the November ballot would restrict clear-cutting of forests, allow the sale of $710 million in bonds to preserve ancient redwood forests and provide $32 million to retrain unemployed loggers. Do you support this initiative? Allert: Yes.

Boland: No.

Najbergier: Yes.

Q. Proposition 131 on the November ballot, authored by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and Common Cause, would limit most statewide elected officials to eight consecutive years in office, and senators and Assembly members to 12 years. Proposition 140, sponsored by Los Angeles County Supervisor Peter Schabarum, is more stringent, limiting lifetime service to eight years in the Senate and six in the Assembly. Do you support limiting the number of terms state legislators can serve? If yes, how long should the limits be? Allert: Yes. Sixteen years.

Boland: I support Proposition 140. I oppose Proposition 131 because it calls for public financing of campaigns.

Najbergier: No, because special interests would continue to invest in the same type of candidates, using a different name and face each time.

Q. Proposition 133 on the November ballot would raise state sales and use taxes by 0.5% for four years to raise $7.5 billion for drug enforcement and treatment, anti-drug education and prison and jail construction and operation. Do you support this initiative?

Allert: Yes.

Boland: No.

Najbergier: No.

Q. Proposition 134 on the November ballot would substantially raise taxes on beer, wine and liquor and dedicate the revenue from the tax hike to programs for the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse. Do you support this initiative? Allert: Yes.

Boland: No.

Najbergier: Yes.

Q. Proposition 139 on the November ballot would allow private companies to hire state prison and county jail inmates as laborers. Do you support his initiative? Allert: No.

Boland: Yes.

Najbergier: No.

Q. Do you support capital punishment? If so, do you think it should be imposed on those convicted of importing or selling drugs? Allert: I support the implementation of state law. No, it should not be imposed on those convicted of importing and selling drugs.

Boland: Yes, I support the death penalty. Yes, if sales of drugs result in the death of the user.

Najbergier: No. I am opposed to it under any circumstances.

Q. Do you support additional limits on handgun purchase or possession in California? Allert: No. I would evaluate the effectiveness of the 15-day waiting period and the dealer record-of-sale checklist before considering additional proposals.

Boland: No.

Najbergier: No. Such limits would apply only to law-abiding people. Criminals always find ways of getting guns.

Q. Do you support a woman’s right to unrestricted abortions within the first three months of pregnancy? Allert: Yes.

Boland: I support abortion in the instance of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is endangered.

Najbergier: Yes.

Q. Do you support government funding of abortions for women who cannot afford them? Allert: Yes.

Boland: No.

Najbergier: Yes.

Q. Do you believe the state should require private employers to subsidize day-care services for employees who request them? Allert: Yes, for large businesses. Not economically feasible for small businesses.

Boland: No. Raising children is a matter between parents and children. It is not the responsibility of the employer, unless the employer chooses to become involved.

Najbergier: Yes. These employers would themselves benefit from any day care. Child care is now a necessity and a right for working parents.

Q. Do you believe our present strategy of criminal prosecution, interdiction of supplies and imprisonment of users and dealers will ever significantly reduce the level of drug use in the United States? If no, what should be done? Allert: No. To significantly reduce the drug problem in California, there must be severe penalties for dealers and users, and increased resources for intervention programs to reverse this trend for elementary and junior high school children.

Boland: No. We need to put teeth into the punishment portion of our laws if they are ever to become deterrents for would-be violators.

Najbergier: No. Ten years of allegedly tough, right-wing, anti-drug programs have only made the problem worse.

Q. Would you consider supporting the decriminalization of drug use? Allert: No.

Boland: No.

Najbergier: Yes.

Q. Do you think the present Mideast crisis justifies opening up additional parts of the California coastline to oil exploration? Allert: No. California has capped land-based oil supplies that could be used while we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and develop alternate energy sources.

Boland: No, unless there’s an extreme national emergency.

Najbergier: No. The potential for destroying the coastline is too great. Let us instead put the unemployed Texas oil workers back on the job and explore sources of energy.

Q. Should the National Park Service exchange 50 acres in Cheeseboro Canyon in southeastern Ventura County for about 1,100 acres of the neighboring Jordan Ranch owned by entertainer Bob Hope, permitting park agencies to buy another 4,600 acres of Hope’s land in the Santa Monica and Santa Susana Mountains for $10 million? Allert: Yes.

Boland: It is a local land-use decision.

Najbergier: No. The people have made Bob Hope a very rich man. He should be generous enough to give a gift to the country in return.

Q. Do you favor mandatory ride-sharing in an effort to meet government air pollution standards? Allert: No. I prefer ride-share programs that provide incentives for voluntary compliance. As a permanent solution, we must develop better public transportation systems.

Boland: No. We need a public transportation system that serves all Valley residents rather than “Big Brother regulations.”

Najbergier: No, because there is no way it could be implemented on a large scale. We must work toward mass transportation instead.

Q. Do you support full or partial public funding of political campaigns? Allert: Yes. Public campaign funding would limit spending, significantly decrease influence of special interests and provide fair opportunity for challengers against incumbents.

Boland: No. There are far greater needs for taxpayer money, such as fire and police protection and the education of our youth.

Najbergier: No, because the well-entrenched political establishment would benefit from most of it.

Q. Are you willing to publicly release your income tax returns and those of your spouse prior to the November election? Allert: Yes, if opponent does.

Boland: No. Conflict of interest documents filed with the secretary of state provide sufficient financial background and information.

Najbergier: Yes.

Q. Do you support development of the massive Porter Ranch project in the hills north of Chatsworth as presently configured? Allert: No. A project of this magnitude would strain our schools, traffic, trash, water and air quality to the breaking point.

Boland: No. I have concerns about traffic congestion.

Najbergier: No. It would not only destroy the Porter Ranch community, but turn it into an environmental disaster such as has happened to the Ventura Boulevard area.

Contenders

Irene Allert, 46, of Kagel Canyon is a private educational consultant. A former teacher, she is an executive committee member of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley and has long been active in Democratic politics.

Paula Boland, 50, of Northridge is a real estate broker. She is a member of the North San Fernando Valley Republican Assembly and the Republican State Central Committee.

Charles Najbergier of Northridge, a registered nurse, is the Peace and Freedom party candidate.