COMMENTARY ON PROPOSITION 140 : Limiting Legislative Terms Is No Way to Attract Top People : The measure may save taxpayer dollars but it cannot affect the integrity of those who serve in Sacramento.

After 19 years, I’ve recently resigned my staff position with the state Legislature. The decision wasn’t easy. I really enjoyed my work in Sacramento and in legislative district offices, and most recently, I was the chief of staff to a highly regarded state senator. At the same time, the passage of Proposition 140, which established legislative term limits, caused me to assess my career in public service and contributed to my decision to pursue a career change.

Most recently, I was the chief of staff to state Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach). I represented her in her district and met often with the voters. When voters talked about legislative reform, they told me they supported it out of frustration over the Legislature’s inaction on critical issues and because of their outrage over unethical behavior in the legislative arena.

Even though I worked in the legislative arena and had more tolerance than many for the obstacles of the decision-making process, I could understand the voters’ frustration over legislative inaction. But because I was in a position to see that sincere people with integrity really were trying to address the issues of concern to the voters, I had difficulty understanding the degree of animosity for legislators and legislative staff which was fueled by the Proposition 140 campaign.

I believe that this animosity toward the Legislature as a whole, deserved or not, will cripple our ability to attract the best decision makers to public service at a time when it is especially important to have good people in public office.

Proposition 140 limits legislative service to six years for Assembly members and eight years for Senators.

It also bans honorariums (compensation for speeches and appearances), cuts legislative staff budgets by 40%, and eliminates future retirement earnings for incumbents and for future legislators.

While some of the initiative’s provisions will be challenged in court, the Legislature is responding by quickly implementing Proposition 140. Incumbents are planning their legislative strategies for their remaining years in Sacramento and looking to move on thereafter. In spite of institutional limitations not addressed by Proposition 140, renewed efforts will be made to more expeditiously address the tough issues facing the state.

With decision-making occurring under this type of pressure and with less staff support available to legislators, it becomes even more important to attract strong leaders to public service. We cannot afford to chance that decisions will be made for the sake of mere political expediency or without regard for their long-term implications.

We need wise, principled people with talent and vision to make decisions for California’s future.

As prospective candidates consider their candidacies, they will weigh the merits of public service against the sacrifices of less time at home with family and friends.

The passage of Proposition 140 may cause them to consider the ramifications of short-term legislative service upon their career paths.

Without honorariums as a salary supplement, they may also be more concerned about salary. What saddens me, however, is that when these prospective candidates consider the prospects for job satisfaction as legislators, they may well decide that public service in the post-Proposition 140 era is not worth the personal sacrifice.

As one who believes strongly in commitment to public service, it is difficult to suggest that others who believe similarly would choose other pursuits instead. And yet, I have personally observed the sense of beleaguerment on the part of people in government service who have put heart and soul into their responsibilities only to feel betrayed and discouraged by the voters’ wrath.

The Legislature is similar to other organizations in that it is only as good as the people who are in it. Somehow, we need to find a way to rekindle enthusiasm for public service and to attract the best candidates to public office.

Proposition 140 may do what the voters intended: It will save taxpayer dollars, it will ban honorariums, and it may speed legislative action.

It will not, however, affect the integrity of officeholders. The integrity of the individuals in public office, or those seeking public office, can best be evaluated by voters through greater accountability at election time.

More competitive legislative districts, higher voter turnouts on Election Day, and some means of more personally assessing candidates would help bring that greater accountability to the election process.

The confidence of the voters must be earned by those who seek it. Voters cannot abandon their standards or lower their expectations.

At the same time, we could all look a little more kindly toward those in public office who really are working diligently on our behalf.

Our representative government will work better when there is a stronger sense of partnership between the electorate, the private sector and public officials.