Voters Called Upon to Analyze Independent Legislative Analyst : Ballot: Backers of Props. 158 and 159 say the agency and auditor general will die if not exempted from spending limits. Opponents say lawmakers can cut their own expenses to fund offices.

Leading visitors through the state Capitol some years back, a tour guide who fancied himself a humorist would take delight in calling attention to the office of the legislative analyst.

“So, you think the Legislature has its own in-house psychiatrist?” the guide would ask tourists. It doesn’t, he said, “but a lot of people think it could use one.”

His corny joke out of the way, the tour leader would describe the legislative analyst as the politically independent adviser whose watchdog role over fiscal affairs is credited with saving taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

But the legislative analyst’s office, whose recommendations to lawmakers on spending, taxes and even policy issues advanced by governors are free of political spin, finds itself in jeopardy after 50 years on the job.

So does a sister agency, the office of the auditor general, the nonpartisan investigative arm of the Legislature whose investigations seek to make sure that taxpayers’ money is properly spent and bureaucracies perform effectively.

Whether the two agencies survive will be decided by the voters Nov. 3, according to backers of two proposed amendments to the California Constitution. Opponents of the measures contend that the two offices will do just fine without the protective amendments.

Propositions 158 and 159, respectively, would exempt the legislative analyst and the auditor general from spending limitations imposed on the Legislature’s budget two years ago when voters approved Proposition 140.

In addition to the popular anti-incumbent term limits imposed by Proposition 140, the measure also ordered a less well-publicized 38% cut in the Legislature’s spending on itself. Additionally, it established limits on future spending.

To comply with the restrictions, the Senate and Assembly dealt the heaviest cuts to its biggest expense, employees. That forced the legislative analyst to lay off more than half of his staff of 100 people, and the auditor general to do likewise to a staff of 162.

Put on the ballot by the Legislature in the wake of the cuts, Propositions 158 and 159 would write into the state Constitution an exemption of the two agencies from restrictions on the Legislature’s budget. Combined, the cost would total about $9.5 million. Both would continue to report to the lawmakers.

Supporters of the analyst and auditor general argue that the drafters of Proposition 140, such as former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, had targeted legislative perks and political staffers for elimination and never intended to include the two nonpartisan offices.

Inevitably, however, personnel in the two agencies will be the first to go if legislators have to choose between them and their own personal staffs, supporters say. They cite the present shakiness of the two agencies as proof.

They argue that unless the analyst and the auditor general are insulated by the Constitution, the agencies could lose again in future budget squeezes.

For Acting Auditor Gen. Kurt B. Sjoberg, the future is only as far away as Nov. 3. Because of the technicalities of the way his budget is constructed, Sjoberg said he is faced with terminating his remaining 85 employees on Nov. 4 if Proposition 159 is defeated.

In an unusual twist from traditional pro and con debates over ballot measures, foes of Propositions 158 and 159 insist that they also support keeping the two agencies intact. Schabarum calls them “two highly respected offices.”

But he argues that the ballot measures represent an attempt to “gut” spending limitations by moving the two agencies out of the Legislature’s budget. As a result, he argues, legislators will end up with more money to spend on their own “political functionaries.”

“There’s more than enough room in the Legislature’s budget if the incumbents would simply cut out perks,” Schabarum says.

Advocates of the Proposition 158 say that in spite of staff cuts already made by the Legislature and the potential for more of the same, opponents “still want to leave the fate of the (analyst’s) office totally in the hands of the politicians in the Legislature.”

The proposition also would rename the legislative analyst the “California analyst,” a move that election tacticians indicated was aimed at helping the measure to pass by eliminating the red-flag word “legislative.”

In contrast to multimillion-dollar campaigns being waged elsewhere, the campaigns to pass Propositions 158 and 159 are low-budget affairs. No opponent has reported spending a dime against the two proposals.

On the other side, employees of the analyst and their friends reported collecting $12,000 for Proposition 158. Staffers of the auditor general, relatives and associates rounded up about $29,000 to push for Proposition 159.