NEWS ANALYSIS : Wilson Nimbly Walks the Line of Pragmatism : Politics: The governor chose statistics over ideology when allowing government intervention into private lives and on economic matters.

Gov. Pete Wilson, often over the objections of his fellow Republican lawmakers, repeatedly sided with Democrats during the past month to break new ground on women’s health issues, child safety and environmental protection.

In doing so, Wilson demonstrated anew that despite conservative forays aimed at welfare recipients and illegal immigrants, he is at heart a pragmatist driven more by statistics than ideology when deciding whether to use government to intervene in private lives and economic affairs.

This case-by-case philosophy inevitably produces mixed signals. On issues such as taxes and local control, the governor showed he is capable of laying down a rule and then quickly appearing to violate it.

These and other patterns emerged as The Times reviewed 1,113 pieces of legislation Wilson signed and vetoed in the 30 days after the end of this year’s legislative session.

For most of the year, a governor simply talks. He browbeats the Legislature, holds news conferences and gives speeches to industry and professional groups.

But in the month after the end of the legislative session, a governor must act. He cannot duck or bob or weave as he confronts the bills that have landed on his desk. He must either sign or veto them, or allow them to become law without his signature. As a result, those decisions provide a concentrated picture of where the governor stands on a range of issues that affect the daily lives of millions of Californians.

Among the bills Wilson dispatched during the month were hundreds that were almost without controversy, including measures to crack down on crime and promote economic development.

On most bills with clear-cut partisan overtones, Wilson stayed true to Republican ideals. Among the most notable of these were bills to extend unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless and allow the government to sanction anti-AIDS programs that offer clean needles to drug addicts. He vetoed both.

But on many other measures that divided Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature, Wilson demonstrated a clear willingness to inject the government into matters that most Republican lawmakers would just as soon leave to individuals.

Wilson signed a bill requiring every child under age 18 to wear a safety helmet while riding a bicycle. He also enacted a measure requiring boaters age 6 and under to use life jackets. And he signed a bill banning baby walkers in child-care centers. All three measures were opposed by a majority of Republican lawmakers; they gained a combined total of 13 GOP votes out of a possible 138.

Dan Schnur, Wilson’s chief spokesman, said the governor sees these bills as an extension of his “preventive agenda”--a group of programs intended to head off illness and injury before they cause human suffering and cost taxpayers dollars. After deciding to sign the helmet bill, said Schnur and others, Wilson made sure everyone on his staff had seen the statistics on the number of children hurt and killed in bike accidents every year.

But others say these bills go beyond prevention. They say parents and children should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to wear a helmet or life jacket or go to a day-care center that uses walkers.

“He tends to favor government regulation in areas that would help protect vulnerable people, more so than the conservatives in the Legislature,” said Assemblyman Dean Andal, a Stockton Republican. “These bills, however public spirited they may be, are designed to get irresponsible people to engage in responsible behavior. It doesn’t work.”

Wilson also broke ranks with GOP lawmakers on some of the bills he signed to improve women’s health.

He signed legislation to boost the cigarette tax two cents per pack to pay for increased breast cancer research. He also legalized lay midwives, who help deliver babies in a non-medical setting. Other bills will require doctors to do more to notify patients about alternative breast cancer treatments and will clarify the responsibility of insurance companies to cover the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

“On women’s health issues, he gets straight As,” said Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (D-Burlingame), author of the breast cancer notification and osteoporosis bills as well as the measures on baby walkers and life jackets.

Wilson also signed several less controversial measures advancing protections for women from spousal abuse. But he vetoed a bill that would have given women convicted of killing their spouses a chance to win a new trial if their first trial occurred before legal recognition was granted to the defense known as battered women’s syndrome.

On the environment, Wilson signed several controversial bills that made it through the Legislature on the strength of a new bipartisan enthusiasm for improving California’s business climate.

Among them were a bill easing restrictions on the use of pesticides, a measure limiting the ability of Fish and Game employees to enter private property and legislation prohibiting the courts from expanding the application of the California Environmental Protection Act beyond that spelled out in state law and regulations.

But Wilson also signed several bills that were backed by Democrats with only limited Republican support. One enacted further regulation on the sale of batteries containing mercury. Another boosted the chances of two Northern California waterways to gain status as wild and scenic rivers. And he signed a bill to broaden the powers of the California Coastal Commission--a measure that was unanimously opposed by Republicans in the Assembly.

On other issues, the governor appeared to shift gears between bills, at times signing measures that seemed to violate principles he had laid out in earlier veto messages.

Wilson vetoed a bill that would have allowed local governments to levy special fees on property to boost funding for libraries. Although he cited several flaws in the bill, the governor’s central argument was that so-called “benefit assessments” must be not for the general good of the community but, instead, linked to a special benefit provided to the particular property being assessed.

“Benefit assessments are levies on properties that benefit above and beyond the benefit received by the surrounding community,” Wilson said in his veto message. “Special benefit to the assessed property must be shown.”

A few days later, Wilson signed a bill by Sen. William A. Craven (R-Oceanside) to allow the creation of assessment districts to buy and maintain animal habitat threatened by development, allowing the building to go forward. The assessments levied under the bill will be based not on the benefit to the property owners--but on the damage to the environment that their developments are expected to cause.

As for local control, Wilson repeatedly vetoed bills he said would crimp the power of local government and schools to manage their own affairs. Then he signed the one bill on his desk that arguably interfered more with local control than any measure passed this year.

The bill prohibits additional counties from transferring supervision of their jails from sheriff’s departments to guards not trained as regular law enforcement officers. The bill was sponsored by a group affiliated with law enforcement labor unions.

The bill’s passage comes as San Diego County was considering consolidating its probation camps and jails under a civilian Department of Corrections, a move that a consulting firm said would save the county $10 million a year. San Diego County no longer will have that option.

“It’s very contradictory,” said Carolyn McIntyre, a lobbyist for the California State Assn. of Counties. “He’s been talking about local governments assuming more responsibility. Now he has signed a bill that removes a county’s authority to create a more cost-effective corrections process.”

In both cases, said Schnur, Wilson’s spokesman, the governor departed from his broader philosophy for a greater good.

“No matter how strong your principles may be, there are exceptions to every rule,” he said. “If those exceptions protect the public safety or lead to a significant long-term economic benefit, they’re entirely worthwhile.”