Wilson Affirmative Action Power in Doubt : Policy: Most experts say governor probably doesn’t have the authority to rescind state programs. His aides contend a review of department rules has proven otherwise, but decline to offer specifics.

With much fanfare, Gov. Pete Wilson has ordered members of his cabinet to search their department rule books for affirmative action policies that he can rescind by executive order. But state government experts say he will probably find there is not much that he can do.

Most of the state’s affirmative action rules, they said, only can be repealed by the Legislature or by a ballot measure, like the initiative proposed for the 1996 election that Wilson endorsed at a state Republican convention a little more than a week ago.

Steven A. Merksamer, former chief of staff to Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, said he is unaware of any affirmative action rule subject to executive order. And Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) dismissed the notion, charging that Wilson knowingly misled reporters and fellow Republicans about his authority.

“You know damn well that if they had had any of those programs, they would have made that dramatic announcement from the (convention) rostrum over there,” Brown said. “. . . They cannot touch any aspect of affirmative action to their knowledge or to mine.”

Wilson Administration officials said, however, that they have already discovered some parts of the government’s affirmative action policy that can be changed by executive order. They declined to provide a specific example or to characterize the nature of the rules.

And until the review by cabinet officials is complete, the governor’s advisers said, they don’t know whether the changes will represent a significant shift in the state’s hiring or contracting procedures for minority applicants. Officials of several state departments also declined to comment on policies in their areas.

Walter Vaughn, the top official at the State Personnel Board, said he believes that there are executive orders from previous governors regarding affirmative action. But he said the review is necessary to determine whether the orders have since been included in state statute, which is in the Legislature’s domain.

In his speech Feb. 25 to about 2,000 Republican convention delegates, Wilson took the unusual step of endorsing the proposed affirmative action initiative before it has even qualified for the ballot. The problem with affirmative action, the governor told his audience, is that it is discriminatory and unfair.

The initiative, and an identical measure now before the Legislature, would amend the state Constitution to gut all but the most passive forms of government-sponsored affirmative action for women and minorities, specifically targeting state and local hiring and admissions to California colleges and universities.

“It is not right, or fair, to replace one form of discrimination with another,” Wilson said in his speech.

The governor said the initiative is necessary to create a statutory authority that cannot be changed by future governors or Legislatures. And as his first official action, Wilson pledged to do what he could by executive order.

“To the extent that it has been imposed by administrative fiat, I will as governor undertake to end it by an executive order rescinding such preferences,” he said.

The issue of whether government should roll back its programs to promote education or jobs for minority applicants has rocketed to the front of the national Republican agenda recently, with significant ramifications for both major political parties and for the nation’s work force.

Polls have indicated that the idea has solid support in the electorate. And as Wilson considers a campaign for the White House in 1996, surveys indicate that support for his candidacy increases when respondents hear of his opposition to affirmative action.

The debate about affirmative action programs has already been highly charged; Speaker Brown said opponents of the idea were practicing racism. As a result, Wilson’s prominent role in the issue is likely to increase scrutiny of the governor’s own assessment of race relations and his performance in hiring minority employees.

The governor himself called attention to his performance on minority hiring in his convention speech.

“In my 1990 campaign for governor, I rejected quotas based upon race or sex,” Wilson said. “I said that administrative and judicial appointments which are made instead on individual merit and qualifications will produce a state government which reflects the extraordinary talent and diversity of California’s people. I’m proud to say we’ve proved that true.”

Last week, the governor’s office released information about the ethnic makeup of nearly 4,000 paid and volunteer appointments or hirings Wilson has made since he became governor in 1991.

Overall, about 17% of the governor’s choices have been minority candidates. The diversity of the governor’s 262 judicial appointments was almost identical.

That percentage is sharply lower than the ethnic makeup of the state’s labor force (39%) or its population (43%). But Wilson Administration officials say the governor has met or exceeded the ethnic proportions in the pool of job applicants.

For the most part, they noted, the job pool is Republican because applicants for work on Wilson’s staff are usually sympathetic to the governor’s politics. A statewide poll by The Times in October indicated that minorities account for just 14% of the California Republican Party.

“He judges his record based on the applicant pool,” said Goodman. “Clearly there is a self-selection factor here--ideology. A number of people would not apply because they don’t agree with his policies.”