Constitution Revisions Submitted

The most extensive proposed overhaul of the California Constitution in more than a century was formally submitted Monday to the state Legislature, where it faces an uncertain future.

The reform package, the product of two years’ work by the bipartisan California Constitution Revision Commission, expands the responsibilities of the governor, seeks to eliminate perennial budget deadlocks in the Legislature, and allows for radical restructuring of local government.

Some provisions are bound to meet with broad approval, commission sources said, such as one to get the governor and Legislature to pass a balanced state budget on time each year.

But others have run into trouble. A major flash point is a proposed change in Proposition 13, the property tax limitation initiative passed by Californians in June 1978. Supporters of the initiative have vowed to keep the measure sacrosanct.

As the package of proposed changes was introduced in both the Senate and Assembly, commission Chairman William Hauck did not seem optimistic that the package would be approved for this November’s ballot as a constitutional amendment, the commission’s goal.

“California needs to do what we are proposing,” said Hauck, a former aide to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and president of a national government-relations consulting firm.

“I think we’ve got a snowball sort of started down the hill,” Hauck said. “People may be able to slow it down, but I don’t think they can stop it.”

But state Sen. Bill Leonard (R-San Bernardino), a commission member, said a major problem is that the package is not complete.

“What has been introduced is not a final product,” Leonard said. “There is a lot of good in there. There is some bad in there. There is some that is going to be deficient when other people get a chance to read it.” Leonard said he could not vote for the measure in its present form.

To get on the ballot, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. No action from the governor is needed.

A spokesman for Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) said the speaker would look at the proposed reforms, but had “a big problem” with any measure that would weaken Proposition 13.

The major provision affecting Proposition 13 would allow school districts to raise property taxes if approved by two-thirds of a district’s voters. Also, counties could increase sales taxes by half a cent on the dollar by a majority vote rather than the two-thirds now required under Proposition 13.

Joel Fox, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.--named after Proposition 13’s co-author--and a recent gubernatorial appointee to the commission, also opposed a provision allowing school bonds to be approved by a majority of district voters rather than the current two-thirds.

There also is certain to be controversy over the commission’s proposal to relax term limits for state legislators from the restrictions imposed by voters in passing Proposition 141 in 1990.

All lawmakers would be elected to four-year terms and could serve three terms, or 12 consecutive years in the same house. Proposition 141 limits Assembly members to three two-year terms and senators to two four-year terms.

Former state finance director Russell G. Gould, a commission member, said the prospects for the package in the Legislature “are hard to read.”

Gould, now an official of a financial management firm, said, “I believe that in the real world outside the state Capitol, people are interested in government change. . . . If I am correct, the Legislature will understand the importance of moving a product forward that will really make a change in terms of how we operate.”

The 23-member commission was created by legislation sponsored by state Sen. Lucy Killea (I-San Diego) in 1993. Among the findings of the Killea legislation was: “California’s existing ‘system’ of government is dysfunctional and does not work together sufficiently to achieve the public’s goals.”

The commission was formed after the state’s economic recession had cut severely into government tax revenues and had plunged all levels of California government into fiscal stress and forced budget cutting.

The recession compounded problems left over from the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. The initiative cost local government billions in revenues by rolling back property tax rates and capping them at 1% of market value.

The state partly bailed out local government by taking over a major chunk of local school finances. Cities and counties scrambled for other sources of revenue that they could raise without running afoul of Proposition 13 tax-raising limits.

During the commission’s long deliberations, some proposals came together with relative ease. These included provisions to have the governor and lieutenant governor run for election as a ticket, rather than separately.

Another provision would abolish the elected state offices of treasurer, insurance commissioner and state superintendent of public instruction. The three posts would be appointed by the governor, subject to legislative confirmation.

Major changes are proposed in state budgeting. The governor and Legislature risk the loss of pay if they fail to adopt a budget by the start of the fiscal year July 1.

Legislative approval of the state budget would be reduced from the current two-thirds vote--a system that allows a minority to hold budgets hostage--to a simple majority. And the budget would have to be balanced when adopted by the Legislature, not just when it is first proposed by the governor.

Perhaps the most far-reaching proposal allows local governments, within a county or across county lines, to create a new “charter government” that would take over some or all functions of existing county and city governments and of schools and special districts.

The package provides tax incentives--additional property and sales taxes--for local governments to combine their operations in an attempt to begin cutting back on the maze of about 7,000 local jurisdictions in the state. Government consolidations could occur only with the approval of voters in the areas affected.

Many commission members felt that this was one of the most important provisions in the package, but also one that was subject to criticism because it left so many questions unanswered.