Legislators Forgo Security Plan for Capitol

Unfazed by the recent terrorist bombings of American embassies in Africa and a gunman’s fatal attack at the U.S. Capitol, the Legislature is holding fast to its decision not to build a controversial security fence around California’s statehouse.

Last year, the state budgeted $2 million for a fence, but lawmakers later decided to scrap the project. When the legislature put its final touches on the state budget over the last week, the decision against the fence remained in place.

For opponents, the decision to cancel the proposed low-slung concrete and steel-bar fence is a victory for the California tradition of ensuring that the “people’s house” is open to the public.

But Gov. Pete Wilson and other fence supporters say abandoning it in the face of new acts of violence and global terrorism needlessly jeopardizes the safety of thousands at the Capitol--officials, staffers and visitors.

“If anything, after the events in Washington, D.C., and in Africa, our security concerns have been amplified,” said California Highway Patrol Commissioner D.O. “Spike” Helmick, the man in charge of protecting the Capitol.

The newly intensified debate pits long-running, often conflicting demands: providing improved safety, retaining the treasured atmosphere of government openness, and preserving the building’s historic integrity.

Over the past few years, security has been gradually increased at the Capitol, highlighted by monitoring cameras, high-tech communications, extra guards on horseback and bicycles, and expanded training for unarmed legislative sergeants-at-arms.

Meanwhile, public access has remained virtually unrestricted.

Many tourists are amazed that they can walk into the building and roam at will without first clearing a security checkpoint.

“I was surprised that there really wasn’t much security,” visitor Gary Baker of Downey said Friday while touring the Capitol. “I expected it to be like at an airport. I would feel more comfortable if I had come through a security checkpoint.”

But his wife, Dolores, said the building’s open atmosphere reminded her of the friendliness of government buildings years ago, before violence forced changes.

“Everywhere you go now, you are restricted from something,” she said. “I feel relaxed here, happy to be here and secure.”

Fence or not, additional security at the historic golden-domed Capitol, one of the most popular tourist sites in California, seems certain to be intensified soon.

Helmick is recommending that 13 new officers--including a threat-investigation specialist--be hired for the already beefed-up Capitol security force. He favors installation of airport-style X-ray equipment and metal detectors at public entrances. He also wants to ban direct shipments and deliveries to the Capitol.

“It is a very difficult building to protect,” Helmick said.

Sources said the subject of increased security at the Capitol resurfaced briefly among legislative budget writers in the aftermath of the violence in Washington, Kenya and Tanzania, but lawmakers decided not to reopen the fence issue.

However, Sean Walsh, Wilson’s spokesman, said the fence is not a dead issue with the governor. In the remaining two weeks of the legislative session, the governor intends to lobby for reviving construction of the fence, he said.

“We still believe the fence is a necessary part of enhanced Capitol security,” Walsh said.

*

He recalled that a few months ago, a drunk driver drove a pickup to the Capitol steps, ran inside and beat his fists on a desk in the lobby of Wilson’s office. A gun was found later in the man’s vehicle, Walsh said.

Last year, the Legislature and Wilson approved the $2-million fence as the centerpiece of a semi-secret $3.5-million Capitol security improvement package.

The proposal was developed in the aftermath of the deadly 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. A detailed security analysis of the Capitol by the California Highway Patrol and federal experts concluded that security was extraordinarily weak and the building was especially vulnerable to a car bomber.

“The best method to improve the safety environment at the Capitol is to provide a secure facility perimeter,” the analysts said in a confidential report to Wilson and the Legislature.

They also warned that if an explosive or other weapon got inside the building, the potential damage “becomes considerable and the ability to detect and react to such a device is significantly reduced.”

The fence, which would be about 4 feet high and encompass six city blocks in downtown Sacramento, emerged as a compromise after the CHP originally recommended positioning huge concrete barriers disguised as shrubbery planters at vulnerable spots around the Capitol.

Similar measures have been taken at the White House and various federal government buildings. Labeled “mini-Stonehenges” by critics, the patrol’s concrete blocks were rejected as ugly and historically incompatible.

But the fence, modeled after one that encircled the building from the 1880s until 1949, drew heavy criticism as well.

Although the Legislature approved it last year, some lawmakers said it would destroy the Capitol’s atmosphere of government openness to citizens. Preservationists asserted that the fence would be historically inaccurate and degrade the quality of Capitol restoration work done during the 1970s.

In a remarkable lobbying campaign, Sacramento city officials, preservationists, architects and others earlier this year persuaded the Legislature to abandon the fence by pulling back the money originally allocated for it. In recent days, the state budget conference committee upheld that action.

Assemblywoman Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento), who led the bipartisan effort, said lawmakers “really feel strongly” about maintaining the Capitol as “the people’s building.”

“The beauty of the building invites people in. A barrier [symbolically] discourages that invitation,” Ortiz said.

*

In an interview, Walsh, the governor’s spokesman, accused lawmakers of practicing the “height of arrogance” by reversing themselves and canceling the fence.

“They are literally gambling with the lives of state employees, the Legislature itself and thousands of tourists and children who roam the building,” he said.

Walsh conceded, however, that Wilson had opportunities during recent final state budget negotiations with legislative leaders to try to revive the fence, but did not do so.

Legislative Democratic sources, who asked not to be named, dismissed Walsh’s criticism as a “smoke screen” for the governor’s failure to fight for the fence this year.

Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) challenged the effectiveness of a fence at the state Capitol and cited the shooting at a public entrance of the U.S. Capitol as evidence of what a determined attacker can do.

“There’s nothing safer than the U.S. Capitol, and look what happened,” said Burton, a former congressman.

*

While the Legislature has previously rejected the idea of using metal detectors, the CHP, as part of its new proposal to upgrade security, is advocating their use at all public entrances, at a cost of about $2.6 million, including X-ray machines.

Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks), chairman of the Assembly Rules Committee, which deals with security issues, said there is support in the Assembly for metal detectors as a “reasonable” security precaution. A Senate source said, however, senators believe that other alternatives, such as more police officers, may be more effective.

Critical to the success of the latest security plan, the CHP says, would be prohibiting deliveries of goods directly to the Capitol’s loading dock in the basement garage. Instead, deliveries would be diverted to a nearby building, inspected and then transferred to the Capitol by state employees.

In its newly revised plan, the CHP also repeats its “overwhelming” conclusion that the best way to protect the Capitol against a car bomber is to secure a perimeter around the building.