What Hath Term Limits Wrought--Regional Government?

California state government is a testament to voters’ distrust of power and politics. Proposition 140, which limits the terms of state legislators, is one example. But this antigovernment initiative may be fostering a shadow regional government, an irony that few Proposition 140 supporters would embrace.

Term limits are more a reflection of voter anger at perceived abuses of power or ideological frustration than fear of old-fashioned graft and corruption. Civil service and ethics reforms have trimmed opportunities for much of the chicanery that was so typical of the old machines and power players. Limits represent a preference for amateur over expert as they promote liquidity in the state’s political system, enabling some to move up or, as is becoming increasingly clear, down. While limits, then, are a direct attack on career politicians, they don’t entirely eliminate them.

There is another place for a termed-out politician to settle: on one of the more than 400 boards, commissions and districts that oversee or conduct governmental business in that uncharted world between local and state government. Sometimes, these positions pay quite well; others cover expenses only. But they do keep former legislators active in the political game. The increasing number of termed-out politicians parallels a proliferation of boards and commissions, according to longtime Sacramento lobbyists. It is time to examine this form of governance by commission and the impact it may have on California’s political life.

Commissions and boards have always been filled with former legislators, experts and aspiring politicians. It’s just that there are more lawmakers now. Every current legislator knows just how long it will be before he or she is “retired” by term limits. So they are motivated to look for a commission, whatever its purview, to keep employed or to keep a hand in public policy. Typical of this trend was an unsuccessful effort to enlarge the size of the Industrial Welfare Commission from five to seven members and to change reimbursement from per diem to salaried, with a budget increase of $700,000.

These oversight bodies carry out important government business. More to the point, commissions with some visibility and that cross political boundaries are mechanisms by which communities can talk to each other. They may be a way to knock down walls local governments are drawing around themselves, saying, “No road through my town.” Even if these bodies don’t have great authority, they can be a meeting ground for developing consensus among local decision-makers. In other words, they are a form of regional government.

One benefit of filling commissions and boards with retired legislators is the expertise they bring to the job. One of the strongest arguments against term limits is that they waste the experience that comes from holding office. After politicians spend time acquiring knowledge of government, it makes sense to keep the most concerned of them active in the game by naming them to commissions. Not all of them will want to continue in public life, but for many, the incentive to find a soft landing will be strong: a commission that meets occasionally and pays $100,000 a year. Even those uninterested in the money will desire the prestige and honor of being involved in public affairs.

Term limits, then, have not only failed to eliminate career politicians, they may have stimulated the multiplication of governmental bodies and increased political activity in the state. Some may consider this unintended consequence a loathsome development. But the addition of more public-policy positions entails a corresponding jump in the number of opportunities for minorities. Already, for example, many African Americans and Latinos are eyeing elective water-district positions as entry-level offices.

Yet, as welcome as some form of regional government may be, government by commission is bound to create confusion. It is not just that more commissions, boards and districts radically hike the number of decision points that need to be hurdled before something gets done. Multiple commissions confuse common notions of state and local governance. Commissioners, for the most part, are not elected. Even when they are, the races can be so obscure that incumbents get reelected time after time. Who is more likely to enjoy name recognition than someone already elected to office three or four times? Such circumstances do not make for a more accountable government, especially when hundreds of millions of dollars can be at stake. *