Insurance Commissioner

* Unethical or unlawful conduct on the part of anyone in any system is never to be condoned. Yet Harvey Rosenfield (Commentary, April 16) is quick to cast blame on others for negative outcomes in the current system--the system for which he is responsible as its author and therefore is, in reality, the true culprit.

As author of Prop. 103, in which an elected insurance commissioner became law for the first time, he is correct on one point: “the answer is not to get rid of democracy. It’s to strengthen it.”

But he’s dead wrong when he says we should do so “by prohibiting elected officials from accepting money from the industries they regulate.” This hints at a major flaw in his design of Prop. 103. The root cause is that this regulatory position is elective. Money is raised and accepted only because Rosenfield designed this system to include an elective commissioner. Regulators should be appointed, not elected. Eliminate this root cause and you eliminate these negative outcomes.

Our legislators are correct. They should continue to pursue legislation to restore the office of insurance commissioner to an appointive position. Voters won’t be insulted. They’ll applaud.

JOHN G. PRYOR

Bakersfield

*

Rosenfield feels a Deukmejian-appointed commissioner caused the passage of Prop. 103. The festering demand for change actually began with Ronald Reagan’s firing of the Pat Brown holdover commissioner, a former judge and expert in that area, and replacing him with a man in the insurance business.

Some years ago I had the opportunity to ask former Gov. Pat Brown why insurance got so much from our Legislature, noting that the California Workers Compensation Act gives employer or insurer control of the medical program of injured workers, and that one had to wonder where the California Medical Assn. lobbyist was when such a law was passed. Brown’s response: “Why, insurance has the most money, of course.”

WILLARD HANZLIK

Seal Beach