Legislators Roll Out the Pork Barrel

It is the season of the pig in the state Capitol.

Like livestock flocking to the trough, lawmakers from San Diego to Eureka are jostling to secure the sweetest morsels of pork for their constituents.

A pocket park here, a swimming pool there could seal a miniature legacy and provide state politicians with evidence of success before the election battles of November.

It used to be that lawmakers had to make appearances before the Legislature’s powerful budget committee members to plead for their individual slabs of bacon.

No more. Now they file written requests detailing their pet projects. With the formality--and bulging state coffers--have come secrecy and an unwillingness to fess up to what they seek at taxpayer expense.

In charge of compiling the requests, which have historically numbered in the hundreds, is the Assembly Budget Committee, headed by Assemblywoman Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego).

But trying to get a glimpse of the requests has turned into a game of cat and mouse. Never mind that public dollars are at stake; Assembly budget consultant Kevin McCarty insists that the written submissions will not be released publicly, much to the dismay of taxpayer groups.

“It’s like a kitchen full of cockroaches--when you flick on the light they all go scurrying off,” said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. “If they’re really serving their constituents, why are they afraid to have the public see their requests?”

Added Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge): “The members act as proxies for their constituents. Therefore, their constituents have every right in the world to see how they vote, what motions they make, and what budget requests they submit.”

Sens. Patrick Johnston (D-Stockton) and Jim Brulte (R-Rancho Cucamonga), two of the most powerful lawmakers in Sacramento, who both sit on the budget conference committee, are seeking a compilation of their colleagues’ submissions, along with the names of the legislators making the requests.

Grab a Headline, but Keep It Quiet

Why all the secrecy? Call it a case of selective publicity.

Most politicians shudder at the thought of being mentioned in a newspaper story that describes them as groveling for pork. It is, however, considered good press to grab a headline in the hometown paper reporting that they have successfully brought home the bacon.

But in the end, warned Vosburgh, the search for publicity takes time, attention and money away from the problems that voters send lawmakers to Sacramento to solve.

“Very often these are local projects that should be funded by the local government,” he said. “It’s a public relations farce.”

Each dollar spent funding a swimming pool in one district or playground equipment in another is a buck less for building state highways or boosting teachers’ salaries.

Usually, McClintock said, he submits only requests that will serve the entire state, such as funding college campuses that are open to all Californians.

“Since I arrived in Sacramento, close to 20 years ago, the budget has changed from a blueprint for projects of benefit to the entire state into a grab bag for local political pork,” McClintock said.

An unspoken rule in the Capitol is that lawmakers whose projects are tucked into the budget are expected to vote for the document.

“The pork projects run a substantial chance of driving the budget process because the tax-and-spend lobby needs a two-thirds vote to pass it,” said John Coupal, president of the taxpayers association. “What they probably do is wave these little goodies in order to collect enough votes.”

Indeed, the voluminous document that lawmakers are using in budget negotiations reveals scores of members’ requests. In a year in which the state is swimming in an estimated $12.3-billion surplus, the document is oozing with pork.

Funding for libraries is a perennial favorite, and this year is no exception. There’s a request to spend a combined $68,000 to replace roofs on the Placentia and Dinuba libraries. And one for $600,000 to purchase three bookmobiles for the Los Angeles County Public Library.

Museums are another feel-good favorite. The conference committee document contains a $13-million request to help fund no fewer than six museums, including the Wiesenthal Museum ($5 million), the Hollywood Entertainment Museum ($3 million) and the Museum of the Central Sierra ($250,000).

“They come here [seeking funds] no matter how big or how strong they are,” Johnston said when the museum items came up last week at a budget hearing. “There isn’t much end to the requests.”

The museums share another trait: The same lobbyist had been hired to represent all of them, Johnston said.

Other projects are literally out of this world--like the one to spend $8 million on a three-year pilot project that would use global positioning technology to track probationers. As approved by the Senate, the money would be spread over eight counties, including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, Yolo and San Mateo.

Thanks to the generosity of voters, legislators have lined up for money to pay for special park projects that will benefit their individual districts, such as $10 million for Ahmanson Ranch to acquire lands, watershed and habitat for endangered species. Or $5 million for the community of Altadena to purchase 11 acres of “undeveloped wildlife habitat and white alder woodland in Lower Millard Canyon.”

The money is being made available through a $2.1-billion park bond that voters approved in March.

The collective price tag attached to the myriad special projects in the Assembly and Senate’s budgets easily runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Though many of the requests will be turned down, others will find their way into the budget.

By law, the Legislature must approve its budget with a two-thirds majority by June 15.

*

Times staff writer Dan Morain contributed to this story.