Bipartisan ‘Reform’ Plan Could Hand Victory to Both Sides

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s calling of a special election in November on his “reforms” was a sign, first and foremost, of failure.

But secondly, it was a sign of opportunity.

The failure was by the governor and legislators to compromise on issues they deemed important. Rather, the voters are being asked to settle quarrels that the politicians were elected to handle in Sacramento.

Not that this is anything new or the voters actually mind.

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that voters, by 2 to 1, oppose a special election and feel decisions on these “reforms” should be delayed until the next regular election in June 2006.

But, by 3 to 1, they also want to make those decisions themselves -- at least on “long-term budget and government reforms” -- rather than trust it to the governor and Legislature.

Our system of democracy is set up for voters to have the final say on long-term overhauls of government.

But having the final say is not the same as arbitrating every argument over change, such as extending from two years to five the probationary period before teachers get tenure.

That, pathetically, is the sole contribution to “education reform” that Schwarzenegger is offering voters.

One failure lies with the Legislature behaving like the proverbial deer in the headlights and not responding to the governor’s call for negotiation on his proposed “reforms” -- most important, a state spending cap.

As his popularity plummeted, Democratic leaders became increasingly confident that they and their patron public employee unions could avoid compromising and steer voters away from the governor’s proposals.

But the primary failure was Schwarzenegger’s for being too preoccupied with initiative campaign photo-ops and nationwide fundraising to perform his role of governor.

This was the charmer, remember, who promised to “bring everybody together” and “end the politics as usual.” He did for a while. Then he got into name-calling and demagoguing, as if looking for a fight -- a tuneup for a 2006 reelection campaign.

Like Popeye with spinach, Schwarzenegger thrives on crowd cheers. But lately they’ve turned to jeers.

His poll numbers have fallen, and voters aren’t excited about his “reforms” either. They’re particularly not excited about the special election cost -- even, presumably, a newly lowered price of roughly $50 million for the state’s share.

“You can’t keep harping on the cost of a special election after it’s been called,” asserts Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce and a coauthor of the governor’s spending cap proposal.

“It’s like harping about a basketball call after the play is over.”

Myself, I could see harping on it until November like this: Vote no on everything. Send them a message. Stop wasting our tax money on frivolous elections that can wait.

Responds Bill Hauck, president of the California Business Round Table and principal author of the spending cap: “It’s important to start the process of fixing the state’s political system -- and it’s important not to wait. You can always wait.”

OK, so here’s the opportunity for both sides to settle. A special election is now a certainty, so they should negotiate a bipartisan “reform” package, offer it to the voters as a preferred alternative to the initiatives and avoid a bruising, obnoxious fight.

They have until around mid-August to pass legislation placing compromise measures on the ballot.

Here are some suggestions:

* Negotiate a spending cap that doesn’t look so much like a power grab by the governor. But loosen up Proposition 98 to allow more state flexibility over school spending.

* Write a legislative redistricting reform that assures political neutrality, while still eliminating the Legislature’s power to draw districts.

* As a sweetener for legislators, toss in “term limit” reform that would allow lawmakers to serve all their allotted years in one house. Also, permit them some type of retirement plan.

* For a Republican sweetener, make the public employees’ pension system less generous.

* The governor would need to agree not to support an anti-union initiative aimed at making it more difficult to spend dues on politics.

There’s ample incentive to compromise, or there should be. Despite all the bravado, neither Schwarzenegger and his business bankrollers nor Democrats and their union allies really can predict the voters’ behavior on this. Both sides are taking a huge risk. And they have much more to lose than to gain.

True, if Schwarzenegger can coax voters into passing his spending cap, he’ll be entitled to claim the mantle of “reformer.”

But if his pleas are rejected, he’ll lose credibility and clout. He’ll need to do a mea culpa and promise to try to get along again in Sacramento. His stock won’t fall to junk status, but his value will be diminished in the eyes of special-interest investors.

If the governor’s initiatives are rejected, Democrats will think they’ve slain the giant. But that could be an illusion and turn into their worst nightmare. This man does not like to quit a loser. Rather than slink away from the Capitol and crawl back to Hollywood, the best bet is that he’d run for reelection and win.

And if Schwarzenegger’s “reforms” are accepted, it could cost Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) their leadership posts in a Capitol purge. Caucus members might well ask, How’d we get led into this mess?

Either both sides compromise and claim victory -- or the only sure winners will be the expanding army of campaign consultants raking in millions from special-interest donors.

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.