Neighborly Approach Would Help State Government

0

Our once-Golden State is in financial crisis, dragging our great metropolitan areas like Los Angeles down with it. Our state is overwhelmed by debt, which is ever increasing with continual deficits. Regulations have multiplied along with the burden of taxation on business.

The economy struggles, proportionately more people are unemployed in California than in the rest of the country and businesses are fleeing. The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.’s 2011-12 “Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook” says unemployment in the county will be “painfully high” through 2012.

The dismal performance of the state represents the symptom of the problem; the cause lies in its political structure. Today, there are 80 Assembly members and 40 state senators for approximately 39 million inhabitants. That’s almost a half-million people per representative and 1 million per senator. To compete and win an election requires great amounts of money to fund an army of ground troops as well as an advertising campaign. Currently, we elect fundraisers, not policymakers, and special interests, not good policy, rule the debate.

We propose to change this by dividing up each of the existing Senate and Assembly districts (large districts) into about 50 “Neighborhood Districts,” which would consist of 20,000 persons per Senate seat 10,000 per Assembly seat. Each year, these 50 senators and Assembly members elected from each large district would hold a convention where they would select from their number one member each of the Senate and Assembly working committees. These working committees would be the same size as the current Legislature, but with a very big difference; they would be elected without running expensive and time-consuming campaigns.

The neighborhood representatives would be elected members of the Senate and Assembly – yes, there would be a lot of them – would each get a nominal stipend of $1,000 per year and actual expenses reimbursed. Members of the working committees – both Senate and Assembly – would each receive $10,000 per year plus actual expenses (limited to $100 per day). This, plus savings in staff and offices, erases almost $200 million per year from the budget.

How would the Legislature work? Contact with the electorate would be predominantly local, and – just as it is in businesses today – there would be extensive use of the Internet for the functioning of legislative business. Neighborhood representatives could bring concerns to their working committee member and since it is a small number required to elect a working committee member, there would be much greater responsiveness. The working committees will form the same types of subcommittees the Legislature currently has – but the volume of bills would be less without campaign donors dictating what goes on.

‘A lot of them’

The working committees would do what the Legislature does now – hold hearings, draft legislation, etc. Bills that pass the working committee of each house would then have to be submitted to the neighborhood representatives for passage with no amendment. The entire Legislature (working committees and neighborhood representatives) would serve for the same terms with the same term limits as currently exist.

Look at Los Angeles County, home to approximately 10 million individuals. It would elect about 1,000 neighborhood representatives for the Assembly and 500 for the Senate. Many local areas and ethnic groups would be able to elect their own representative, giving them a voice for the first time. Those who are turned off by the current system, in which the big monied interests seem to hold the most power, would come back into the public debate. It would be reasonable to expect more people to register and vote, reversing a turnout trend that has been abysmal of late.

Who would run for these positions? The evidence from New Hampshire (where there are 400 representatives – paid $100 per year – for approximately 1,32 million people) suggests that many retirees would run, bringing experience and wisdom, along with businessmen and -women, who would be able to fit the part-time activity into their schedules, given their expertise at multitasking and collaborating over the Internet. Maybe some young people would run, especially the unemployed who have a right to be angry at the current incumbents and what they are doing to the state’s job prospects. Certainly, representation would be more local and more responsive to local business issues than today’s highly paid professional politicians in Sacramento.

People would serve for the honor and duty involved in public service, not for career gain or money. Isn’t that how our country was formed and intended to operate? The public agrees with us – we have done initial surveys and this proposal is favored by 60% of participants, a sizable number given it is such a new idea and has had little in the way of discussion in the media.

We are a group of concerned residents who want to see our great state not only survive but thrive in the years ahead. We have run this idea by academics and activists on both sides of the partisan divide and they are greatly supportive. You will see that much smaller districts will make our representatives more accountable, more devoted to solutions and truly return power to the people.

John Cox is president of Rescue California Educational Foundation Inc.

No posts to display