Geoff Metcalf
April 15, 1998

Previously I had raised the question of a part-time versus a full time state legislature.  In the wake of the questions, I have reviewed a lot of paper and reviewed the arguments in favor of a full time legislature, and analysis the numbers.  I am now comfortable, and excited about proposing and recommending California return to a part time legislature.

Frankly, I have been surprised by the overwhelming reaction from listeners and readers.  Additionally, I confess to actually being shocked that several members of the bill mill royals (in both the state Senate AND Assembly) concur with my assessment.

California would gain much, and lose virtually nothing by disenfranchising our full time legislature and replacing it with part time citizen-legislators.  It would be significantly less expensive.  It could lead to the extinction of a class of privilege. Most importantly a return to a part time legislature would probably result in legislative representatives who actually represent their constituents instead of their own special interests.  The added bonus is that the current variety of myopic, petty power addicted pols would have less time, incentive, and money to do further harm to we the people.
 
There are two strong arguments against a part time legislature, but I am convinced they can be mitigated very simply, if or when California were to embrace a part time legislature.  However, before we even examine mitigation, the quick reality check is that there ain't no way, no how, that we can expect the powdered princes in the bill mill to roll over and allow this to happen by mere inertia.  Assemblyman Bob Margett has authored a California Constitutional Amendment (ACA23) to effect the change, but the current Speaker, Antonio Villagosia is not about to allow that dog to hunt.  Likewise, if or when a miracle were to allow it to heard in the Assembly, John Burton in the Senate is not about to look kindly on undoing his brothers finesse.

Currently California's legislature has a staff of 2,610 people and the highest paid legislators in the country.  Not a hell of a lot actually ever gets done in the long convoluted procedural charades.  The annual crush to push through hundreds of bills in hours is absurdity personified.  Senator H.L. Richardson capsulized the charade in the title of his book "What makes you think we actually read the bills?"

The second most populous state is Texas.  They employ 2,420 people during its session.  However they only meet every other year, and that session only lasts for six months of the odd numbered years.  So what could they possibly do in such a short period of time?  Wellllllll, since they actually WORK, last time around they introduced more legislation than California does in its two-year ($400-Million plus) session.  However, they pass significant legislation like continuing Medicaid coverage for elderly and the disabled, a reduction of state jobs through the reduction of 4,350 positions, regulation of managed health care, and an increase in teacher retirement benefits.  Rumor has it, they actually even had time to READ the stuff before making it law.

When Californians were conned (back in the 60's) to accepting a full time state legislature, there were two principle arguments supporting the plan.  First was the fear that part time legislators would be vulnerable to undo lobbyist influence, and the danger than lawmakers could hide graft from those attempting to influence legislation.  The result has been to codify the graft.  The other argument was that a state as large as California (which is the 7th largest economy in the world) needed a full time legislature.  I submit we cannot afford a full time legislature and that a simple cost analysis will reveal, we the people are squandering hundreds of millions of tax dollars for which we are not getting adequate return.

A 1993 Legislative Analyst report on the "Average Cost of a Bill" reveals when you add bill printing, associated publications histories, files, indexes, journals, chapters and reprints, bill room operation, Legislative Counsel services, Legislative committee staff, Department of Finance services, and Agency legislative liaison costs, the total 1991-1992 session cost was $13,733 PER BILL.

In 1996-97 there were over 5,000 bill introduced.  Last year there were 3,008 bill and resolutions introduced.  At an average cost of $15,000, last year we spent $45-Million-120-Thousand on just this one item.  When you consider that only about 42% of those bills ever get passed, you are looking at an approximate waste of $26-Million per session on bills that are merely an exercise in form over substance.

The cost to maintain the royal duchies of legislators is about $200-million per year NOT COUNTING PENSIONS.

The 31 year experiment of a full time legislature in California should end.  It has proven to be an extraordinarily expensive, failure.  The current bastard child of Proposition 1A has become a petulant, spoiled, brat.....more an exercise in routine and consistent abuse of power under the color of authority (for the right price), than a legislative body representing the people of California.  The system and the culture of the legislature is beyond repair. The only viable solution is to neuter it.