Suggestions for California reform

Now that the state budget fiasco has exposed the many warts of California's legislative system, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is gathering ideas for a massive reform of state government. I'm taking him at his word that he's serious about making fundamental changes, and I have a proposals to offer. The first is a very basic change, although I don't think California politicians have the stomach for the kind of reform I'd like to see. The state's voters should do away with the Assembly and Senate and replace them with a unicameral system similar to Nebraska's legislature. One legislative house in California. One less place for the politicians to posture, and still not get anything done. The idea makes so much sense that it'll never fly in the state Capitol, a place so wacky that it passes laws banning dogs from drivers' laps yet is paralyzed when it comes to providing enough water to meet the state's needs. And forget about fixing our transportation system or providing decent health care. Lawmakers would rather work on bills to ban wild burros from private property, as if the donkeys can tell which land is public and private. The 40 members of the Senate and 80 members of the Assembly have hardly earned their pay this year. The public knows it, with almost 80 percent of Californians telling pollsters the Legislature is doing a bad job. That's why Sacramento needs to be shaken up. That would happen with a unicameral legislature.The 120 legislators have made the case for a single-house Legislature with their inaction. The state's finances would be better off immediately. We'd only need half the lawmakers and half the paid staff in a unicameral system. I'm realistic enough to know that politics will kill this reform before it gets out of the gate. But hear me out because California needs more than tinkering around the edges of governmental reform. I've been talking to some folks in Nebraska about their system, and it's very appealing compared with the gridlock we have in California's Legislature. "The biggest strength of the unicameral system in Nebraska is that it's probably the most open and accountable system in America," said Sen. Bill Avery, a Democrat from Lincoln, in a telephone interview. Avery is not only an elected official, he was a longtime political science professor at the University of Nebraska and has studied the system over the years. "You only have one chamber and only 49 members," he said. The system also eliminates the need for a conference committee in each house to reconcile different versions of the same bills, which is common in a two-house system. He also said that while members come from political parties, the legislative offices are nonpartisan. "The speaker is elected at large by majority vote of the members." Avery said. "You cannot be perceived as an ideologue to get along in this body. You have to work with all members, and build personal relationships." In California, the Assembly speaker and Senate leader are elected by the party in power. That's been the Democrats. We'd get much more moderate leaders if they had to appeal to the entire Legislature, instead of just their party members. There must be a downside to a unicameral system? "Sometimes we move too fast and don't give an issue careful deliberation," Avery said. That's no big deal. In California, lawmakers move very slowly and don't give issues careful deliberation. The unicameral system is an idea that should be debated in California, and I hope the governor gives it serious consideration in his reform proposals. The Legislature has shown it's incapable of solving the state's biggest problems. Do we accept the status quo, or are we going to make drastic changes in state government? I'm ready for a revolution.(Jim Boren is editorial page editor of The Fresno Bee. Email him at jboren@fresnobee.com.)(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)