Lois Kazakoff, Chronicle Columnist, writes:
Concerned by California’s faltering government, a coalition of eight nonprofit good government groups conducted an experiment in June. They invited 435 Californians of every stripe from every corner of the state, from every political persuasion to spend three days in a Torrance hotel deliberating 30 proposals for government reform. The coalition raised $1 million to cover their travel costs.
Kazakoff is referring to the What’s Next California deliberative poll:
The original 30 proposals covered a gamut of concerns: term limits, reforming the initiative process and tax reform, among others. Participants were polled on their views before deliberating in small groups, and at the end, sometimes revealing a wide swing in their views. The resulting ballot initiative would require:
- Clear goals for government programs and regular updates on progress.
- Two-year budgets and three-year to five-year budget projections.
- The Legislature to show how new programs would be paid for.
- Transfer of control and financing to local government for certain programs.
The origin of the those ideas and the process by which the original proposals were turned into the “resulting ballot” is not specified. The fiscal focus here seems suspiciously aligned with standard establishment complaints.
Jim Fishkin, a Stanford University communications professor and democracy expert, patterned the event on the Athenian Council of 500. In ancient Greece, 500 citizens were chosen by lot to vet proposals before the electorate voted on them to ensure the people’s business got before the people.
That’s what needs to happen in California: The people’s business needs to get on the ballot. Fishkin is promoting the idea of regularly convening a citizens advisory council, whose proposals would automatically or easily go on the state ballot. It typically costs $3 million to qualify a measure, an almost insurmountable barrier except to special interests who would benefit from the measure at the people’s expense.
This is what surprised the conveners:
- Despite the Legislature’s 14 percent approval rating, the majority polled wanted to extend legislative terms, because legislators would then have more time to do the people’s business.
- Most tax proposals went down to defeat – but not all.
- Proposals to allow the Legislature to reform the initiative process were uniformly rejected.
- Participants remained firm in their conviction that a good portion of government spending is wasted.
The third bullet in the surprises list is rather surprising itself. Why would the citizens, who distrust the legislature, allow it to reform the initiative mechanism – a mechanism that was deliberately introduced in order to reduce the power of the legislature?