A list of nearly two dozen reforms include reducing from two-thirds to a majority the voting threshold for a state budget, limiting the number of bills members may introduce each session, extending local sales tax voting authority under certain circumstances and implementing. performance-based budgeting. (See the full list at the bottom of this entry.)

It’s an open question as to which of these reforms will make it onto the ballot, an act which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. But Republicans are dead set against changing the two-thirds threshold as it is their biggest leverage as the minority party.

Here’s the press conference video:

Click through for the detailed hand-out from the Legislature on the package:

Comprehensive Reform Package

March 11, 2010

I – Budget and Local Government Fiscal Reform: Immediately begin moving through the legislative process a constitutional revision (and related bills) that improves the state’s budget process and enhances local government’s ability to fund and implement a local “strategic action plan” for community priorities.

Budget reform elements would include:

• A majority vote threshold for the Legislature to pass a budget and related trailer bills.

• Forfeiture of legislative pay and per diem if a budget is not passed on time (by June 25th each year).

• Authority for the Governor to reduce spending in the budget act if the Legislature does not pass a measure to address a fiscal emergency with 45 days of such an emergency being called.

• Limiting the use of “non-recurring” or “one-time” revenue for one-time purposes.

• Establish performance standards for state programs and review them at least once a decade. Develop and track outcomes through the budget process.

• Require a 2/3’s vote for a fee that replaces an existing tax.

• Commencing 2014-15, require the Governor to utilize performance-based budgeting methods in his annual Budget Act proposal.

• Institute “Pay-Go” in California to require lawmakers to identify funding sources for bills that cost the state at least $25 million per year.

• Require the Governor’s initial budget submission each year to include multi-year projections of revenues and expenditures.

Enhanced local government authority would include:

• Authority for counties that adopt a “Countywide Strategic Action Plan” to increase by up to one cent the local sales tax with a majority vote of the voters voting on the measure.

• Funds would be allocated to cities and the county, pursuant to the adopted plan, to invest in community priorities.

• Half of the revenues would be shifted to local schools.

• The duration of the sales tax increase would be 10 years, unless a majority of voters agree to extend the tax.

• Prohibition on the state borrowing, transferring or reallocating local property taxes or redevelopment funds.

• Convene a bipartisan, bicameral committee on state-local program and fiscal realignment to marry the fiscal reforms with the appropriate assignment of program responsibilities to state and local governments.

II – Initiative Reform: End “ballot box budgeting” which has contributed to California’s dire fiscal situation. Pass a pending constitutional amendment to ensure initiatives placed before the people pay for themselves:

• SCA 14 (Ducheny): Requires statewide initiative measures to identify a funding source for any new associated costs (Ashburn Co-author). Now pending on the Senate floor.

III – Legislative Process Reform: Enhance the legislature’s oversight function to ensure laws are being implemented as intended, state agencies are performing their duties efficiently, and services are being provided in a manner that meets citizen expectation. Reduce the number of bills to be introduced by each Member during a two-year session, commencing with the 2011-12 Legislative Session.

• Use the budget process, the interim and available time during the legislative year to have policy and fiscal committees conduct oversight hearings. Focus on state agency performance, bill implementation, and special issues that arise from time to time.

• For 2010, release the schedule for policy and fiscal committee oversight hearings in the Assembly and the Senate.

• Require committee chairs and vice chairs to set a short list of committee priorities and report these to leadership (so leaders can take these into account when setting institutional priorities, and hold chairs accountable for performance during session).

• Re-invigorate the Sunset Review process in the Senate by better coordinating review between the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate Business and Professions Committee. During 2010, more than a dozen existing boards and commissions should be reviewed for their performance and effectiveness in serving the public interest. Appointees to head boards and commissions will be held accountable for performance through the Senate’s confirmation process.

• Performance review of boards and commissions (Assembly)

• Rename the Committee on Business and Professions to be the Committee on Business, Professions, and Consumer Protection.

• Establish a standing Subcommittee on Oversight and Performance Evaluation, chaired by Assemblymember Hayashi with vice-chair Assemblymember Emmerson.

• During 2010, the subcommittee and full committee will review more than a dozen existing boards and commissions for their efficiency and effectiveness in serving the public interest. The subcommittee will make recommendations regarding the continuation or termination of these boards and commissions along with recommendations for improving their performance.

• The Senate and Assembly will reduce by 1/3 the number of bills Members may introduce commencing with the 2011-12 Legislative Session. Up to 2 bipartisan-authored bills will be exempted from the new bill limit. Fewer bills allow more time for policy committees to focus on enhanced oversight activities.

“The challenge has been that the high level of citizen interest did not match the financial commitment,” said Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council, the chief organizer of the campaign. “As a result, we have to press the pause button.”

Repair California was gathering signatures for two ballot measures that would have convened a Constitutional Convention and charged its members with rewriting the way the state governs itself.

The group needed nearly 2 million signatures by mid-April in order to qualify the measures for the November ballot.

Wunderman, whose members at the Bay Area Council pledged $2 million to the effort, pointed to the poor economy.

Campaign manager Clint Reilly estimated it would cost as much as $4 million to gather the signatures but they had only raised $1 million.

“We were not even close,” Reilly said during a press conference this morning in San Francisco.

The event will include panel discussions on what a California Constitutional convention’s goals should be and what it’ll take to call such a convention, as well as opportunities for public testimony and a question-and-answer session.

Repair California – a coalition set up by the Bay Area Council to push for a convention – has submitted to the state Attorney General’s office two proposed ballot measures for the November 2010 election: One would amend the constitution to let voters, rather than the Legislature, call a convention, and the other would actually call it.

If these measures make it onto the ballot and are approved by voters, the convention would be held in 2011 and whatever reforms it proposes would require voter approval in 2012. The convention would be specifically prohibited from proposing tax increases or from considering changes to social issues such as marriage, abortion, gambling, affirmative action, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, immigration, or the death penalty.

Monday’s meeting’s organizers say similar meetings in Alameda County and across California, as well as Web-based conversations, seem to show that Californians want changes in governance, including the structure of the Legislature and executive branch; in elections, including the initiative process, campaign finance and term limits; in the budget, including the two-thirds legislative vote, the budget’s term and balancing, and mandated spending; and in revenue distribution, including the relationship between state and local governments.

Attendance is free, and registration starts at 5:15 p.m. I’ve been to one of these already, in September in Oakland – it was extremely well-attended, and thoughtful, but like all things political, it’s easy to get bogged down in partisan rancor. I see that notice of Monday’s meeting has already gone out on the Meetup list of the SF Bay 912 Project, a group of Glenn Beck-inspired, tea-partying conservatives. “Let’s NOT let the LIBS outnumber us and set the agenda — I know it’s a weeknight and everyone has other things to do but try to be there,” the group’s organizer urged.

The Virginia-based Citizens in Charge Foundation awarded the governor with the November 2009 John Lilburne Award, so-named after a 17th Century pamphleteer and political activist.

Schwarzenegger helped coin the term post-partisanship. But Citizens in Charge describes itself as a transpartisan organization.

Uh, what’s a transpartisan?

I asked and the organization directed me to the Transpartisan Alliance’s Web site, where it says:

Transpartisanship acknowledges the validity of truths across a range of political perspectives and seeks to synthesize them into an inclusive, pragmatic whole beyond typical political dualities. In practice, transpartisan solutions emerge out of a new kind of public conversation that moves beyond polarization by applying proven methods of facilitated dialogue, deliberation and conflict resolution. In this way it is possible to achieve the ideal of a democratic republic by integrating the values of a democracy — freedom, equality, and a regard for the common good, with the values of a republic — order, responsibility and security.

Okay. That all sounds good, although I’m still trying to get my mind around the fact that there is such a thing as a Transpartisan Alliance.

Read on for the full press release.

Governor Schwarzenegger Terminates Bills That Would Restrict Initiative Process
Honored with November 2009 John Lilburne Award


(LAKE RIDGE, VA) – Today, Citizens in Charge Foundation, a transpartisan national voter rights group focused on the ballot initiative and referendum process, presented California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with the November 2009 John Lilburne Award.  Governor Schwarzenegger is being honored for vetoing four bills from the California Assembly and Senate during the 2009 session that would have restricted the initiative process in the state.

“The initiative process in California regularly comes under attack by the political bureaucracy, special interests and a misinformed media; but 2009 has seen a marked increase in these attacks.” said Paul Jacob, president of Citizens in Charge Foundation. “Despite the attacks and attempts by politicians to restrict the initiative process, Governor Schwarzenegger defended the rights of those who elected him to serve them- the citizens of California.”

The bills that Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed were Assembly Bills 6, 436, and 1068, as well as Senate Bill 34. Each bill represented a different restriction on the initiative process.

The three Assembly bills Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed would have made the initiative process in California much more difficult through additional fees and regulation. The Senate bill he vetoed was a ban on paying signature gatherers per signature, which would have made the process of getting a measure on the statewide ballot more difficult for the average citizen.

“It is important to have leaders like Governor Schwarzenegger who defend the initiative process,” adds Jacob. “Attempts to restrict the process will continue, and it’s good to know the people of California have a Governor willing to protect their right to an open and accessible process to petition their government.”

Each month, Citizens in Charge Foundation presents the John Lilburne Award to a citizen, or citizens, working to protect and defend the First Amendment petition rights of Americans. John Lilburne was a 17th Century English pamphleteer, political activist, and champion of individual rights who advocated constitutional government and pioneered the use of petitioning and referenda for redress against government power and abuse.

About Citizens In Charge Foundation:
Citizens in Charge Foundation is a national transpartisan voter rights group dedicated to protecting and expanding the ballot initiative and referendum process. We believe good government starts with the voter. For more information visit us www.CitizensInCharge.org.

Reilly will move from volunteer adviser to paid consultant at Repair California, a group founded by the Bay Area Council that wrote two ballot measures it hopes to place before voters in the November 2010 election. If approved, the initiatives call for the convening of a Constitutional Convention limited to governance reforms.

Read on for the press release.

Political Consultant Clint Reilly Tapped to Help Lead California Reform Campaign

Hiring Marks New Phase in Citizen Constitutional Convention Drive

CALIFORNIA, November 6, 2009 – Clint Reilly, who retired from professional political consulting after building Clinton Reilly Campaigns into one of the most recognized and successful firms of its kind in the country, is climbing back in the ring in a big way after a 14-year hiatus.

Reilly signed a contract earlier this week to help lead Repair California as it drives a movement to call the first Constitutional Convention in California in more than 130 years.

Citing a broken system of governance, Repair California turned in ballot measures that would call a limited Constitutional Convention to reform four areas of the constitution: the budget process; the election and initiative process; restoring the balance of power between the state and local governments; and, creating new systems to improve government effectiveness.  The Convention is specifically prohibited from proposing tax increases or from considering changes to social issues such as marriage, abortion, gambling, affirmative action, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, immigration, or the death penalty.  Voters will decide on calling the Convention on the November 2010 ballot, the Convention would be held in 2011 and its proposed reforms would require voter approval in one of the three scheduled statewide elections in 2012.

The agreement between Reilly and Repair California signals a significant new phase in the campaign to call limited constitutional convention on the November 2010 ballot.  It also marks a high-profile return to the politics business by one of its true pioneers.

“I have had the opportunity to work with and observe Clint Reilly on a number of important campaigns and public projects,” said Jim Wunderman, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council and a member of Repair California.  “He has a remarkable strategic sense and a passion for organizing, which is all too often missing in statewide campaigns, and just what this historic effort needs to succeed.”

“Clint has been voluntarily helping out the effort for months and we have come to respect his candid, lucid and non-partisan advice,” said Lenny Mendonca, Chair of the Repair California movement.  “Clint has worked on Republican, Democrat and non-partisan campaigns, and this effort, as evidenced by our ballot measures, will, by its nature, be strictly non-partisan.  We expect Clint will build a multi-party, statewide team to help this movement succeed.  Our state desperately needs it.”

Reilly, who has been serving as a volunteer adviser to Repair California, said he agreed to go to work full-time for the initiative campaign because he believes strongly that California government is broken and can’t be fixed from within.

“Special interests have a stranglehold on Sacramento right now and it is going to take a citizen movement to change that,” Reilly said.

As chief strategist for Repair California, Reilly brings decades of experience in grassroots organizing, political fundraising and communication, and campaign management.  As founder and owner of Clinton Reilly Campaigns, Reilly was one of the country’s most talented and effective political consultants and a leader in the development of modern communications strategies that have become standard practice throughout the profession.

Today, he is owner and CEO of Clinton Reilly Holdings, a successful real estate investment firm in San Francisco whose properties include one of the city’s most historic downtown structures, the Merchants Exchange Building.

Though retired from professional political consulting, Reilly has remained deeply and continually engaged in San Francisco civic life, serving six years as chairman of the board of Catholic Charities, running for mayor in 1999, filing a pair of landmark lawsuits to protect competition in the Bay Area newspaper industry, and providing volunteer and financial support to numerous charitable and political causes.

A fourth-generation San Franciscan, he lives in the city’s historic Seacliff neighborhood with his wife Janet Reilly and their daughters, Jill and Ava.

Steven Hill, a coalition member and director of the political reform program at the New America Foundation, made the announcement a few minutes ago at a constitutional reform convention in Sacramento. It represents about half of what the group estimates it will need to run a successful initiative campaign.

Hill also outlined some of of the details of the planned initiatives, which he said will be filed with the state in the next 10 days.

The first initiative authorizes the voters to call a Constitutional Convention, an act restricted under current law to the Legislature. The second measure convenes a convention limited to the review of governance issues. Its recommended reforms would come back to voters in subsequent elections.

The measure assigns the management of the convention to the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

But one of the most discussed components of the draft measure has been how to select the delegates.

The final language is still in what Hill called the “tweaking” stage but he said the coalition is strongly leaning toward a hybrid selection of 435 delegates to a Constitutional Convention. A portion of the members would be appointed by the state’s 58 county boards of supervisors. The balance would be randomly, scientifically selected citizens from throughout the state.”

“It’s like Willie Wonka getting the golden ticket,” Hill told the group. “Everyone is going to want to participate … I wouldn’t be surprised if reality TV shows crop up around the delegates. ”

The convention would cost $1.50 per Californian or about $55 million, Hill also said.

The sold-out event at the Sacramento Convention Center featured speakers from a host of universities and other organizations on everything from the history of state constitution revisions and the political realities of reform.

Sponsored by UC-Berkeley, Stanford and Cal-State Sacramento, the conference grew out of a growing statewide interest in reforming the way the state governs itself in the wake of policy paralysis in the Legislature. The Bay Area Council is among a coalition of groups leading a drive to place on the ballot a call for a Constitutional Convention, which would rewrite and bring back to voters proposed changes in governance.

The conference will be aired on the California Channel, the state’s equivalent to CPAN. Check its web site for air dates.

Here is a sampling of what some of these folks had to say:

Amy Bridges, professor of political science, University of California, San Diego — Speaking on prior consitutional conventions, “where people took their responsibilities seriously, ofen at great personal sacrifice, they made great progress in the growth of their state. With any luck at all, we ought to be able to do the same thing.”

Glen Gendzel, assistant professor history, San Jose State University — He suggests taking from potential convention discussion changes related to personal rights, requiring court review of initiatives prior to submission to voters and even the financial playing field during initiative campaigns through the use of public dollars to match those spent by private entities.

Barry Keene, former state legislator who called for a Constitutional Convention when he served in the state Senate – Talking about the time he served on a 1960s Constitutional Revision Commission, he said the disussion was heavily dominated by special interests heavily invested in the status quo. He urged those who participate in the convention, if one is held, not to spend time on disputes that cannot be resolved. California will have a convention, he predicted, as soon as “enough haves have more to lose by the status quo than by risking a new world order.”

R. William Hauck, president and CEO of California Business Roundtable — “We need to ask California to pay more attention to ‘us’ and not ‘What’s in it for me?’ or ‘How will it help me get re-elected?’ ”

Ann Lousin, professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago – To be successful, California Constitutional Convention must produce a document that a majority of its delegates enthusiastically support and one that its voters will adopt.

Alan Tarr, professor and director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers University in Massachusetts – To avoid some of the pitfalls experienced in other states, California should consider holding its convention outside the typical political venues, encourage average citizens to participate and limit the topics under consideration. “If the document is viewed as another top-down reform, it will not go forward,” he said.

But they are reluctant to make the kinds of reforms that have been discussed such as reducing the two-thirds voting threshold to pass a state budget or raise taxes, modifying or eliminating term limits and altering the California tax system.

“The rub is, what are we going to reform?” said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. “It’s going to be a tall order to put a package before voters that they will support.”

Kimberly Nalder with Cal-State University compared it to the person who hires a trainer but says he will not exercise or east less.  Then six months later, he complains about his trainer.

“That’s California voters,” she said. “They are confused.”

The poll was commissioned for today’s “Getting to Reform: Avenues to Constitutional Change in California,” sponsored by UC-Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, Stanford’s Bill Lane Center for the American West and California Stat’s Center for California Studies. Pollsters surveyed 1,005 registered voters between Sept. 18-Oct. 5. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percent for the full sample and plus or minus 4.5 percent for subsets.

The daylong conference is being held at the Sacramento Convention Center, and I’m here all day.

The poll’s key findings:

51 percent believe the state needs to make fundamental changes to its constitution.

48 percent prefer to see a single package of reforms on the ballot rather than a piecemeal manner like the initiative process. 40 percent like the individual measure process.

51 percent support a reform process that uses a constitutional convention rather than a commission appointed by legislators and the governor.

63 percent support the appointment of a broad range of people to rewrite the constitution, including average voters, elected officials and experts.

60 percent would be willing to consider serving on a constitutional reform delegation.

If California is going to reform its constitution, 59 percent prefer limiting its scope to issues of governance and exclude social issues.

52 percent oppose a recent state tax commission proposal to flatten the personal income tax.

65 percent oppose a replacement of the corporate income and sales taxes for a broader tax.

52 percent oppose the elimination of the two-thirds voting threshold in the Legislature to adopt a budget.  That figure goes even higher among Republicans — 69 percent.

69 percent reject the elimination of the Prop. 13 mandate that new taxes require a two-thirds vote. Among Republicans, that figure is 86 percent.

52 percent oppose splitting the tax roll, which would allow the state to increase taxes on commercial properties at a rate higher than that imposed on residential properties.

66 percent support the imposition of a requirement that ballot initiatives identify the source of funds for new programs.

56 percent would support requiring a two-thirds vote on all ballot initiatives that change the state constitution.

57 percent believe the state could continue to provide current levels of service without new taxes if it would strip waste, fraud and abuse from government.

49 percent disapprove of the idea of merging the Assembly and Senate into a single legislative body. 35 percent like the idea.