It's beginning to look as if California voters will have ample opportunities to recast their state government next year. This afternoon, the blue-blood reform group California Forward (funded by a coalition of the state's best-endowed foundations) filed two initiatives that deal with budgeting and fiscal matters.
The filing comes two days after a group called Repair California filed a ballot initiative that would call a citizens' convention to revise the state constitution. In addition, lawmakers have already placed on the June ballot a measure that implent a top-two, open primary, in which any voter could vote for any candidate of any party in primary elections and the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election.
The first of the California Forward proposals would make several changes in the budget process, including:
-- Allow lawmakers to pass a budget, but not tax increases, with a majority vote instead of the existing two-thirds majority requirement.
-- Force a two-thirds majority whenever lawmakers consider raising fees to replace tax revenue. This is targeted at a proposal legislative Democrats pushed last year that would have had the effect of raising taxes by majority vote by abolishing the gas tax and replacing the revenue with a majority-vote "highway users' fee" on gasoline.
-- Require legislators and the governor to develop a two-year financing plan.
-- Require lawmakers to specify how they are going to pay for any significant program expansions or tax cuts, by naming either what programs would be cut or enacting a tax increase to pay for their actions.
The second deals with local government finance. Among its provisions are:
-- An assurance that revenues from any taxes or fees levied by local governments would stay at the local level and not be diverted by the state.
-- A provision that allows local agencies to work together to develop countywide action plans. If they do so, the local board of supervisors could place on a countywide ballot a 1 cent sales tax increase and the revenue would be divided among local government agencies.
Timm, maybe you can let us know what legislators support this reform. I suspect neither party will like it - too much money is being made from defending the status quo.
Though I'm afraid Katie's right on this issue, I'd still like to see a considerable effort made to pass the California Forward proposals. This state is in desperate need of budget reform, and we have to do our part to voice (and vote) our displeasure with the status quo. Glaring examples of waste and corruption are everywhere, even within local levels of government here in California. We only need to look as far as our neighboring Los Angeles County to see millions of taxpayer dollars about to be wasted thanks to the Board of Supervisors' adherence to "politics-as-usual."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services procured for vendor services to operate the county's welfare to work program. Two bids came in from the incumbent company (Maximus, Inc.) and newcomer Policy Studies Inc. (PSI). Both were scored by a neutral third party, and PSI beat Maximus solidly in several categories, including performance and bid price. Maximus protested the results, but they were upheld on 3 levels and PSI was recommended by DPSS to receive the contract.
The Board of Supervisors rejected the recommendation with 3 votes. They claimed the process of consensus scoring somehow concealed bias from the DPSS, though no specific evidence of this bias was ever presented. Furthermore, this scoring process was documented as a valid process which had been used for years prior to 2008, and the same process whereby the incumbent Maximus had been recommended and awarded. The BOS then directed the DPSS to extend Maximus' contract for 6 months while they reissue the RFP and devise a new scoring method. Why the complete 180 now?
The BOS also expressed some superficial concern that the cost of the contract may exceed county requirements (see County Prop A). Although language could've easily been built into the contract to ensure cost neutrality/savings, the BOS rejected that argument and asked DPSS to review their contract monitoring costs for possible reductions and eliminate or reduce pay for performance provisions that could drive up the overall contract cost should the vendor outperform expectations.
The reissue of this RFP makes no fiscal sense whatsoever, particularly given the dire state of California's economy. What's more, the state faces federal penalties to the tune of approximately $185 million if they do not meet a preexisting federal threshold. Why is the BOS insisting on spending MORE of our tax dollars in an effort to maintain their business relationship with Maximus - a company whose performance was scored lower and contract priced higher than PSI? (The county has estimated the cost to reissue the RFP to be $250,000). If PSI had been chosen, their contract would save the county over one million dollars annually. What's going on here?
An LA Times article from last year exposed just how entangled Maximus is with the BOS. In the first half of 2008, Maximus spent over $124,000 on two lobbying firms, more than doubling what they spent on marketing in the past year. Perhaps even more troubling, Maximus donated $1,000 (the maximum allowed) to the campaigns to re-elect supervisors Don Knabe and Michael D. Antonovich. They even gave $1,000 to two members whose terms had 2 years left to run. Apparently, the BOS would rather take $1,000 of easy money than save the taxpayers over a million dollars a year. The math doesn't add up.
In these lean times, the board ought to re-examine their motivation because it's certainly not focused on the bottom line.