Executive director's note: Politics and the art of compromise 

Are you as astonished as I am at how bad things have gotten in Sacramento? I have worked in and around the California Legislature sine 1974, with all of the strong personalities and economic and political challenges that the state has faced over the years, and I cannot remember a time when things were this bad.

Much to the dismay of my editors, I have delayed writing this column because I wanted to be able to wait for the final resolution of the Budget Act, in the hopes that I would be able to report that the governor and the Democratic and Republican caucuses of the Legislature had finally found some common ground to meet the intractable needs of our state in this challenging economic time.

I regret to inform you that common ground on both short-term and long-term solutions was not found. Indeed, as I write these words, the ink is barely dry on the 2008 Budget Act and we are already billions of dollars behind the already pessimistic revenue projections upon which the budget was passed.

And we still await a decision from the governor on when to call a special election next year to ask the voters to enact two key elements that are necessary to make the budget work; the modification of the state lottery and the provisions of the so-called Budget Stabilization Act.

With tax receipts already falling short of expectations, and revenue projections tumbling even further behind, the governor is calling the Legislature back into special session to address the growing shortfall and perhaps enact additional cuts to the budget for the current year!

So by the time you read this, several interesting developments may have occurred that will have us once again gearing up for a political fight to preserve and protect the resources that have been allocated for schools—a fight made even more critical by its timing, with the school year already well under way.

It appears as I write this that the special session will bring the lame-duck Legislature, including those lawmakers termed out or defeated in the Nov. 4 election, back to Sacramento instead of ushering in the new lawmakers who will take office Dec. 1. The rationale? It allows folks leaving the Legislature to do the “right” thing before they go—whatever that means. In other words, the partisanship and ideological barriers that prevent Democrats from voting for more cuts or Republicans from considering more revenues have become so difficult to surmount that legislators need safe political “cover” to cast a vote that may be good for the people of this state but which could be perceived as political suicide in our hard-edged political environment.

What’s going on here? Isn’t a democracy the place where elected officials of good will but opposing viewpoints come together to compromise on meeting the needs of the citizens they represent? Well, apparently this is no longer the case in California.

In recent years, it has become apparent that the two-thirds legislative majority required to pass a state budget and to raise revenues has become more of a political obstacle to getting anything done than a good-government mechanism to force competing interests to the table.

The genius of the two-thirds requirement—or perhaps the rationalization for it—was the expectation that it would drive the extremes of the left and the right towards the center, encouraging them to compromise on divergent points of view so as to make government work better and meet the needs of our diverse population.

Instead, this super-majority requirement has become the leverage to ensure that a partisan point of view prevails, resulting in state budgets that are monuments to smoke and mirrors and accounting gimmicks rather than smart and sensible matches between revenues and expenditures. The result? Years of ill-considered tax cuts and massive expenditures were enacted when revenues were high—even as Republican and Democratic governors alike warned that these kinds of expenditures could not be sustained.

There is a long and interesting history to the two-thirds vote requirement. It was enacted by the voters in 1933 to control spending by the Legislature during the Great Depression. Originally, the requirement was limited to budgets that exceeded 5 percent growth from the prior fiscal year—in other words, it was the first real “cap” on expenditures within which the Legislature had to work. It wasn’t until 1962 that the two-thirds majority was required for all budgets.

I’m confident that the two-thirds requirement will be addressed in the near future by proponents of reforming the budgetary process, now that it clearly no longer forces compromise so much as it fosters leverage. To appear on a future statewide election ballot, it would probably have to be put there by initiative petition, since it’s doubtful that the two-thirds majority that’s needed for the Legislature to put it on the ballot can be rounded up!

I guess I’ve had to shed my idealism for the democratic process as these years have gone by. Although I’ve been frustrated by the two-thirds vote requirement for budgets in the past, I’ve always accepted it as one of those things that helped the moderate voices take center stage and kept the extremes of the left and the right off in the wings.

In the past, we’ve had Democrats and Republicans come together to enact temporary sales tax increases to pay for earthquake repairs, the cost of which doesn’t come close to the amount of revenue that has disappeared from the state treasury in the last couple of years.

But when we can’t even have a sensible conversation about temporary tax increases to bridge our way out of this difficult economic period, then we are in real trouble. Frankly, I have no idea how any aspect of state government can sustain another round of cuts—let alone the public schools; after all, we’ve already been forced to start the school year nearly $3 billion short of what’s needed just to do what we did last year.

So stay tuned. Pay attention to the real or imagined and self-appointed “reformers” who will have a “better” way for the state government to work. See if your elected officials know and understand the concept of “politics as the art of compromise.” Some interesting proposals will no doubt be floated. The California School Boards Association (and others) will analyze and discuss them. Rest assured, we’ll give you the best advice we can on the ideas that emerge.

And we’ll do it with the kids in mind. That’s why we’re here.