MOORLACH UPDATE — Meddlesome SCA 8 — November 21, 2016

I first mentioned an annoying habit Sacramento seems to have, of wanting to meddle in the affairs of local governments, shortly after I arrived in the Capitol (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Butt Out — June 13, 2015 june 13, 2015 john moorlach).

In the closing hours of the 2015 Session, I worked hard on the Senate Floor to prevent SCA 8 from garnering the necessary two-thirds vote that a request to put something on the statewide ballot requires.  Fortunately, my colleagues may have seen the self-serving component of this proposal.  However, it did receive full support of the customary motion to reconsideration, but the author decided against bringing it back for a Floor vote the following and last day of the 2015 Session or at any time during the 2016 Session (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Winsome Session — September 12, 2015 september 12, 2015 john moorlach).

Last month, a hearing with the Senate Governance and Finance Committee was held in Los Angeles.  Regretfully, I had made a prior commitment to be the luncheon speaker on October 27th and was unable to participate.  I did send a letter to the Joint Committee Chair with some of the concerns that I have provided below in yesterday’s OC Register Commentary section.

On July 1, 2015, when the bill came before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, on which I sit, I asked the author and co-author if either had served as a County Supervisor.  They had not.  They were concerned about diversity.  But both Orange County and Los Angeles County were models for diversity on their Boards of Supervisors.

For more on this Hearing, see the Agenda: http://selc.senate.ca.gov/sites/selc.senate.ca.gov/files/agenda_final_10.27.16.pdf

See the Briefing: http://selc.senate.ca.gov/sites/selc.senate.ca.gov/files/joint_hearing_background_paper.pdf for a briefing.

BONUS — DECEMBER 5:  I will be officially sworn in to my next term as the Senator for the 37th District on December 5th in Sacramento.  The Floor Session starts at 11:30 a.m. It will be a mini-inauguration, of sorts, but in Sacramento.  If you are interested in attending, please contact my District Office, 714-662-6050, for more information.  I will make sure your Capitol experience is a memorable one.

BONUS — DECEMBER 8:  My office is hosting a morning conference on the subject of Proposition 47.  This statewide ballot measure passed two years ago and we are observing that crime statistics are on the rise.  Is there a correlation?  This event will be held at the University of California, Irvine.  Save the date.  For more information, please contact Robert Nash at Robert.Nash@sen.ca.gov, David Mansdoerfer at David.Mansdoerfer@sen.ca.gov, or Scott Carpenter at Scott.Carpenter@sen.ca.gov.

BONUS — DECEMBER 14:  Our District Office’s Annual Christmas Open House will start at 3 p.m. and conclude at 5 p.m.  If you need an excuse to get to South Coast Plaza or MetroPointe, then please RSVP at 714-662-0550 and drop in.  Our address is 940 South Coast Drive, Suite 185.

image31

Unwanted meddling from state Capitol

Expanding county supervisor boards: What exactly are we trying to solve?

 

By JOHN MOORLACH / Contributing writer

 

There’s a basic truth worth remembering whenever someone proposes new legislation: What problem is it attempting to solve? This political guidepost came to mind in the last session when reviewing State Constitutional Amendment 8, which would have forced several counties in California to increase the number of seats on their boards of supervisors.

When I first became a state senator last year, I made a disappointing observation, which has remained both consistently and inconveniently true. Sacramento appears to enjoy meddling in the affairs of counties and cities. This was especially true of SCA 8, which would have affected Orange County and four or five of California’s more populous counties.

SCA 8 would have forced those counties, determined after the 2020 Census to have populations exceeding 2 million residents, to increase the number of elected supervisors on county boards from five to seven members. On its face, SCA 8 might appear noble, but the effort comes with little knowledge of the nuances that can only be understood by one who has served on a county board. As a former member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, I speak to this with first-hand knowledge.

As I testified in opposition to SCA 8 on the Senate Floor on September 10, 2015, any county that wants to expand its board can already do so through amending its own charter by an initiative. SCA 8 failed to garner enough votes.

Please bear in mind that to the best of my knowledge, no members of the public, from Orange County or elsewhere, have requested assistance from Sacramento when it comes to determining how many board members are needed to best represent their diverse interests.

Further, legal mechanisms are already in place to expand the size of county boards should the need arise. The public, via the initiative process, can put the question of representation on the ballot. Orange County attempted this with Measure U in 1996. It attempted to expand our board from five to nine members. It failed. Voters realized that, even immediately after the Orange County bankruptcy, a larger board size would have made little to no difference.

Even though SCA 8 was set aside during this past legislative session, Sacramento’s curiosity, or meddling, in how county governments run their own business is still very much alive in Sacramento. In recent days, a joint hearing of the Senate Committees on Governance and Finance and Elections and Constitutional Amendments was convened to question the size of county boards of supervisors, among other issues. Do not be surprised if the hearing leads to new (and expensive) proposals to mandate how county governments manage themselves when lawmakers return to Sacramento next year.

Again, these top-down efforts appear to be both unwelcome and unnecessary.

Traditionally, when county populations grow sufficiently to make representation difficult, the solution has been to split off new counties from existing ones. In fact, the formation of Orange County, as well as Imperial and Kings counties, took place under existing legal mechanisms, which included a vote of the people.

If population is truly a concern, then why isn’t there a State Constitutional Amendment to merge smaller counties? Sacramento would be doing these counties a favor. Alpine County has as many residents as does Sunset Beach. It has its own elected sheriff and district attorney. That’s a lot of infrastructure for 1,200 people.

Perhaps minimum populations should be reviewed. Then, SCA 8 wouldn’t look like an attempt to create places for termed-out legislators to land.

SCA 8 is exactly what meddling looks like. It’s an unwelcome and unnecessary cram-down solution when other alternatives already exist.

John Moorlach represents the 37th State Senate District.

image41

 

This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District.

If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with the request to do so.

Follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach.

SENATE.CA.GOV/MOORLACH