Citizens Assembly could ease gridlock.

During the past several years, frustration over California's political process has reached new highs. This frustration has fueled a general apathy among voters that is evidenced by consistently low turnout at the polls.

Voters are tired of listening to the frequent public bickering between legislators and state constitutional officers and the extreme difficulty in achieving legislative solutions to our most significant problems. We are almost constantly hearing about and experiencing the effects of California's more significant issues including the structural deficit, the failing education system, the transportation crisis, the decaying infrastructure, the inadequate healthcare system and the lack of affordable housing.

It seems as though the entire political process is paralyzed. Those frequently blamed for the legislative gridlock are the special interest groups including unions, trade associations, etc. Attempts to reform the legislative process by utilizing initiatives and referendums have been unsuccessful due in part to the massive campaigns launched and funded by the special interest groups and the lack of accurate unbiased information available to voters to enable them to make informed decisions.

In early 2004 the legislature of British Columbia, having experienced difficulties with the legislative process similar to those of California decided to implement corrective action. They established a Citizens Assembly with a term of one year and a mandate to focus on electoral reform. The members were chosen by a random selection process whereby an equal number of men and women (100 each) were drawn from each of the province's 79 electoral districts. The pool was then reduced by those who were unable or unwilling to participate. From the remaining pool, the legislature selected one man and one woman from each of the districts and then added two more members to assure representation of native Canadians.

The Assembly's one-year term was divided into three phases: first, learning about reform from noted experts, January-March 2004; second, over 50 public hearings, May-June; and third, final deliberations, September-November. They met on weekends, their expenses and a stipend of approximately $1,000 per month was paid by the government. They were addressed by top experts from all political perspectives who gave them the benefit of their knowledge and analysis.

Unlike our voters who go to the polls with very little information, this Assembly of private citizens was extremely well informed. In December 2004, the Assembly delivered its final report. It voted 146-7 to replace its longtime winner-take-all, single-seat district electoral system with a proportional representation system.

By previous agreement, the Assembly's proposal automatically was submitted by the legislature directly to the voters in a referendum in May 2005. Although the measure did not receive the 60% vote required for passage, it did receive a strong 58% vote which analysts said was due to the recommendation of the Citizens Assembly which had tremendous credibility with the public because it was composed of well-informed average citizens,

Although this Assembly was focused specifically on the electoral system, its focus could just as easily have been focused on other aspects of the political system, such as redistricting reform, campaign finance reform, term limits etc.

State legislation

Believing that a Citizens Assembly similar to the British Columbia model could be the answer to reforming California's political system thereby eliminating the current paralysis in the Legislature, Assemblymembers' Keith Richman (R-Northridge) and Joe Canciamilla (D-Pittsburg) introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 28 to the Assembly on January 26, 2006. ACA 28, if passed by the legislature and approved by voters, would establish a California Citizens Assembly, allowing well-informed average California citizens, unencumbered by allegiances to special interest groups and unaffected by partisan pressures to have a significant influence toward reforming state government.

In accordance with the guidelines of ACA 28, the Citizens Assembly would be established to study how California should elect the members of the Legislature and its elected executive officers. The body would evaluate potential reforms of the laws governing the electoral and campaign process, including campaign finance reform, for the Legislature and statewide elected executive officers. The voters would ultimately decide if a Citizens Assembly should be established.

If the voters approve the Assembly, it would be required to be broadly representative of the adult population of California with respect to age, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographical dispersion based on voter registration. A selection task force would consist of six academic experts, two from the University of California. two from California State University and two from private universities in California. The members of the selection task force would serve without compensation. The selection process would be similar to the Canadian model resulting in 1 man and 1 woman being drawn from each district. However, instead of two additional members, up to 10 additional members would be drawn as may be needed to cause the membership of the Assembly to approximate a representative sample of California's adult population with respect to age, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographical dispersion based on voter registration.

Members would receive reimbursement for actual expenses related to their service and a stipend of $1,000 per month. These expenditures would be funded by a $20 million transfer from the General Fund to a Citizens Assembly Fund to be created in the State Treasury and appropriated to the Coutroller without regard to fiscal year.

Eligible participants

Persons ineligible to serve would include persons not registered to vote, elected state executive officers or their appointees, members of the United States Congress, members of the California Legislature, elected local government officials, state or federal judges, registered lobbyists, paid campaign consultants and immediate family members of any ineligible person.

The California Citizens Assembly would have a limited life of approximately one year and would be required to make a final report of its recommendations to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2008. The recommendations would then be incorporated into a referendum and placed on the ballot at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election.

Perhaps the Citizens Assembly will be the answer to finally eliminating paralysis in the Legislature by achieving a more representative legislature, a less polarized representative body, more competitive choices for voters and a reduction in special interest influence. I believe that the Citizens Assembly has a potentially significant upside, a relatively insignificant downside I and deserves a chance.

Gregory N. Lippe is managing partner of the Woodland Hills- based CPA firm of Lippe, Hellie, Hoffer & Allison, LLP and a director and vice-chair of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assoc. (VICA)