Recently in the FlashReport my friend Jon Fleischman wrote to urge the Constitutional elected officers to bend to the will of the Governor on the issue of employee furloughs. I disagree. Actually, I oppose furloughs on both constitutional and pragmatic grounds.
First, the Constitution. If it means anything (and these days, that seems open to question) the Constitution of California set up a divided executive branch. Unlike the Federal government, California has 11 officials elected independently of the governor. The drafters in both 1850 and 1879 had concerns about an all-powerful executive and wanted to add checks and balances beyond the three separate branches of government.
The Board of Equalization, where I serve, and the other Constitutional officers, do not answer to the Governor. He cannot order us to give a taxpayer a break, nor can he order us to audit a taxpayer who has crossed him. In other states and in the Federal government, I believe that both have happened. (Think of Nixon’s infamous Saturday Night Massacre as an example of an executive wielding inappropriate power of the employees of another agency.)
It is a virtue that the tax board is independent of these pressures. This is why I have urged our Board to join in opposing the Governor’s furlough order because it breaks down the wall of independence. If the Governor can order our employees, without our consent, to go home, then he can make other orders that further dilute our freedom to do our job without interference.
While I do not always agree with Controller John Chiang, and wish that Tom McClintock or Tony Strickland had been elected to that post, I do support his independent powers to question orders. Imagine that McClintock had won. What would he have done if Governor Davis had ordered him to reduce the pay of his employees? McClintock would have been outraged, raised all these Constitutional issues, and waged a very public battle over the need for the Controller to act independently of the Governor’s political concerns.
We can debate whether a divided executive is good government management practice. But in California, it is what our Constitution established, and as long as it is there, it is important to me that our Constitutional officers each are able to serve as a real check and balance.
Second, the pragmatism. I do not want to put government on a diet; I want to do drastic surgery. Furloughs represent one-time savings. No one is laid off. No unit is shut down. No government program, mandate, or work is stopped. As soon as the furlough order expires, government will balloon back up again (just like me after ending one of my diets).
Rather than shrinking everybody’s pay by 9.2%, I prefer reducing the state workforce permanently by 9.2%. And I prefer doing this with some forethought rather than straight across-the- board. We all know there are some government programs that are not effective. We all know there are many government programs that are lower priority. We should take advantage of this fiscal crisis to reduce and reform California government. Shrinking the pay of all existing state workers accomplishes no reforms and does not help the next Governor of California address the ongoing over-spending.
Our Board of Equalization acknowledges that there is a budget crisis. I have been urging, and I believe that all my colleagues agree, that we reduce our budget. We just disagree with the Governor on how this should be done. I want to cut our budget by 10%. I want us to be more efficient and serve our customers– the taxpayers– with fairness and promptness, knowing that our California businesses are the true tax generators and tax collectors for state and local government.