With so much going on in California politics, I try to focus my commentaries on those items that I think have some significance. But today I will exhaust a few paragraphs of text talking about what I consider to be a non-issue that has been raised in the campaign for Governor – at least it is not an issue that should impact the candidates for office. The ABC affiliate in San Francisco in recent days ran a piece on the news that drew attention to the high costs to taxpayers for the California Highway Patrol to provide law enforcement protection for the state’s constitutional officeholders.
Obviously there is a very high price tag on protecting our celebrity Governor. But according to ABC7 reporter Dan Noyes, in the last fiscal year alone, the CHP spent just over a million dollars guarding the five constitutional officers — $224,193 for Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, $139,954 for Treasurer Bill Lockyer, $172,225 for Secretary of State Debra Bowen, $309,436 for Controller John Chiang, and $214,335 for Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.
Noyes raised the question about whether Constitutional Office holders who are running for office should be reimbursing the state treasury for additional costs associated with CP protecting them as candidates.
Among others question, Noyes’ asked Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner about whether he would reimburse the state for law enforcement costs associated with providing protection to him while traveling to events on the Gubernatorial campaign trail. Poizner responded that he is the Insurance Commissioner 24/7 and that he would not be writing a check to cover these costs.
I agree with Poizner’s position on this matter. I think that the ABC7 story raises some questions about the costs associated with ensuring the safety of our Constitutional Officeholders – and there should be a forensic analysis done of the costs, and there should always be care that protection is being provided in the most economical means possible that does not compromise the safety of the officials. Any protection beyond the most basic level should be based on a dynamic threat analysis model.
It is a reality that public officials who should be afforded protection often need that protection in public places that are not associated with their professional duties. I remember going with then-Speaker Gingrich to Disneyland once, and he had all kinds of law enforcement protection there. Recently President Obama and the first lady went on “date night” in Manhattan – he didn’t get to give the Secret Service the night office.
If someone wants to engage in a public policy debate over whether the statute that requires that the state provide protection for its Constitutional Officers should be repealed or modified, then the legislature should hold hearings and everyone can contribute their ideas.
But expecting Constitutional Officeholders to repay the treasury for protection because some of it takes place at campaign events doesn’t make any sense. As Poizner correctly points out, he can’t change the fact that he is always the Insurance Commissioner, no matter where he goes .
The only reason I even am writing about this is that following the airing of the ABC7 piece, the campaign of Meg Whitman, through spokesperson and FR friend Sara Pompei said, in part, that “Only a Sacramento politician would demand taxpayers foot the bill for his personal security detail at partisan campaign events while the state faces enormous budget shortfalls. If Commissioner Poizner is serious about reducing state spending, he’ll reimburse the state.”
I think this Gubernatorial campaign presents a lot of opportunities for Whitman, Poizner and Jerry Brown to engage on a lot of substantive issues. But asking Poizner to pay for protection that comes with his job, and that is provided at a level decided not by him but by CHP officials, is not one of them.
Obviously this is a point of principle for Poizner. His vast personal wealth would easily allow him to pay for these costs out of his pocket. But what about the other Constitutional Officers? It really wouldn’t make sense to say that those elected official who can afford to should pay for their own protection…
Anyways, let’s move on to something, anything more substantive than this
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.