I remember the night last year when Mike Bowers, a trucker with a long history of mental illness and convictions for spousal abuse and other crimes, committed suicide by gunning his semi truck at over 60 miles per hour around the side streets of Sacramento and slamming it and himself into the south side of the State Capitol. At around 9 PM, after a long legislative session on the state budget, I had left the Capitol and drove back to Auburn. Later that night watching the local news, my wife and I saw in amazement as the firemen battled the huge fireball that was blackening the Capitol building where I had been working only a few hours before. Luckily, because the attack occurred late in the evening, no one was hurt. However, it will cost $16 million in taxpayer funds to repair the damage. That's a pretty good chunk of change, but it could have been much worse. Just think, what if Bower's truck was carrying gasoline or other explosive material instead of condensed milk?

I have been curious about the lack of security at the State Capitol as compared to the White House, the U.S. Capitol, and other federal buildings in Washington D.C. It seems that federal officials have taken the numerous attacks by suicidal truck bombers for the last twenty years more seriously than our state officials. In my view, the State Capitol, with over one million visitors a year and many priceless historical exhibits, certainly qualifies for extra protection. I thought that surely after a truck had actually slammed into the State Capitol that Governor Davis and legislative leaders would call an emergency meeting and revive the idea, first suggested by Governor Wilson in the 1990s, to build a four-foot, tasteful but sturdy wrought iron fence around Capitol Park. The wrought iron fence would be modeled on the architectural style of the 1890s and would blend in with neoclassical Capitol. The wrought iron fence could be built with openings wide enough for pedestrians but narrow enough to block unauthorized vehicles. There would be no obstacles for the lunch-time joggers and walkers.

But nothing happened. No concrete actions were taken to protect visitors and the people who work in the Capitol. The fence proposal was attacked by legislative leaders as a threat to democracy because it would apparently prevent "the people" from having access to their representatives. No one thought to rebut that perhaps the $1,000 fundraisers are a bigger obstacle for "the people" in gaining access to their legislator than a small but sturdy iron fence without gates.

And then the Capitol began to take on some aspects of the Theater of the Absurd. The Secretary of the Senate sent out a comforting email to all inquiring minds, that, yes, the little black cat that hangs around the entrance of the south side of the Capitol had survived the truck attack. That was a relief. And, more oddly, the Capitol's tour guides started taking visitors to the south side of the Capitol, now encased in scaffolding, chain link fencing, and tarps, to show the senior citizen tourists from Wichita and the third-graders from a John C. Fremont Elementary School where the truck attack occurred. That's something to be proud of.

And then the terrorist attacks of September 11th occurred. But again the idea of building a fence around Capitol Park to stop truck bombers remained, in the eyes of some, a grave threat to our democratic institutions. Instead, concrete planter boxes filled with beautiful yellow and orange chrysanthemums have been placed on all the walkways leading up to the Capitol building. But there's only one problem. Unfortunately, this plan - I call it the "Chrysanthemum Security Policy" - assumes that terrorists and mentally deranged truck bombers won't drive on the grass. Yes, one doesn't have to be a security expert to plainly see that planter boxes placed only on the walkways will do nothing to deter the determined truck bomber from simply driving around the planter boxes on the grass and parking their vehicles of destruction and death where they want. Perhaps our leaders believe that no civilized or uncivilized person would dare drive on the grass, mess up the work of the gardeners, and risk the $100 citation and misdemeanor charge.

But there is really a bigger issue involved here for all of us. Is the lack of concrete action to enhance the security of the Capitol somehow emblematic of the leadership's approach to statewide security problems? The security of the Capitol is important but what about the security of the state?

Soon after the September 11th attacks, Assembly Speaker Hertzberg tasked a variety of policy committees to hold hearings around the state on how to respond to a possible terrorist threat to our residents and to our vital infrastructure like airports, water supply, the electricity grid and bridges. The committees were also to investigate whether our county public health departments, labs, and hospitals are ready to respond to a bioterrorism attack. These committees will report their recommendations at 1 PM on December 17th in the State Capitol. But the question foremost in my mind is whether the Governor and Legislature will take concrete actions to increase the security of California residents. Or will their actions, like the "Chrysanthemum Security Policy" writ large, look good on the surface but in reality do nothing to protect the lives and property of California residents? We will sound find out.

Copyright 2001 The Auburn Sentinel