In the late 1970s, a few years after the post-Watergate "reformers" in the US Congress broke the hold of a few curmudgeons who had served as autocratic committee chairmen since time began and widely dispersed power by creating 172 new subcommittees and subcommittee chairmanships, veteran Congressman Morris Udall (D-Arizona) joked with a reporter that whenever he would approach a newly elected Democratic Congressman, whose name he hadn't yet mastered, he would simply say, "Good morning, Mr. Chairman." Udall knew, because of the creation of so many new subcommittee chairmanships, that about half the time he'd be right.

Like a little brother who has learned all the bad habits of his older brother and then takes it to the next level of juvenile delinquency, the California Legislature has, with zest and vigor, been creating new committees with seemingly no adult supervision. While the California Legislature is made up of 120 legislators (40 State Senators and 80 Assembly members), it has amazingly, at last count, 167 committees. When the Creator instructed us to "be fruitful and multiply," I have a funny feeling that the Almighty wasn't talking about the Legislature's committee system.

Since 1849, when the first California Legislature convened, the State Senate and Assembly have managed to conduct all their business with about a dozen standing committees. But with the election of a new Assembly Speaker and Senate Pro Tempore every few years, these new leaders somehow feel compelled, to create a couple of new committees rather than prioritizing the issues of weightiest importance to the public and requiring that the legislature focus its attention only on those. The Assembly now has 29 standing committees while the State Senate has 25 standing committees. And although most of the 101 Select Committees and Subcommittees never meet, each has a Chairman and a budget. It might be all worth it if the Assembly Select Committee on the Aging of the Baby Boomers, produced a thoroughly researched report with a one-word conclusion - "Yes!"

My favorite new standing committee in the Assembly is the Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media Committee. I call this the "Fun Committee," for short. And although hundreds of bills have been referred to other 28 standing committees, the "Fun Committee" has received only two bills so far. AB 2218 (Keeley) would create a Ski Safety Commission to develop uniform hazard signs to be posted at all ski areas. This will help ensure that it is absolutely clear to every skier and snowboarder that running into pine trees and other immovable objects is not recommended. And then there is AB 2789 (Lowenthal), which would require the state licensing of Athletic Trainers. There may be some hard questions on the licensing exam about whether, as soon as it's clear that the championship is at hand, it's appropriate to pour a big bucket of Gatorade over the Coach's head. Frankly, I feel a little sorry for the new Chair of the "Fun Committee." Crafting legislation in this area may not provide an ambitious politician with an E-Ticket to the Statesmen Hall of Fame.

Although I have made some light of what appears to be a highly dysfunctional committee structure in the Legislature, I have to stop laughing when I think hard about this problem and come to the disturbing conclusion that this committee structure actually has a clear purpose. And it's a purpose that is far from the intentions of the founders of our country and state. The ultimate purpose of the current committee structure seems to be more about squeezing "juice" - campaign funds - from special interest groups than crafting wise public policy. The formation of more committees means that each bill must pass through more tollbooths than the New Jersey Turnpike. And when numerous members are assigned to "juice committees," like the Governmental Organization Committee, which regulates gambling, alcohol, and tobacco, the regulated special interests and industries feel compelled to protect their interests by contributing money to all the members of this bloated 23 person committee.

Is this anyway to run a deliberative process? A freshman legislator told me a few days ago that he had been assigned to two committees that meet at the same time. Is it right to expect him and other legislators in the same situation to run through the halls of the Capitol Building, from hearing room to hearing room, catching bits and pieces of testimony here and there, to make a deliberative choice in casting his vote when it would have been impossible to hear the debate?

The latest dismal trend is for legislative leaders to publicly announce the names of legislators who as "committee chair designees" will "assume their responsibilities in the future." In effect, this creates a number of "Shadow Chairmen" and "Shadow Chairwomen." This novel "juice extraction method" is effective because the special interest groups never know when these "Shadow Chairs" will actually assume their official duties. From the view of a special interest group, it is probably wise to pay the protection money to both the official Chair and "Shadow Chair." This little maneuver allows the Legislature to double its money.

The Legislature's leadership created the system of Shadow Chairmen and the Juice Committee Machine, and they can eliminate them tomorrow. Will they? It would certainly take statesmanship. Why should we settle for less?

Copyright 2002 The Auburn Sentinel