Speaker Hertzberg On The Record: Term-Limited, But Leadership Nonetheless

Mr. Speaker, you're entering your final months as Speaker of the

California Assembly. Your last interview with the MIR in August 2000 was titled, "Hertzberg's Ambitious Agenda Is Restoring State Legislature's Capacity to Govern." Looking back, were you able to accomplish much of that mission?

As someone who has spent most of his life on the outside of government, one of the parting notions I have as a result of serving in the State Legislature is how much actually gets accomplished. It's really mind numbing.

In Sacramento we've been able to establish a good sense of institutional memory. The Capitol Institute is now training every member of the Legislature, top to bottom. And if a staff member wants to move up from one level to the next, they also must be trained.

On a national level, the Assembly's new Washington D.C. Office has proved to be extremely effective in establishing a concrete connection between California and DC, particularly during the negotiations with the federal government on electricity. It was indispensable in that regard.

And even internationally we've become more of a player. Because of the new Office of International Relations and Protocol more than 83 countries have visited California in the last 10 months. That means that businesses and political leaders from around the world have come to visit and exchange ideas about trade, policy and governance. That will be a very important part of California as economies continue to globalize.

Given the events of 9/11 and the popularity of New York City's Mayor, the issue of term limits and whether anyone can truly make an institutional difference when they are hindered by such a short term has again come into question. Reflect on the limitations and the needs for institutional change.

It's a tough situation, but institutional reforms work if they're not based on personalities. Reform must fundamentally address the dynamics of what's happening. Certainly the people who started this country spent a few years developing a framework that turned out to be effective for generations.

I believe that a good number of the structural changes we were able to make during my tenure in moving from the personality-based Speakership to a new, institutionally based Speakership will survive. Time will be the true test, but it seems that this framework has caught on with the newer members.

During your tenure in the Legislature, especially during your Speakership, we've obviously experienced some unexpected crises-energy, terrorism, budget issues, etc. Does the State have the capacity to manage crises today? Does governance have the wherewithal to manage the crises that have buffeted the state in the last two years?

We have the world's fifth largest economy, but our governance structure doesn't reflect that. It just hasn't matured at the same rate.

And, there's incredible innovation and creativity in the state. California has drawn the best and the brightest from around the world. And because of that, I have confidence that we will find a way to correct the problems that have curtailed our government's effectiveness and help our governance structures mature.

As of right now there are still a number of issues that distress me, but they're survivable and we're moving in the right direction.

You acknowledge the problems inherent in state governance. But an even larger problem is that this state's culture basically believes government is trivial. Yet all of a sudden, "boom" Sept. 11 and everyone begins to say, "Well maybe it is important." What can we do, either inside the Legislature or outside, to rebuild the institutional capacity of governance after 20 years of thinking of it as trivial?

Throughout history, there have been fluctuating trends where government becomes more or less important. I grew up at a time when government was more important and people had great confidence in it. However, my early days as Speaker proved that that confidence had waned. Today however, even before Sept. 11, things were beginning to change. And I believe we're now in a position where the role of government is more important than ever.

My Speakership is just one example of that shift. I could've used the position to build a career and grab headlines. But instead I developed a governance infrastructure to train the next class. That's counter-intuitive to the historic notion of what politicians have done, but directly in concert with what politicians should be doing.

These were not flashy issues. They were long-term Pat Brown-esque issues. Issues of water and the relationships between the Imperial Valley, San Diego and the Metropolitan Water District. Issues of competition and the marketplace, crime labs and education. Those aren't issues that give you kudos today. All of those things are counter-intuitive to what people thought term limits were going to bring.

With respect to term limits, I would postulate that if you look at the energy crisis and ask, "where did the ideas come from to solve this mess?" Or, "Who was willing to take action versus be obstructionist?" Both answers would show you the differences between the old guard and the new.

Let's focus on that energy crisis. It looks as if we may have come to a resolution here, finally. What are the lessons learned from that? Some have said that Bob Hertzberg's Speakership is a billboard for "No good deed goes unpunished." Tell me what you've learned trying to manage our way through this crisis.

The political structure was not designed to solve this kind of crisis. This was a business crisis, plain and simple. And having the political structure deal with a business crisis is very difficult. But as I look back, more important than the resolution might be the lessons learned.

Huge policy questions were addressed successfully in this situation. Dozens of bills were passed relating to expediting power plants, siting power plants, creating an energy plan for the State, not to mention the biggest conservation package in the nation. It wasn't just one bill; it was a number of executive orders and it was a series of measures through a regular session and two extraordinary sessions.

However difficult this experience was, both on legislators and the people of California, we dealt with it. And in the larger sense, may have created a framework so that it won't be repeated. Some of the greatest financial experts in the nation are saying that California was just ahead of the curve when it came to electricity. Because of this situation, we might just be poised to continue our economic growth as other states continue to deal with their experiments into deregulation.

What has been the economic impact on the budget of the State of California? Has the inability to sell the bonds knocked most of your agenda to the side?

The impact has been large. And it has, and will, affect the economy. We spent $850 million on the conservation component of this plan when we could have spent it on health care or infrastructure. I'm very concerned that if we don't issue energy bonds, the economic impact we're already feeling in California will be magnified dramatically.

Let me go off on a tangent re: bond finance. You've been carrying the next education bond under your name. The LAO issued a report last spring that basically said the school facilities allocation process from the state is a broken process and needs to be fundamentally changed. But it got less than 1 hour's hearing in the Legislature. Are we going to do more of the same? Or is there a chance we can fundamentally change this process?

We should not be spending such a lion's share of our state budget paying for the operational costs of school funding. It's dysfunctional, it doesn't work and it's not intelligent.

To combat that we're looking at possibly creating some regional authorities that deal with the issue of construction, so school boards can teach and deal with performance and not worry about whether the buildings are constructed correctly. They'll site a school, go to the authority and it will get built.

However that's only a piece of the puzzle. The allocation is another area that needs reform. It's been hotly debated in Northern California and in the Capitol because the last bond allocated 50-percent for new schools in suburban areas and 80-percent for urban infill schools. The problem is urban schools didn't have enough land or time and they didn't get adequate financing. We're trying to fix that so all school districts get a fair allocation.

Lastly, we have to start thinking more about integrating services into the schools. Schools in conjunction with parks, health care and libraries can begin to truly make education the heart of a community. That verbiage must be in this new school bond.

You mention infrastructure as a key component to schools and bond funding. Before the 9/11 crisis, there was much talk about what the state could do with respect to critical infrastructure investment. There was a task force the Governor had, there was a Treasurer's Office report, the Speaker's Commission had some interest in this. Has 9/11 relegated these ideas to the back burner? What is the game plan going forward to invest in the critical infrastructure that supports the 5th largest economy in the world?

The only way you grow is to continue to invest. It's our obligation to continue to push and exhibit confidence in our state's future. That's why I'm going to push the bond for seismic safety of hospitals, etc. Whether it's crumbling schools, lagging transportation systems or fixing our water infrastructure, leadership demands that we push investment and we push hard.

But where do these priorities sit after Sept. 11? The State is going to reallocate money causing localities to have even less. Where do the State's leadership priorities sit in this new fiscal world that we have post 9/11?

I don't believe that 9/11 will cripple the State. There's still enough money to keep our priorities. To stop now, at a time when we're starting to finally move on key issues, is simply not good planning.

In fact, Sept. 11 has proven that now is the time to invest and make sure that people continue to work. That's what dynamic economies do. They continue to invest even in the hard times. It is unacceptable to stop and retreat into a cave. All that will do is exacerbate the underlying problem. Now is the time, more than ever, to step up to the plate and invest.

On Nov. 1 the LAEDC, in conjunction with the L.A. County Board of Supervisors and Mayor Hahn, will host an Economic Summit for the County's 88 Mayors, State Legislators, U.S. Senators and Representatives, etc. to try to think about strategies to restart the economy and regain our equilibrium. The process is being replicated in the Bay Area and other regions in the State of California. What should be the agenda, given the fiscal and economic crisis that's evolved from 9/11? What would you put on the plate? What can localities do? What can the business community do? Can we speed up capital expenditure programs? What are some of the things that play themselves out that have a role for the State, the locality, as well as the federal government?

By all indications, the impact on the upper echelon of business entrepreneurs in our State will be negligible. But I'm worried about the people in the service sectors who are losing their pay and don't have any savings. I'm worried about the impact on the bottom of the economy.

I have created a Speaker's Task Force on the Impact of Terrorism, made up of the chairs and vice-chairs of 11 of our standing committees in the Assembly. The job of the task force is to engage in a top-to-bottom review of how the terrorist attacks are affecting California, and to recommend appropriate changes in policy.

To deal with those people most at risk of losing their jobs and their incomes, we must continue to focus our commitment to growth, planning, vision and infrastructure. We can't merely look to additional tax credits and the like to stimulate investment. We need to continue working on the highway programs, keeping people employed and building what's necessary for a vibrant economy.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal impact of an economic downturn plus the added costs of security are going to be huge burdens on localities and an even larger burden on counties, who provide the safety net services. When unemployment goes below 6%, their budgets go to havoc. What do you suggest, looking forward 6 months, that localities can be thinking about in terms of how they respond to the fiscal crisis they just inherited?

Certainly after the events of 9/11, there's a period when localities must be focused on security and regaining a certain level of confidence. But I think the time is quickly approaching when we will have to take a step back and begin to take a more rational approach to security and investment post-Sept. 11. We need to understand the risks of our new political and social climate and divide our resources accordingly. Is it more important for us to cover the aqueduct? Or is it more important to develop systems to test the water? Is it more important for us to worry about a biological weapon? Or should we create a methodology to track the mail, or hazardous material trucking operations? Where do we put our resources?

I don't want to jump to any conclusions yet. But there's going to have to be some decisions about where we put our money and I would argue that it is best spent in infrastructure investment.

The Feds are going to have the money to fund these infrastructure projects you speak of. Yet the criticism of California's delegation for years has been that we don't have the focus and collaboration necessary for our very large delegation to have much impact in Washington. What can be done in linking the agendas of the California Legislature and local governments with the federal and congressional delegations in Washington? How can we make the best use of whatever resource stimulation packages come out of Washington in the months to come?

You touch on a very important issue. Under the Clinton Administration, every time one of the Cabinet Secretaries came to California, they brought a check. Now we have a situation where there are tensions between the governments in California and Washington. But because we're such a big part of the economy and population, to get stuck with the short end of the stick right now in our time of need is unacceptable.

To make sure that that doesn't happen we need to strengthen the relationship between the administration and our congressional leadership. That would be the most intelligent thing to do. And it seems like a practical approach.

Bob, again, the Speakership changes in February. You end your 6-year term at the end of next year. You're a young man with tremendous talent and a lot of respect. Give us some insight in to what you're going to be doing.

I started in politics long before I got elected. I'm a believer in the system and when I'm through I want to come back to Los Angeles. I want to be a part of my community. I want to be involved in campaigns and community activities and try to be one of the forces in Los Angeles that looks at problems and tries to come up with creative solutions to deal with them.

Politically, I'm going to keep my options open to run for Attorney General in 2006, or possibly for another position at the State level. But one thing is clear, I will always be someone who is very much a part of the community and someone who is always very involved in civic affairs. That's very important to me.