Majority Whip Fiona Ma Details State Assembly's Agenda for Recovery

The question on everybody's mind in California is whether the state government is becoming almost irrelevant to addressing, much less providing resolution for, the state's pressing needs. Are the fiscal dilemmas too overwhelming to allow the Legislature to be effective?

I don't believe that is the case. California is within the top ten economies at the moment. The issues are complex and require thought. Obviously, 120 of us represent different parts of the state, with different needs and different priorities. Some things don't come together as quickly as some would like.

Last year I don't think anyone would have predicted that the financial crisis would translate into so many different areas, whether the financial markets, home-mortgage foreclosures, or the auto industry. California has had a structural deficit over many years but we have managed to overcome some of those struggles when the economy was strong. When the economy takes a downturn is when we start having problems.

Similarly, in the water area we have also had a structural water deficit problem. We haven't been able to prepare for a rainy day, so to speak. When we face the third year of a drought, again, those issues come to the forefront and need to be dealt with. These are obviously huge problems that affect every Californian and we are trying to deal with it in the most thoughtful and expeditious way.

The Bay Area Council is now asserting that a state constitutional convention is needed if structural reform is to be addressed. Is there a need for structural reform of state government?

There is always need for reform. To the extent that the Bay Area Council, Bob Hertzberg, and others, like California Forward, can make these needed reforms, is good for California. Many of the constitutional amendments and laws that are in place were done by voter initiative. The only way to reverse some of those decisions and laws is to go back to the voters. To the extent that these folks are mobilizing grassroots voters to overturn some of the laws from the past is a good thing.

You're on the Assembly's Select Committee on Rail Transportation. Elaborate on high-speed rail and the promises of the Obama Administration. What are your hopes and expectations regarding high-speed rail?

Assemblymember Mike Davis heads the select committee on rail. He has been very active in supporting rail and rail projects but not necessarily high-speed rail. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has been the leading agency to move the ball forward. I just came back from Washington D.C. and met with the administration, namely Joel Kravatz, who is the deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy. We've seen very positive responses from the administration. The fact that California passed Proposition 1A in November 2008 puts us ahead of the other ten corridors vying for stimulus funding. The president of the High-Speed Rail Authority is Kurt Pringle, who is the Mayor of Anaheim. He has been a stalwart supporter of high-speed rail and has been doing a yeoman's job of making sure that we capture as much funding as possible, that we keep the project on track, and that we inform people of the progress so that we can ensure that California has a first-class high-speed rail system, just as the president envisions.

The federal government is about to award funds for high-speed rail corridors. When might California know if it has been selected to receive this funding?

There are four tracks of funding right now. Track one is for inter-city passenger rail projects. Track two is for high-speed inter-city passenger rail development programs. Track three is for service-planning activities. Track four is for fiscal year 2009 appropriation projects. Right now California has applied for track one and track two funding. California applied for track one on August 24, submitting a statewide funding application for conventional inter-city rail projects. The feds should award track one applications as early as October 2009. For the high-speed rail projects, applications are due by October 2. They should announce the awards in December 2009.

There are some unresolved questions in Northern California pertaining to the route from the San Joaquin Valley into the Bay Area. Do you have views on this alignment?

Deciding what the alignment is going to be has been at least a ten year process that has gone through many years of community meetings. An alignment through the Altamont Pass, up through the peninsula, was in Proposition 1A. There are issues right now. Some of the cities on the peninsula have concerns with speed, grade crossings, and traffic issues. Others want the line to go through the Pacheco Pass but the High Speed Rail Authority feels that we are in good position to proceed with the route that has been passed by the High-Speed Rail Authority and suggested in Proposition 1A.

You authored AB 153, a high-speed rail clean up, with the support of the San Francisco Metro Transit Authority. Is that bill still alive? Is it still needed?

It is going to be a two-year bill. We needed more time to educate our members on why we need this clean-up bill. It is basically to clarify some of the provisions in Proposition 1A. The authority feels that there are some loopholes that could potentially be exploited if we didn't tighten up the language and clarify the intent. The bill isn't an absolute necessity, but it could avoid litigation in the future.

You serve on the Assembly Select Committee on Regional Approaches to Addressing the State's Water Crisis. This session the Legislature could not pass a water bill. How dire must the water crisis be to motivate Legislative action?

I am also on the Agriculture Committee and keenly aware of the drought problems that are facing farmers across the state. The select committee held our first meeting down in Orange County to bring together many of the stakeholder groups that are concerned primarily with the Bay Delta water system. We are holding hearings across the state to understand what the impediments are to the flow of water. We were also in Washington D.C. meeting with Deputy secretary of the Interior David Hayes. He has been out to California. He has attended and held town hall meetings. The Secretary has appointed him to lead on all California water issues. He spent about 45 minutes with us talking about the complexities.

The board has some challenges surrounding this. The Endangered Species Act is one of the problems-we have about 700 species in the Bay Delta ecosystem, including 12 species that are listed under either federal or state endangered species laws. Because of this, the release of water for drinking or agricultural purposes has been restricted. The governor recently requested a re-consultation on the salmon and Delta Smelt biological opinion of the federal government. On September 3, the secretary of the interior rejected the governor's call to re-consult. We are continuing to battle the federal government on how we can release some of this water to enable farmers to be viable, allow for drinking water, and preserve the ecosystem and fish life.

Lastly, is it impossible to move forward in the Capitol given the partisanship of the two parties and the power of state's interest groups?

I will give you the background of what happened at the conclusion of the legislative session. Many stakeholders have been working on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan for the last two years. During the last week of session, leadership wanted to come to a resolution. Some of the stakeholders that were at the table were not at the table that week. That was a concern for many of us who represent all parts of the state-there wasn't unanimity; there wasn't agreement. Close to 80 percent of the stakeholder groups said, "We don't know what happened; we haven't seen the bill. We've been left out of the final conversation. Why is everyone rushing this process?" That is why we couldn't put the passage up for vote. It was a 595-page document and as of Friday at 3 o'clock, we still had not seen the bill language.

That is on the policy side. On the other side, for the people who want a bond for storage and more stability and consistency, there was no language drafted. A companion financing measure was not ready to go. As a Legislature we asked the governor to call a special session so that we can come back and hammer out the policy side and the financing side for a bond.

At the tenth hour, as we were approaching the Friday deadline, 80 percent of the stakeholders were not happy. Our San Francisco PUC was concerned about the language that would change the water rights for Hetch Hetchy, for example. We've had certain water rights for over 100 years, and it wasn't clear whether some of these new government bodies had the ability to reverse some of those water rights. East Bay MUD also had some of those concerns. We can still come to a resolution on a compromise package within the next couple of months, if the governor will call a special session.

TPR/MIR Web Exclusive

The Legislature today resembles very little of what it did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s as far as institutional quality and the quality of the staff. Is it unfair to say that term limits have hurt the institution?

Term limits have hurt the institution in terms of developing experienced leaders. In six years it is very hard to develop the expertise needed to lead in a certain arena. Back then people could look to the Legislature. If the expertise was education, you could actually trust that the person was knowledgeable and understood the issues. When you were voting you could trust each other. There isn't that sense of trust and understanding amongst members. Everything is short-term. Your vote today could mean a recall tomorrow. People are watching very carefully; they are competitive. They are focused on seats and it doesn't bode well for compromise, camaraderie, or trust in the institution.

You're part of the leadership in the Assembly as majority whip and have a reputation for competence and intelligence. The public is angry about the ability of the state to deliver on its responsibilities. You are inside trying to do it. Can you share with our readers the challenges of being on the inside and trying to move the ship forward?

California has a two-thirds voter threshold to pass the budget and to raise taxes. That is an obstacle for us when it comes to trying to fix a $42 billion budget deficit. Secondly water has been a very divisive issue, traditionally between north and south. Because it has affected so many of the agriculture industry, it has now become a statewide issue. Trying to get all of the legislators onboard-all 120 who are now directly and indirectly affected by the water crisis-is not the easiest thing. It's like trying to herd everyone.

We would like certain reforms. But with reforms we need two-thirds vote. That means we need six republicans in the Legislature to vote for some of these reforms. As you know, many of them are against changing the tax structure or increasing taxes. We are handcuffed in trying to make some of the constitutional reforms that many of us believe are needed. In terms of a mainstream approach, we cannot legislate and pass laws based on the mainstream. We still need six republicans, who have veered to the far right on many of these issues. They feel like government is not needed-that we can do without government programs and services. Public education and public health is not a priority. It is very difficult to stay true to those core values as we move forward and try to meet in the middle. Clearly we have one party that does not want to come to the middle.

What insight from the Democratic caucus-the one you might eventually lead-can you offer about the dynamics of the Democratic side?

We have more moderate Democrats now in both houses. The pendulum has shifted. Whereas in the past the progressive Democrats were able to take the lead, now we are trying to move to the center to compromise and pass policies. Even in the budget we had to relent to a lot of the programs and services that we have been fighting for for many years, based on the reality that we weren't going to get the votes required to raise taxes. We continue to cut billions of dollars in programs and services. At some point the government may not be there for some of the services and programs that people have depended on. Within the Democratic Party we have accepted that we are at a point where we cannot afford to pay for all of the programs and services where we once had the luxury to do so.

Your leader, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, is from L.A. You're from San Francisco, and these two cities have dominated the politics of the state. Is there a chance that the two regions will connect and work together on water and high-speed rail?

Yes. Term limits have brought many of us closer together. It's not regional issues that divide us anymore; it's how we can move forward as a body. Obviously the fact that we are not able to move as quickly as the public would like weighs on us to work more closely together and compromise. We have an opportunity to compromise more than past legislators.

Talk a little bit about the contest for leadership in the Assembly that is coming up because of the term limit requirements of Karen Bass.

We are going to be electing a new speaker next year. There are a few of us who have publicly expressed interest in becoming speaker. Right now it looks like a number of them are from Southern California. I am the only one from Northern California. Ms. Bass sat us down and asked us to not actively work on the speaker's race, that we would have a timeline and this was not the time to divide the caucus. We should focus on the legislative session. We still have big issues like education, water, and tax reform to work on through the end of this year. She said that next year would be the appropriate time to talk about and elect a new speaker.

Is it possible that in this election might allow two representatives from Northern California to fill the leadership roles, where those roles were usually split between Northern California and Southern California?

The traditional rules have changed. People are looking for the best people to lead, whether it's for the caucus or the committees. Given that many of us have just been elected, we haven't had the opportunity to become experts. We have been learning on the job as quickly as possible. I also say that Sacramento is not San Francisco. That's like saying that San Bernardino is Los Angeles. My colleagues hopefully will look to elect the person with the most experience and vision and someone who people feel they can work with.

What about your service and experience has helped you the most so far in your tenure in Sacramento and will continue to help the future of your political career?

First off, I am a CPA by training. I have done tax work in my past. I have the ability to understand budgets, financial statements, and economics. I have an MBA as well. Those things have been very helpful in my political career. Prior to serving in the Assembly I served on the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco for four years. San Francisco is the state's only city and county, therefore I have dealt with both city and county issues. We had a $6 billion budget. I sat on the Budget Committee and understand how cities and counties work. I also worked for Senator John Burton for over seven years before I was elected to the local board. To understand how the state works and the relationship of the state to the local is of value. Also, working under such masters as Mayor Willie Brown, the longest speaker in the history of the State Assembly, gave me an understanding of the importance of the Legislature.

California is a global economy. China is our number one trading partner. I have been leading delegations to China over the past ten years. Understanding the international relationship and where California is as the eighth largest economy are traits that I would bring to the speakership.