Hot
Topic |
Boards and Commissions in
|
LIBRARY Institute of Governmental Studies University of California 109 Moses Hall #2370 Berkeley, CA 94720-2370 510-642-1472 (voice) 510-643-0866 (fax) |
 |
Boards and commissions became popular instruments of reform in California state government over a century ago, and their popularity has not diminished. Boards and commissions typically have appointed members, and this is their attraction. As appointive bodies they are sheltered from electoral politics to some extent, and are therefore perceived as well suited for some advisory and policy making roles.
Over the years the terms "board" and "commission" have been used interchangeably in California state government, but in public administration circles the distinction is sometimes made that boards have part-time citizen appointees and commissions have full-time appointees with expertise in the work at hand. A few California boards and commissions derive their authority from the state constitution, but most are created by statute. Some are advisory to the governor or other constitutional officers, or to the legislature, and others have true policy making and regulatory powers. The governor makes most appointments to boards and commissions, but legislative leaders also make appointments to some. In the commentary on state boards and commissions the focus is generally on formal bodies established by statute, especially on long-standing bodies funded by the General Fund.
The number of state boards and commissions in California has steadily increased. By 1958 there were 128, according to a report1 of the Senate Interim Committee on Governmental Organization. By 2004 the number had risen to over 300. Governor Schwarzenegger's California Performance Review examined 339 boards and commissions in its report.2 The California Performance Review is the latest in a series of studies scrutinizing boards and commissions on issues of effectiveness, accountability and cost.
1. Organization of the Executive Branch of State Government, Feb. 1958, p. 24.
2. A Government for the People for a Change, vol. 2, p. 121-139.
The case for boards and commissions rests essentially on the claim that they are structurally insulated from the pressures and temptations of normal electoral politics and are therefore disposed to serve the public interest in an unfettered way. The archetype appointee is a public spirited, experienced and knowledgeable citizen contributing unbiased analysis and expertise to decision making. The structural insulation of broads and commissions makes them attractive options for dealing with highly sensitive and controversial issues that the regular political process does not handle well and that elected officials would rather avoid. Boards and commissions are also valued as venues for open government. Advocates contrast the public board/commission meeting with the backroom decision making of politicians. And, in general, boards and commissions are valued for broadening citizen participation in government.
A common criticism of boards and commissions is that they have proliferated in state government without much thought as to their appropriateness. A further criticism is that oversight of existing boards and commissions has been lax. The end result, critics say, is that California is now burdened with a multitude of commissions of dubious value. Many boards and commissions have paid appointees and staff, many with impressive salaries, and critics balk at the cost. Further, critics say, the ideal of appointees as selfless, public spirited citizens is not matched by the reality. Often, appointees are former elected officials and their associates, and appointments are rewards for loyalty and service to office holders. Critics also fault boards and commissions as undemocratic. Appointees are not accountable to the voters as are elected officials, and with several thousand appointees dispersed over several hundred boards and commissions, responsibility is diffused and unclear, and media scrutiny is minimal. A consequence, critics claim, is that some boards and commissions become captives of the interests they are charged with overseeing and regulating, and the public interest is not served.
Outside the legislature a succession of ad hoc and standing bodies, both public and private, have reviewed California boards and commissions over the years. The typical review includes evaluative criteria, an inventory and analysis, and recommendations as to which boards and commissions should be retained and eliminated. The major reviews from the 1970s onward are listed in the next section.
Following is a selection of post-1970 reports on California boards and commissions. The reports are listed in reverse chronological order.
- California. Governor (2004- : Schwarzenegger).
A Government for the People for a Change: Governor's Reorganization Plan 1: Reforming California's Boards and Commissions. Sacramento: Governor's Office, 2005. 51, [4] p.- Recommends the elimination of 88 boards and commissions. Governor Schwarzenegger submitted the reorganization plan to the Little Hoover Commission on January 6, 2005. Faced with widespread opposition, the governor withdrew the plan on February 17, 2005.
- California. Little Hoover Commission.
Historic Opportunities: Transforming California State Government. Sacramento, 2004. 34 p.- The commission's analysis of the "reorganization principles" of the California Performance Review. In the section "Boards for 21st Century Government," the commisison notes that "Before determining the fate of specific boards, criteria should be established that would allow policy-makers to make consistent and rational decisions and for the public to understand the basis of those decisions."
- California Performance Review.
A Government for the People for a Change. Sacramento, 2004. 4 v.- This report was prepared at the request of Governor Schwarzenegger. Vol. 2, entitled Form Follows Function, includes an appendix, "Evaluating California's Boards and Commissions," which reviewed 339 boards and commissions and recommended 118 for elimination.
- California. Dept. of Finance.
SB 2374 Review of State Funded Advisory Boards and Commissions. Sacramento, Jan. 1993. 37 p.- SB 2374 is a 1990 law requiring the Dept. of Finance to identify and evaluate all state-funded advisory bodies and to recommend which ones should continue to be funded. 206 advisory bodies were found to be subject to SB 2374. The study concluded that of those 206, 82 should continue and 78 should be terminated; 46 were terminated in 1992 or exempted.
- California. Legislative Analyst's Office.
Criteria for Evaluating Advisory Bodies. Sacramento, Apr. 2, 1990. 3 p.- A three-page checklist.
- California. Legislature. Senate Office of Research.
Advisory Bodies and Task Forces, by Jack Halley. Sacramento, 1990. 10 p. (Briefing paper).- A survey of statutory advisory bodies paid for from the General Fund. Includes a framework for evaluating newly proposed advisory bodies.
- California. Little Hoover Commission.
Study on Boards, Commissions and Authorities. Sacramento, July 1989. 18, [14] p.- A major survey. Lists entities with budgets more than and less than $5 million. Questionnaire included. Some findings: "Statutory boards ... are created without any systematic evaluation of the most effective approach to solving the perceived problem. Few organizations are subject to periodic review subsequent to their creation. Some boards ... have overlapping functions."
- California State Chamber of Commerce.
Report and Recommendations on Use of Boards and Commissions in Executive Branch of California State Government. Sacramento, [1970]. 16 p.- Prepared by an ad hoc committee chaired by Burnham Enersen. Issued with a companion Roster of Boards and Commissions ... (17 p.). The report provides a broad overview of advisory bodies in state government and makes sixteen recommendations.
- California. Office of the Governor.
Volume One, Governor's Appointments. Sacramento, 2003.- A voluminous directory of state boards and commissions. Each entry includes the statutory authority, the appointing power (governor or legislative leader), number of board/commission members, names of appointees, length of term and qualifications for office.
- California. Office of the Governor.
Statutory Index of Positions 2004. Sacramento, 2004.- A list of all the governor's appointments, including those to boards and commissions.
- California Board and Commission Outreach Project.
California Appoints Manual, 1991. Sacramento, Joint Publications Office, 1991.- Sponsored by the California Elected Women's Association for Education and Outreach and supported by the California State Assembly on Rules, this manual is intended as an aid to increase the representation of women on boards and commissions. Not updated since 1991. Includes separate lists of gubernatorial and legislative appointments. The first section offers advice on how to get appointed to boards and commissions.
"Voters narrowly back governor's legislative redistricting plan; Some initial support for other Schwarzenegger reform proposals; Broad dissaproval of a special election if it costs $50-$70 million," Field Poll, Release 2153, Feb. 24, 2005.
"Special survey on the California state budget," PPIC Statewide Survey, January 2005.
See page 10, Special Elections and Political Reforms, for polling on boards and commissions.
"Voters strongly support some of the proposals in the California Performance Review, but strongly oppose others," Field Poll, Release #2126, Aug. 11, 2004.
In the poll 61% agreed with the proposal: "Consolidate many of the state's independent agencies, boards and commissions so that those functioning in the same general areas are merged into fewer, but larger agencies." Republicans favored the proposal by 73%, Democrats by 50%.
The following citations
include links to full-text online when available. For more information, see Tips
for Finding Full-Text Articles.
Citations are listed in reverse chronological order.
All of the 2004-05 citations concern recommendations of the California Performance Review (CPR) and Governor Schwarzenegger's Reorganization Plan 1.
Yost, Phil [Opinion]
"Board reform worth a look, but bigger problems more so," San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 20, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Martin, Mark and Gledhill, Lynda.
"Governor finds trouble at home ... Overhaul plan: He drops proposal to abolish 88 boards," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 18, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Rau, Jordan.
"Gov. pulls plan to abolish panels: Bid to kill 88 boards and commissions -- some regulating high-profile professions -- had drawn intense and diverse opposition," Los Angeles Times, Feb. 18, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Delsohn, Gary.
"Governor to ditch board cuts: He concedes his plan to eliminate 88 regulatory panels needs more work," Sacramento Bee, Feb. 17, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Hubbell, John M.
"Board cuts are a hitch in governor's big overhaul: 88 commissions could be eliminated," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 14, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Yamamura, Kevin.
"Plan to reduce boards bashed: Little Hoover Commission hearing gets an earful from legislators, others about risks in consolidation," Sacramento Bee, Jan. 27, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Furillo, Andy.
"Battle of the boards heats up: foes say governor's plan to cut state panels favors business donors," Sacramento Bee, Jan. 23, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Rau, Jordan.
"Consumer advocates assail Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan to abolish independent regulatory boards called blow to public interest: cabinet member says citizens will have input," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 8, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
"Spare some state boards, panel urges the governor," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 21, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Gledhill, Lynda.
"Plan to cut state boards seen as cutting access," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 20, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Talev, Margaret.
"State overhaul plan blasted: public access would shrink, governor's role rise, critics say," Sacramento Bee, Sept. 28, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
[Editorial].
"Bloating Government," Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA), Sept. 13, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
McGreevy, Patrick.
"Boards and panels add to bureaucratic framework," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 2004.
"A month after a task force appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recommended that 118 state boards and commissions be abolished, the state Legislature has approved the creation of a half-dozen panels and extended the life of 10 others by up to five years."
NewsBank (UCB)
Freeman, Jody.
"Schwarzenegger's power grab: reform proposal would hand many key decisions to the governor's appointees: commentary," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 9, 2004.
"As written, the [CPR] plan would eliminate or convert about 100 of our independent boards and commissions into executive branch departments that report to the governor."
NewsBank (UCB)
Garrison, Jessica.
"California Performance Review targeted areas: consumer affairs: a third of state boards, including those for barbers and horse racing, would be cut: some worry about unregulated businesses," Los Angeles Times, July 31, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
[Editorial].
"Banish state boards," Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA), June 3, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Yost, Phil.
"Recall may have side benefit: biting into political plums: [commentary]," San Jose Mercury News, Nov. 2, 2003.
"Like governors before him, Gray Davis is taking care of his aides, as he goes out the door, by doing what he can to place them in high-paying positions on state boards and commissions."
NewsBank (UCB)
Talev, Margaret.
"Governor moves to fill vacancies: a wave of appointments has followed scheduling of the recall election," Sacramento Bee, Sept. 12, 2003.
NewsBank (UCB)
| Prepared by the staff of the IGS Library. Send comments to igsl@berkeley.edu. |
|