Every year the one task that is constitutionally required of the Legislature is to adopt a balanced budget. This means that in no year can the legislature spend more money than it receives in taxes from you – the taxpayer. For the past several years the legislature has passed budgets that have outspent revenues and have required the voters to pass bonds to cover the excess.

While in the Senate I intend to bring fiscal confidence to the forefront and ensure that your tax dollars are being spent efficiently and judiciously. For more additional information on my initiative to bring fiscal responsibility to this state, please see below:

Problem:

California’s budget is on auto-pilot. Legislators and Californians have no idea where their hard earned tax-dollars are being spent. The budget is debated and negotiated in matter of 6 months where most if not all of the final spending levels are decided behind closed doors.

Solution:

1. Allow more transparency in the budget process by extending the time the Legislature has to analyze and debate the fiscal priorities of the state. Creating a biennial budget will give the Legislature more time to look into the finer details of the budget to root out government waste.
2. By locking in spending limits a year in advance it can allow the state to adjust to any increases in cost-of-living.
   1. Businesses in the corporate world will lock up contracts to ensure that that their costs are kept low and that market forces are not costing the state more to implement their priorities.
   2. It will also ensure that State Agencies and Departments spend their limited resources within the boundaries of their appropriation. It will hold those Directors responsible for spending outside the lines.
   3. It has been said that having a two-year budget cycle will not allow the state to address an emergency situation. The legislature has the authority to adopt appropriation bills with a vote of 2/3 of both houses. If there were ever an emergency that required the legislature to approve an emergency appropriation, it would require the State Agency or Department to justify the nature of the expense and would allow the people to question why their spending exceeded their current limit.

Problem:

California has no way of finding waste or evaluating where state dollars are spent. Taxpayers put money into the state’s coffers with no idea or guarantee that their dollars are spent wisely and efficiently.

Solution:

1. Establish an evaluations agency that is not associated with State Government, such as the Bureau of State Audits to audit and evaluate the current spending of the state to ensure that the dollars being appropriated are being spent efficiently and effectively. California could save millions of dollars knowing that taxpayer dollars are being spent in the manner which they were appropriated.
2. A Bureau of State Audits and Evaluations would create the sunshine that Californians can use to see where their dollars are spent. It would also provide a means to justify how we can give more money back to the taxpayers if we are overspending on unworkable programs.

Problem:

California is facing a tremendous revenue shortfall caused by any number of factors including the housing crisis and sub-prime mortgage markets. This lack of early revenue paints a dark outlook on where this state is headed financially, and we cannot continue to charge the credit card because of out of control spending.

Solution:

1. Asking for across the board cuts of any percentage to all State Agencies and Departments is a difficult thing to ask for. We are talking about paper numbers. How can the taxpayer be sure that the percentage being cut is focused on cutting real state spending and not just papier-mâché? We need an evaluation system to show the real cutting that needs to take place to provide the necessary programs to Californians.
2. The Legislature has never been willing to make the hard choices of reigning in state spending. How do they make such a large cut now? The programs that need to be abolished, and that funding redirected, will never be known without a clear understanding of what programs really work.

It is imperative that we reform the manner in which this Legislature manages its fiscal house. We cannot continue to spend taxpayer dollars out of control. We need to give Californians the comfort that their government is spending wisely and efficiently. I have introduced Senate Constitutional Amendment 7 (SCA 7) and Senate Bill 521 (SB 521) aimed at reforming this very problem. I welcome your support in making California Government spend within its means.

It is the intent of this Constitutional Amendment to change the manner in which the Governor and the Legislature attend to the fiscal matters that confront the state. Currently, the state is required to adopt an annual Budget by the 15 th of June. State agencies and departments submit budgetary proposals to the Governor who releases his preliminary budget in early January with a revision of that proposal in May.

The following bullets are initial components:

1. Amend the State Constitution to allow the state’s budget cycle to be adopted biennially with the following components.
   1. Provides that the Governor must release his preliminary biennial budget in January of every odd-numbered year.
   2. Provides that any revision to that budget be released by January of every even-numbered year.
   3. Requires the Legislative committees on budget to conduct hearings at least once a month on the fiscal proposals that have been presented by the Governor. Those hearings may commence upon the Governor’s release of that budget and must begin by April 1 of every odd-numbered year continuing until the budget has gone to a conference committee or the budget has been adopted.
   4. Retains the existing fiscal year of July 1 – June 30.
   5. Provides that if the state’s budget is not adopted by June 1 of any even-numbered year, the Legislature must devote its resources to the passage and adoption of the Budget. No policy matters may be considered and no policy committees may meet until the budget is adopted.
   6. If no budget is adopted by the Legislature and enacted by the Governor by July 1 of any even-numbered year, total state expenditures shall return to their previously adopted levels from the prior fiscal year.
2. Provides that members of the Legislature shall not draw per-diem or salary until the Budget Act is adopted and that it shall not be retroactive.
3. Provide that by 2/3 vote of each house that the Legislature can convene a special session in any year to address a fiscal emergency. The Governor must declare a “fiscal state of emergency” and call a special session of the Legislature.
   1. If a special session is called in a “fiscal state of emergency” the Legislature shall not call a general session to address policy matters.
   2. General session of the Legislature can be convened by a 2/3 vote of either house.

Double Joined to this SCA, and will not take effect until and unless the preceding SCA is approved by the voters, Senate Bill (SB) 521. This Senate Bill has the following Parts:

1. Merge the Office of Statewide Audits and Evaluations and Performance Review, currently under the guise of the Department of Finance, with the Bureau of State Audits to create a new statewide auditing entity called the Bureau of State Audits and Evaluations.
   1. The main function of this new state entity will be to evaluate and audit various state agencies and programs administered by state agencies and departments.
   2. It will make recommendations to the Legislature and Governor’s Office regarding inefficiencies and failures of state agencies, departments and of programs administered or managed by those state agencies and departments.
2. Provide that each state agency, state department or program administered by a state agency or department be audited on a random basis with each program to be audited at least once in a five-year span.
3. Provide that the audit be performed to focus on the following areas:
   1. Program Management. The ability of the department heads and program managers to effectively and efficiently administer and execute the program.
   2. Program. The effectiveness and success of the audited program. (Does the program fulfill its purpose as proposed and as funded?)
4. Provide that the program audit performed have consequences that affect the management and execution of the program. Exempt “administrators and managers” shall be held accountable for failing programs that:
   1. Are failing to use state resources efficiently
   2. Subjectively, are failing to meet the desired goals or progress the program was meant to achieve.
5. Provide the means or enforcement to terminate or remove an exempt administrator that has not met its performance goals as determined by the audit with the recommendation:
   1. Termination from the program and potentially the termination of the program in general, as determined by the audit.

This termination provision shall not be construed to mean the termination of a state agency or department.