In a letter to James Warren on April 22, 1776, John Adams wrote, ‘‘All great changes are irksome to the human mind, especially those which are attended with great dangers and uncertain effects.’’ Today, Californians are seeking change in the way their government operates. Voter-approved initiatives of the last 20 years show a citizenry frustrated with their government. Proposing a new way to do things is never easy. The reality we do not like often looks better than a new way that might bring a better, yet uncertain future.

As we prepare for the next century, it is clear that the public agenda must include a review of the way our government works. Our current state and local government structure is the outgrowth of a constitution that was adopted in 1879. At that time, the state’s population was about 800,000. Today, the population tops 32 million, and all of the forecasts show continued growth. As the state’s population continues to grow and become more diverse, the private sector changes and adjusts to new environments and conditions. But our governmental structure has not changed. We have basically the same governmental structure we had in the nineteenth century and that government has grown significantly. Today, California has more than 7,000 units of government—including school districts, cities, counties and single purpose agencies—led by more than 15,000 local elected officials.

The year 2000 is approaching quickly. We must prepare for the next millennium and begin reviewing and revising our governmental institutions to meet modern conditions. This will not be simple. But despite the uncertainty that change brings, it is clear that changes in California’s system of state and local government are necessary.

In 1994, in an effort to develop reasonable and workable ways to reform our government, the governor and legislature appointed the 23-member California Constitution Revision Commission. The Commission was asked to do the following:

• Examine the structure of state government and propose modifications that will increase accountability.
• Analyze the current configuration of state and local government duties and responsibilities and review the constraints that interfere with the allocation of state and local responsibilities.
• Review the state budgetary process, including the appropriate balance of resources and spending; the fiscal relationship between federal, state, and local governments; and the constraints and impediments that interfere with an orderly and comprehensive consideration of fiscal issues.
• Consider the feasibility of integrating community resources in order to reduce duplication and increase the productivity of local service delivery.

In May 1994, the California Constitution Revision Commission began holding meetings, hearings, and community forums across the state. The Commission received comments and proposals from both the general public and experts with knowledge of specific issues. Those comments focused on the problems with current government structures and procedures and possible solutions to alleviate those problems. After eighteen months of hearings and analysis, the Commission is proposing an agenda for changing the ways in which our state and local governments operate. The Commission’s primary objectives in making these recommendations are as follows:

• Improve accountability and responsiveness of government at all levels from the state to the smallest community.
• Eliminate barriers to efficiency and increase flexibility.
• Assure that the state keeps its fiscal house in order by maintaining a balanced budget.

Indeed, change can be irksome, and we cannot completely predict the outcome. But we do know that the current system is in dire need of change. The Commission believes these recommendations represent an opportunity for positive change in California’s governance system. Only through major changes can we hope to create a better system and a better state for all Californians.

via California Constitution Revision Commission | Download the Full Report

blue ribbon commission budget process collaboration executive branch initiative process legislative branch outcomes realignment term limits