Legislative Interview Kit

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA Legislative Interview Kit Legislative Interview Reports Are Due February 29, 2012. Legislative Interviews 2011/2012 Every year, the LWVC encourages local League members to interview their state legislators. This is an opportunity for legislators to share their priorities with League members and to learn about League positions and priorities. Local League members can learn more about how some state legislative actions are going to affect their communities. The LWVC, in turn, learns more about the legislators and more about local Leagues and their legislative interests, and gains information useful in planning statewide activities. Legislative interviews are particularly important because League visibility will be increased and the members of the Legislature will be more aware of our interest in the legislation they will be considering. Use this interview to become better acquainted with your legislator and to emphasize to him or her that the League is always nonpartisan but that it is also political and takes positions on issues after thorough study and consensus. Which Districts the New or the Old? Please interview your existing legislators the ones currently in office, using the district lines from the last election. We ll start using the new district lines after the 2012 election. Changes from Previous Years We are continuing a few changes from previous Legislative Interview Kits that were made last year: - The questions leave a time for you to ask about an issue or issues of local interest. - In the past, local Leagues were assigned to individual legislators, and, when there are multiple Leagues in a district, one League was designated to take the lead in coordinating among the local Leagues. This year, Leagues are being asked to coordinate among themselves. If you each wish to schedule separate interviews, perhaps because you have different issues to discuss with a particular legislator, feel free to do so. If you choose to schedule a separate interview, please keep any other Leagues in the district informed of your plans. - In the past, we have stressed the importance of speaking personally with the legislator. While it is important to try to get an appointment with the legislator, it can also be extremely difficult for some Leagues, and at the same time, there can be great value for a

2 local League in establishing a good working relationship with the local office staff of a legislator. Use your own judgment, and use the legislative interview time to cultivate that relationship. The Legislative Interview Team League members should take the time to prepare themselves for the interview with their legislator. The interview project is a short-term project that should include two preparation meetings, the interview and a wrap-up meeting. (One of the planning meetings should be face to face if possible.)! Planning/assignment of roles and responsibilities! A briefing to review one another s roles at the interview and the question topics to be asked.! THE INTERVIEW! Post-interview wrap-up and review of the report to be sent to the LWVC and presented to your membership. This should happen as soon as possible after the interview. State legislative districts often encompass more than one local League. You may want to arrange to meet along with one or more of the other local Leagues in your legislative district. However, recognizing that Leagues within a given legislative district may have very different issues their members are interested in, it is no longer required that local Leagues try to arrange a single meeting within each legislative district. If you would like to arrange to meet with your legislator in the company of another League or Leagues in your legislative district, the LWVC Resource Directory 2011-2012 lists all of the local Leagues in each district. No matter how you arrange to interview your legislator, be sure to keep other Leagues in the district informed of your plans. Interview Etiquette Be prepared. Study the background materials and the substance of the topics covered in the interview questions. Follow your assigned role on the interview team. Opinions expressed should be only those of the League, not of individuals. Do not overstay your welcome. Secure the legislator s permission and specific conditions under which you may print any part of the interview in a VOTER or other newsletter.

3 Assembling an Interview Team Teams of three to five members are ideal. Coordinators should try to include:! at least one person with a long-term League background! a member with a history of working with the legislator! members well-versed in the program items covered by the questions! a new member on the interview team if accompanied by experienced League members. Suggested roles and responsibilities: Team Leader! Make the appointment; contact the legislator's local district office. Be persistent. Ask for an hour's time, but accept less if necessary. If possible, arrange to meet in an office or a home free of distractions. If you cannot get a meeting with the legislator, ask to meet with the district director. They are often extremely well versed about everything going on in a district and in the Legislature. Your visit will still be noted and remembered! Send a letter confirming the appointment, mentioning either the topics or the actual questions you will use. (Do not send a copy of the Background or the Legislative Interview Report Form sections of this kit.)! Brief the members of the team on interview etiquette, the role each member will take in the interview and their responsibilities as an interview team member.! Lead off the introductions at the start of the interview and invite League members to introduce themselves.! Pace the interview (watch the clock) and tactfully keep everyone (including the legislator) on the subject. You will know in advance how much time the legislator has agreed to spend with you, and allot an appropriate amount of time to each question.! Write a follow-up thank you after the interview. A thank you note gives you an opportunity to underscore points made at the interview, answer any questions you were not sure about, or send a League publication you may have referred to during the course of the interview.

4 Researcher! Brief the other members of the interview team on the legislator's relationship with the League and his/her voting record. What are his/her committee assignments and/or leadership positions in the Legislature?! Is the legislator a member of the League?! Check the LWVC Bill Status Report for information about bill(s) your legislator authored. You may want to take a moment to express the League's appreciation or disappointment about a particular bill and briefly state the League s position.! The information you develop should become part of an ongoing file about each legislator. Background Briefer! Brief team members on League positions and history on the interview question topics.! Lead a discussion with team members about the background information on question topics and the substance of the interview questions.! If your legislator is new or does not know the League well, plan to spend some time talking about the mission of the League and briefly explaining the difference between the League's advocacy and education roles. Explain how we take positions on issues.! Bring along appropriate League publications to give the legislator. In addition to the Action Policies and Positions 2011 and your League's business card, you might include local Facts for Voters or a similar publication. Recorder! Have the interview questions in front of you.! Make note of bills or policy objectives mentioned by the legislator.! Make note of requests for information or League materials from the legislator.! Write up the material from your notes promptly.! Conduct a debriefing with team members shortly after the interview.! Return the completed Legislative Interview Report Form to the LWVC office by February 29, 2012. Responses received by this date will be the most useful for action on League priorities. Electronic Reporting If you wish, you can fill out the Legislative Interview Report Form online here.

E-Mail Reports E-mailed reports should be sent to advocacy@lwvc.org with a subject line of Legislative Interview Report 2011-2012. Please give the information requested on the report form at the end of this packet. 5 If you have any questions about the interviews, please contact LWVC Vice President for Advocacy and Program Helen Hutchison, hhutchison@lwvc.org, or LWVC Senior Director for Program/Advocate Trudy Schafer, tschafer@lwvc.org. Basic Resources Legislators; Assembly Districts; Senate Districts LWVC Legislative Bill Status Report LWVC Budget Reform Information California Legislative Analyst s Office California State Controller s Office California Department of Finance

6 Questions Question #1. California Budget: California has both a problem with insufficient revenue for the programs we would like to support, and an ongoing problem with the actual process of passing a budget. What measures would you support to balance the budget? What measures would you support to change the budget process? Note: It is quite likely that you will touch on both of these issues in your discussion, but feel free to focus on one or the other, depending on the interests of your representative and/or your local League. Please take this opportunity with your legislator to ask about concerns your members and community have about state programs or budgets. BACKGROUND BALANCING THE BUDGET: Executive Summary, The 2012-13 Budget: California s Fiscal Outlook From the Legislative Analyst s Office, November 2011 For the full report go to: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/bud/fiscal_outlook/fiscal_outlook_2011.aspx This report provides our projections of current-law state General Fund revenues and expenditures for 2011-12 through 2016-17. Economic Recovery Even Slower Than Expected One year ago, we wrote that the U.S. economic recovery was progressing more slowly than previously expected. Once again, we have to make the same observation. While the economy has some bright spots, including export growth and strength in technology-related service sectors (which are important to California), weakness in the housing market continues to affect both the construction industry and the financial services sector. The end of the federal fiscal stimulus program and declining governmental employment also are limiting economic growth. In this forecast, we project continuation of this slow, arduous recovery, with California s unemployment rate remaining above 10 percent through mid-2014 and above 8 percent through the end of 2017. LAO Revenue Forecast Would Translate Into $2 Billion of Trigger Cuts Our updated assessment of California s economy and revenues indicate that General Fund revenues and transfers in 2011-12 will be $3.7 billion below the level assumed in the 2011-12 budget package passed in June. Under provisions of the 2011-12 budget package, this revenue shortfall would translate into $2 billion of trigger cuts to various state programs. (This includes all of the Tier 1 trigger cuts and about three-fourths of the Tier 2 trigger cuts.) The Director of Finance will determine the actual amount of trigger cuts to K-14 education and several other programs next month based on the higher of this 2011-12 revenue forecast and the forecast of the administration. Our expenditure forecast assumes that this amount of trigger cuts is implemented in 2011-12 and maintained throughout the forecast period.

7 Estimated 2012-13 Budget Problem of $13 Billion $3 Billion Deficit at End of 2011-12. The net effect of (1) the lower projected revenues for 2011-12, (2) the trigger cuts, and (3) the expected inability of the state to achieve about $1.2 billion of other budget actions as well as a few other minor changes would leave the General Fund with a $3 billion deficit at the end of 2011-12. $10 Billion Operating Shortfall for 2012-13. In 2012-13, the state will face increased costs due, in part, to the expiration of a number of temporary budget measures adopted in recent years. Most notably, under our forecast methodology (which does not incorporate any effects from a possible November 2012 ballot measure concerning taxes), General Fund Proposition 98 costs as well as settle-up payments to schools are projected to rise by $6 billion in 2012-13. Moreover, in 2012-13, the state must repay the $2 billion Proposition 1A property tax loan that was used to help balance the budget in 2009. We forecast that the General Fund s 2012-13 operating shortfall (the difference between annual General Fund revenues and expenditures) will be $9.8 billion. $13 Billion Budget Problem to Solve in 2012. Accordingly, we project that the Legislature and the Governor will need to address a $12.8 billion budget problem between now and the time that the state adopts a 2012-13 budget plan. Projected Out-Year Imbalances Gradually Decline One year ago, the state faced ongoing budget imbalances of around $20 billion per year. Now, we forecast that the General Fund s operating shortfalls will be between $8 billion and $9 billion per year in 2013-14 and 2014-15 and then decline gradually to about $5 billion in 2016-17. By making very difficult budgetary decisions including the trigger cuts the Legislature and the Governor have strengthened the state s fiscal condition considerably. Big Challenges to Face...Even With a Lower Deficit Forecast Our forecast assumes no inflation increases for many state programs and assumes that the trigger cuts and most other recent program reductions remain in place in future years. Even under this modest budget scenario, the state faces an ongoing, multibillion dollar annual deficit, even as state revenues expand. Our forecast assumes that many billions of dollars of state budgetary and retirement obligations remain unpaid through at least 2017. Conclusion The Legislature now faces a much smaller budget problem than projected one year ago and the smallest projected out-year deficits since before the 2007-2009 recession. Unfortunately, there are few easy options left for balancing California s budget. Difficult program reductions already have been passed, and significant one-time budget actions may be more elusive than in prior years. Accordingly, the remaining work of eliminating the state s persistent, annual deficit will require more difficult cuts in expenditures and/or increases in revenues. If, however, the Legislature and the Governor were to eliminate the state s ongoing annual budget deficit this year or over the course of the next few years, the focus of their efforts could finally shift away from short-term budget problems and turn to the serious long-term fiscal issues of the state s accumulated budgetary obligations and unfunded retirement liabilities.

8 BACKGROUND REFORMING THE BUDGET PROCESS: Californians unhappy with a state budget process that produces chronically late budgets full of accounting gimmicks, borrowing, and one-time fixes have proposed a number of measures to improve the process. Many lay the blame for the failure of our finance system on the requirement of a two-thirds vote to raise revenues, and until recently, to pass a budget. Over the years, a number of measures, both initiatives and legislative constitutional amendments, have been proposed to change the two-thirds vote requirement to 55 percent or a simple majority for passing a budget, raising taxes, or both. Until the passage of Proposition 25 in 2010, California was one of only three states that required a two-thirds vote for the budget in all circumstances. The legislature can now pass a budget with a simple majority vote but still needs a two-thirds vote to increase taxes. Those favoring elimination of the two-thirds vote rule (including the League) point out that it gives a minority the power to overrule legislators elected by a large majority of California voters. By essentially taking tax increases off the table, it makes balancing the budget with both spending cuts and revenue increases almost impossible. Even in good budget years, legislators of both parties are put in unreasonable negotiating positions, and the result is often a deal that may be far from the best policy for the common good. (Those on the other side of the issue believe it important to give a voice to the minority and to protect taxpayers from an increased burden.) The two-thirds vote requirement also causes an imbalance in the rules concerning tax expenditures tax credits, deductions, special rates, exemptions, etc. Although such tax breaks can be enacted with a majority vote in the legislature, they can only be removed by a two-thirds vote because doing so raises taxes for certain taxpayers. Thus attempts to close loopholes or end special treatment of favored groups are easily stymied. Another problematic area is ballot-box budgeting, the adoption by the voters of measures that limit state or local revenues or mandate spending on particular programs, severely limiting the flexibility of the legislature and the Governor to set funding priorities and respond to changing needs. In response, a variety of pay-as-you-go proposals would require major program expansions (proposed by the legislature or by the initiative process) to have a source of funding, either through new revenues or through savings or cuts in existing programs. Similarly, a proposal to reduce taxes would have to identify an accompanying program reduction. A strong reserve fund is a valuable source of adequate funding and flexibility in hard times. However, proposals to require automatic transfers of funds to the reserve and limit the circumstances when the funds can be used must be carefully scrutinized. The LWVC opposed Proposition 1A on the May 2009 ballot because it would have tied the hands of the legislature and Governor as they faced increased needs for state and local government services and could have locked in a reduced level of services as the economy recovers. Another area where fiscal reform is needed is the state-local relationship. Various measures have limited the state s ability to balance its budget by borrowing or diverting funds from schools and local governments, a considerable source of friction and difficulty in recent years. Other proposals would

provide reliable, secure revenue sources and increase local governments ability to raise new revenues or reallocate existing ones by local vote. Another proposal drawing considerable interest is a two-year budget cycle, with focus on the budget one year and on other legislation or legislative oversight of existing programs the next. Although many of the reforms under consideration would require amending the state Constitution, a number of others could be accomplished by passing a statute or even amending the rules of the legislature. Among these is performance-based budgeting, with resources allocated based on achieving specific goals or outcomes identified by departments along with the performance measures that will be used to determine whether progress is being made. Another is the expansion of multi-year forecasting such as in SB 15, enacted this year. 9 Question # 2. Initiative and Referendum Process: Do you believe that the current initiative and referendum process in California is in need of reform? If yes, what reforms would you support? BACKGROUND: There is material on proposed reforms to the initiative and referendum process on the LWVC Initiative and Referendum Web page (http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/issues/initiative-and-referendum.html) and a more detailed page of initiative and referendum resources on our members only Web site. (League members should contact the LWVC office if they do not know how to access our members only site.) We ask that League members do not use the interview to try to educate legislators about reforms at this point; please just elicit their ideas for reform, and what they would support. Question #3. Local League Question(s) about issue(s) of particular local concern Question # 4. What other major issues do you think the Legislature must deal with in 2012? What are your personal priorities?

10 LEGISLATIVE INTERVIEW REPORT FORM 2011-2012 FOR LEAGUE USE ONLY Please complete and return this form to the LWVC office by February 29, 2012. Keep a copy for your files. In addition, please send a copy to every local League and MAL unit in this legislator's district. (Consult pages L3-L7 and pages F3-F9 of the LWVC Resource Directory 2011-2012 for listings and addresses.) Name of legislator Senate/Assembly District Number Date of Interview Brief description of district (e.g., urban, suburban, rural, socioeconomics, major city): Name of person reporting Phone E-mail Member of LWV of Names of local Leagues represented at the interview Please report the legislator's responses to the following questions. Use additional pages as necessary. 1. California Budget: California has both a problem with insufficient revenue for the programs we would like to support, and an ongoing problem with the actual process of passing a budget. What measures would you support to balance the budget? What measures would you support to change the budget process?

11 2. Initiative and Referendum Process: Do you believe that the current initiative and referendum process in California is in need of reform? If yes, what reforms would you support? 3. Local League Question(s): 4. What other major issues do you think the Legislature must deal with in 2012? What are your personal priorities? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS (use additional page if necessary)