Legislators Met Secretly to Vote Themselves Benefits

SACRAMENTO —  State legislators have met behind closed doors to vote themselves at least $1 million in special benefits during the last 2 1/2 years, including free airline tickets, car phones and a life insurance plan, according to top legislative staff members.

The Senate and Assembly Rules committees--which have authority over a wide range of legislative spending--have met in private at least 93 times since 1987 to make decisions on internal legislative affairs. Usually, the meetings were held without public notice or an announcement afterward of what decisions were made.

And on one recent occasion, the entire 80-member Assembly abruptly withdrew into a closed session to discuss whether legislators’ driving records should be withheld from the news media.

Some critics of the Legislature question whether the closed-door meetings violate a state law prohibiting secret sessions. The California First Amendment Coalition, an alliance of journalism organizations, is considering suing the Legislature to halt the practice.

At the very least, the critics contend, it is a violation of the public trust for legislators to meet behind closed doors and decide what benefits they should receive.

“What are they hiding and why do they feel they need to hide?” asked Jon Kotler, a professor of media law at USC who serves as counsel to the First Amendment Coalition. “It might be legal, but it certainly isn’t proper. It stinks.”

There is no public record of what subjects were discussed at any of the closed meetings of the two Rules committees. In the case of the Senate panel, there is not even a record available to the public indicating when the committee held executive sessions.

After reporters recently questioned whether the minutes of the meetings had been altered, both committees acknowledged deleting material on the secret meetings from the information they released to the press.

Staff members of both Rules committees, however, acknowledged in interviews that the panels had voted privately to spend state funds in a variety of ways that benefit state legislators.

Among its closed-door decisions, the Senate Rules Committee voted to pay for senators’ weekly air travel back to their districts at a cost of $134,000 since 1987; increase the senators’ car allowances at a total cost of $54,000 since 1987, and provide a life insurance plan that so far has cost taxpayers $164,000.

Car Telephones

Similarly, the Assembly Rules Committee has voted to pay for the special purchase of car telephones for Assembly members at a cost of at least $121,000 since 1987; increase car allowances at a total cost of $82,000 so far, and finance weekly air travel between the legislators’ districts and the capital at an estimated cost of $268,000.

Attorneys for the Legislature have consistently maintained that it is legal for the Assembly, the Senate, a party caucus or any legislative committee to meet in private without informing the public.

Although the law prohibits the full Senate and Assembly from voting on legislation in private, lawmakers can meet behind closed doors to discuss any issue they wish and decide how to spend money on their own operations, the Legislature’s lawyers say.

As legal justification, Legislative Counsel Bion M. Gregory pointed to a rule adopted by the Legislature in 1987 that says, “Each committee . . . of either house in accordance with the rules of that respective house . . . may meet at any time . . . in public or executive (private) session, and do any and all things necessary or convenient to enable it to exercise the powers and perform the duties herein granted to it.”

Gregory went on to conclude that the closed-session rule also applies to meetings of the full Senate and Assembly. In an April 12 opinion, he said, “Either house of the Legislature, meeting as a committee of the whole, may meet in executive session at any time unless the house is meeting for the purpose of voting on a bill, or amendments to a bill, in which case the meeting is required to be open to the public.”

The rules for state lawmakers are quite different than those that apply to local government officials in California. The Legislature has passed strict open-meeting laws, including the Brown Act, that prohibit local government agencies from meeting in private except for specific purposes, such as discussing personnel matters or pending litigation.

When writing the open meeting laws, however, the Legislature has been careful to exempt itself from their provisions. For the most part, the Legislature’s meeting procedures are governed by rules the legislators themselves adopt.

“There really is something special about a legislative body,” said Joseph Remcho, an attorney recently retained by the Senate Rules Committee to advise lawmakers on the closed-meeting issue. “What’s special about it is that by majority vote they can determine how they will operate.”

Recommend Better Ways

Nevertheless, controversy over the closed sessions has prompted Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), who chairs the Senate Rules Committee, to ask his staff to recommend better ways to handle the closed sessions.

Assemblyman Lloyd Connelly, a liberal Democrat from Sacramento, called on the Assembly Rules Committee to end its practice of meeting in executive session to approve expenditures that personally benefit members of the Legislature. While it may be legal for the committee to meet behind closed doors, he said, it is not appropriate for lawmakers to vote privately on their own benefits.

“As a matter of public policy, votes should be cast in a public way and recorded publicly,” the assemblyman said. “Ultimately, a democracy only works if the public knows what’s going on.”

The issue of closed meetings first arose in March when the Assembly suddenly recessed one day and went into private session. At the time, the Assembly had been preparing to debate a major bill to ban military-style assault weapons.

It turned out, however, that the closed-door meeting was held to discuss whether the Assembly should attempt to block a request from the San Jose Mercury News that the Department of Motor Vehicles provide the newspaper with the driving records of state legislators.

The Assembly decided not to take action, but the closed meeting inspired the Mercury News to begin examining the issue of secret legislative meetings. It also prompted the newspaper to ask the First Amendment Coalition to consider taking legal action against the Legislature.

According to legislative records, closed sessions of the full Assembly or Senate are rare. The March meeting apparently was the first private Assembly meeting in more than a decade.

But as a matter of routine, the Democratic and Republican members of both houses of the Legislature meet frequently in closed party caucuses.

It was at such closed caucus meetings in August, 1987, that the Assembly Democrats and Republicans agreed to spend $106,000 a year for life insurance, according to Bob Connelly, chief administrative officer of the Assembly Rules Committee. After receiving word that both party caucuses approved the plan, Connelly said he proceeded to arrange for the purchase of double indemnity life insurance that pays $250,000 to an Assembly member’s heirs upon the lawmaker’s death.

Over the last several years, however, most such decisions on legislative expenditures have been made by the Rules committees of both houses meeting in private.

In fact, after the Assembly purchased life insurance for its members, the Senate Rules Committee soon followed suit by adopting its own life insurance plan with similar terms.

Since the beginning of 1987, the nine-member Assembly Rules Committee has met 13 times in closed session.

“We have held no meetings in executive session that are not authorized by state law,” said Assembly Rules Committee Chairman Tom Bane (D-Tarzana). “They generally deal with sensitive personnel matters. We don’t violate the law when we meet in executive session.”

During the same period, the five-member Senate Rules Committee has held 80 executive sessions, most of them after the panel’s regular Wednesday meetings.

Cliff Berg, executive officer of the Senate panel, said all of the meetings were permitted by law and the Legislature’s rules.

“There are certain things that traditionally have been done in executive session,” Berg said. “The vast majority of the items are personnel matters, security issues, litigation and the internal management of the Senate.”

The Senate Rules Committee meets in executive session far more than its Assembly counterpart, largely because authority is spread among more members in the upper house.

For instance, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) has the power to name committee chairmen and committee members, assign offices and staff, and approve all out-of-state travel. In the Senate, those decisions are made by the bipartisan Rules Committee, not any one individual.

Last summer, the Senate Rules Committee voted behind closed doors to help out four Democratic senators who wanted to go to court to challenge Proposition 73, the initiative approved by voters in June to limit the size of campaign donations and honorariums that legislators can receive.

So far, the legal bills from the suit filed by Sens. Diane Watson, Bill Greene, Art Torres and Bill Lockyer have cost the taxpayers $80,000--and the case has not yet been resolved.

For years, legislators have groused about the high cost of maintaining two households and traveling frequently between their districts and the capital. A legislator’s salary is $40,816 a year and they receive a tax-free allowance of $88 per day most of the year.

Until 1987, most lawmakers used campaign funds to pay for travel back to their districts. But that year, first the Assembly Rules Committee and then the Senate Rules Committee voted in private to have the taxpayers pick up the tab for those trips.

In the Senate, the additional travel has cost the state $134,000 so far, according to Berg. The Assembly Rules Committee, however, could not provide figures for the increased cost. Based on the extent of travel in the Senate, the increased air travel in the Assembly--with twice as many members--cost taxpayers an estimated $268,000.

To help members make ends meet, both committees have also voted regularly in private to increase the amount of money the taxpayers pay to lease cars for lawmakers. In late 1986, the Senate Rules Committee voted in private to increase the senators’ allowance from $350 to $400, and then voted privately again in 1988 to increase it to $450. Similarly, the Assembly panel agreed behind closed doors in 1987 to increase the Assembly car allowance from $350 to $400.

Meanwhile, the Senate Rules Committee decided in private that senators could purchase car telephones out of their regular office budgets. The Assembly Rules Committee, however, voted privately to spend additional funds to buy car phones for Assembly members who wanted them. So far, 58 members of the Assembly have purchased car telephones at a cost of $70,000--with those phone bills running more than $10,000 a month.

“It really doesn’t make any difference (what is done in executive session) because eventually it hits the press anyway,” Assembly Rules Committee Chairman Bane said. “So whatever is done in executive session doesn’t make any difference.”

But Kotler, the USC professor and First Amendment Coalition attorney, called such rationalization for secret meetings “outrageous.”

“Closed meetings are a slap in the face at the voters of this state,” Kotler said. “Who’s working for whom here? It’s really one of the most arrogant abuses of power in the California Legislature.”

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AGENCY Senate Rules Committee (has met in executive session 80 times since January, 1987) ACTION TAKEN Approved purchase of life insurance plan for Senate members COST TO STATE $164,000 between February, 1988, and June, 1989 AGENCY Senate Rules Committee ACTION TAKEN Approved weekly air travel for senators between their districts and the capital COST TO STATE $134,000 between August, 1987, and April, 1989 AGENCY Senate Rules Committee ACTION TAKEN Approved increases in monthly car allowance for senators COST TO STATE An estimated $54,000 between January, 1987, and April, 1989 AGENCY Senate Rules Committee ACTION TAKEN Approved payment of legal fees for four senators seeking to overturn Proposition 73, the 1988 initiative that limits campaign fund raising. COST TO STATE $80,000 since mid-1988 AGENCY Assembly Rules Committee (has met 13 times in executive session since January, 1987) ACTION TAKEN Approved weekly travel for Assembly members between their districts and the capital COST TO STATE Estimated $268,000 since spring, 1987 AGENCY Assembly Rules Committee ACTION TAKEN Approved purchase of car phones for Assembly members COST TO STATE Estimated $121,000 (for purchase of 58 car phones and payments for cellular service from December, 1988, through April, 1989) AGENCY Assembly Rules Committee ACTION TAKEN Approved increases in car allowance for Assembly members COST TO STATE An estimated $82,000 between January, 1987, and April, 1989 AGENCY Assembly Democratic and Republican caucuses ACTION TAKEN Voted to purchase life insurance plan COST TO STATE $181,000 between August, 1987, and May, 1989