Tony Fellow: Fed up? Let's change state government

Thank God! Someone finally understands the problem!

Yup, he nailed it...

Tony, I'm intrigued by this line: "Let's face it, the only real leadership in California lately has been provided by the heads of these institutions of higher learning."

This is factually incorrect. I'm curious to see what you *think* Chancellor Reed has done for the CSU or for CA? Faculty, staff, and even a reasonable number of administrators know that he is not an advocate for us and has completely soured working relationships.

Oh wait a minute, I forgot that your wife is Clara Potes-Fellow, official spokesperson for the CSU (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/clara-potes-fello... ), so some effective marketing/propaganda is in order.

Due diligence...

I suspect Mr. Fellows has hit on the real solution to our state government problem. Let's get rid of all the "Professional Politicians" and go back to a time when government was about the people and not special interest. People that have real jobs and appreciate what it is like to work for a living would not be so interested in raising taxes and fees at every opportunity.
90% of the laws introduced in California are for the benefit of a small group of people and basically restrict the rest of the citizens. Of course that is why people give money to these dead beat politicians in California. I really believe a $1,000 a month and one 90 day session a year would allow the government to work at running the state instead of making rediculous laws to please special interest.
Maybe we should start an initiative to do just that.

CSU Prof wrote:

Tony, I'm intrigued by this line: "Let's face it, the only real leadership in California lately has been provided by the heads of these institutions of higher learning."
This is factually incorrect. I'm curious to see what you *think* Chancellor Reed has done for the CSU or for CA? Faculty, staff, and even a reasonable number of administrators know that he is not an advocate for us and has completely soured working relationships.
Oh wait a minute, I forgot that your wife is Clara Potes-Fellow, official spokesperson for the CSU (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/clara-potes-fello... ), so some effective marketing/propaganda is in order.
Due diligence...

Aww, what is the matter teach? Did the boss say "no" to the spoiled union faculty staff too many times?

CSU Prof raises a valid point. I haven't seen the Chancellor or my local U Pres (Rosser) take any sort off "leadership" role, be it on the budget or on any issue of statewide importance. They've simply folded to the governor's agenda.
I also take issue with Fellow's playing fast and loose with the facts. "Isn't it interesting that our professional legislature is unable to pass a budget on time even when one party has control of the government."
What government is Fellow talking about? In California, we have a Democratic majority in the legislature and a Republican governor. That's not one party.
Also, the budget rules require a 2/3 majority in the legislature. So even Democratic "control" of the legislature does not apply when it comes to budgeting.
Fellow is setting up strawmen and then knocking them down.
Contrary to what Fellow writes, overly restrictive term limits are at the heart of the budget impass. It's no coincidence that the years of permanent budgetary crisis have coincided with the full implementation of term limits. If lawmakers in Sacramento are spending "more time fundraising with one eye focused on a seat in Washington," it's because they know they are term limited out of Sacramento. And if Fellow thinks Washington lawmakers are "basically ignored by the media," he's just parroting the SGVN company line.
Washington's covered by myriad news outlets. There's competition to get out the story there. This is in contrast to the quasi-monopoly the SGVN exercises in the San Gabriel Valley. Anyone who thinks favored lawmakers in DC get a pass in comparison to favored municipal politians in the SGV hasn't been reading the SGVN for very long.

I have not seen evidence of the leadership lauded by Fellows. In fact I have not seen any leadership by anyone.

I believe that it is time for the state to file bankruptcy. This would be an excellent time to start over. This way we might actually find out where the money goes. I do not believe that any elected official knows where the money goes.

CSU Prof wrote:

Tony, I'm intrigued by this line: "Let's face it, the only real leadership in California lately has been provided by the heads of these institutions of higher learning."
This is factually incorrect. I'm curious to see what you *think* Chancellor Reed has done for the CSU or for CA? Faculty, staff, and even a reasonable number of administrators know that he is not an advocate for us and has completely soured working relationships.Oh wait a minute, I forgot that your wife is Clara Potes-Fellow, official spokesperson for the CSU (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/clara-potes-fello... ), so some effective marketing/propaganda is in order.
Due diligence...

Due diligence should be put to work by the electorate of this state. An administrator of any public institution of learning is at a severe disadvantage when dealing with faculty. In times of controversy, tenured faculty will most likely remain while decent administrators will be removed. Arse kissing of faculty has become a way of life for many administraots in order to keep their job. Hopefully if this one has some guts, he will withstand the tenured storm of attacks, and a chain of command will prevail.

LOL makes me LOL.

Just a reminder: We're supposed to be talking about leadership in the state. Please save your anti-intellectual attacks for another day.

Tango Kilo wrote:

CSU Prof raises a valid point. I haven't seen the Chancellor or my local U Pres (Rosser) take any sort off "leadership" role, be it on the budget or on any issue of statewide importance. They've simply folded to the governor's agenda.
I also take issue with Fellow's playing fast and loose with the facts. "Isn't it interesting that our professional legislature is unable to pass a budget on time even when one party has control of the government."
What government is Fellow talking about? In California, we have a Democratic majority in the legislature and a Republican governor. That's not one party.
Also, the budget rules require a 2/3 majority in the legislature. So even Democratic "control" of the legislature does not apply when it comes to budgeting.
Fellow is setting up strawmen and then knocking them down.
Contrary to what Fellow writes, overly restrictive term limits are at the heart of the budget impass. It's no coincidence that the years of permanent budgetary crisis have coincided with the full implementation of term limits. If lawmakers in Sacramento are spending "more time fundraising with one eye focused on a seat in Washington," it's because they know they are term limited out of Sacramento. And if Fellow thinks Washington lawmakers are "basically ignored by the media," he's just parroting the SGVN company line.
Washington's covered by myriad news outlets. There's competition to get out the story there. This is in contrast to the quasi-monopoly the SGVN exercises in the San Gabriel Valley. Anyone who thinks favored lawmakers in DC get a pass in comparison to favored municipal politians in the SGV hasn't been reading the SGVN for very long.

Please the press is only intested in Washington congressmen if the seat opens and if they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. How many San Gabriel Valley people in Congress have been that effective? Read Peter Clarke's Covering Congress.

Mr. Fellow's article on Sunday July 5, 2009 was completely correct. I like the idea of a nonpartison state government and a part time legislature. California is sinking and all they come up with is another commission this time for blueberry's. They have no common sense in Sacramento. They haven't even tried to reduce the size of our government with all is commissions. They just cut back on the workers who actually work and who the people need like EDD and DMV etc..

Political Watchdog wrote:

<quoted text>
Please the press is only intested in Washington congressmen if the seat opens and if they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. How many San Gabriel Valley people in Congress have been that effective? Read Peter Clarke's Covering Congress.

I don't have to read that book. I can read about Congress in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Congressional Quarterly, Time, Newsweek, and about a hundred other papers, magazines or websites that cover Washington. It's all there if you want to read it.

Washington DC is under a million microscopes compared to our local city government. Locally, as long as you keep the editorial board of the SGVN happy, nothing bad will ever be written about you.

Our local city governments are filled with do-nothing-but-whine city council members who glide under the radar, taking dozens of trips all over the nation every year at taxpayer expense
and doing nothing worthwhile for their cities.
The cities are more bankrupt as Sacramento. For some (El Monte, Pico Rivera, etc), that's AFTER they've imposed big new sales or utility taxes that Sacramento can't impose on their own. They can't handle traffic and they can't handle development.

City government is no model for what we need in Sacramento.

While the part-time legislature sounds intriguing I'm afraid that the new members can and would do as much damage in 90 as they curently do in 130.What California really needs is a limit to the power of the State government, a 10th Amendment clone stating that the real authority lies in the Counties along with state legislators who will only act accordingly.All State owned properties must be turned back to the respective Counties along with all but 1% of the income taxes. There is already much duplication of efforts between State and Counties.The Counties would then deal with the respective Cities contained therein.That way if San Diego County wanted to drill for oil the State would have nothing to say. The Counties would handle DMV issues, etc.Otherwise, unless there is a major change, the status quo would prevail, Sacramento would still mandate school textbooks, etc, still dictate Medi-Cal, etc. still control our everyday lives.The State would maintain a Supreme Court for Superior Court review with the Governor's office there as a arbitor, so to speak, for disputes among Counties.Like I said earlier, a part-time lagislature is too simple.