Drive-through lawmaking

Poll after poll has shown that public regard for the California Legislature has fallen to an all-time low. If their so-called public hearings are any indication, our elected representatives in Sacramento have an equally low regard for public opinion.

The drive-through hearing, in which public comment is restricted to as few as eight minutes on legislation under consideration, has gone from end-of-session rarity to commonplace in the state Capitol.

"Some people, God forbid, just want to tell their story and how a bill might help them or hurt them," said Randy Kanouse, a 30-year veteran lobbyist who works for the East Bay Municipal Utility District. "They should have that opportunity."

If they came to the state Capitol in the past two weeks, their chances of being heard in a committee session were only slightly better than hitting the lottery.

In one recent Assembly Daily File, which lists upcoming hearings on legislation, 18 of the sessions imposed severe restrictions on public testimony. Many of them limited input to two witnesses per side, two minutes each. The Senate had four hearings that each limited testimony to two witnesses per side, three minutes each.

"Was this always the case? No, no," Kanouse said. "Anyone who's been doing this work for 20 years or more will tell you: This did not happen 10 years ago."

Frustration with the Legislature's progressively more perfunctory process for making law transcends interests and ideologies. Business and consumer groups, environmentalists and utilities all express concern about the diminishing opportunity for people affected by public policy to have their say at committee hearings.

"You've struck a nerve," said Allan Zaremberg, president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. He bemoaned the many times that individuals and businesspeople who were "willing to sit there waiting their turn" - often having taken the day off from work and traveled many miles to make their voices heard - never got a chance to speak.

The professional advocates I talked with about this phenomenon had a common refrain: Don't feel sorry for us. We can gain access to legislators outside of the hearing rooms. Our concern is for everyday perspectives that are turned away - or turned off after just two or three minutes.

"It drives us nuts," said Doug Heller, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based group.

"Of course, they (legislators) never impose these time deadlines on big-monied lobbyists in the private setting," Heller added. "You don't see them saying to a lobbyist over a T-bone steak: 'You've said enough; your three minutes are up.' "

One huge factor behind the drive-through hearings is the absurd number of bills going through the Legislature. Each of the 80 Assembly members is allowed to introduce 40 in each two-year cycle. That glut results in hearings such as last Tuesday's at 9 a.m. in the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, where 17 bills awaited action - and the room had to be cleared by 1:30 p.m. for the next hearing.

"I feel terrible, as chair, to be a taskmaster in enforcing these rules," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, the San Rafael Democrat who presided over the hearing, which allowed two witnesses on each side, three minutes each. "The only thing worse is to have bills die because we can't get through the agenda. I don't think anyone likes it."

The crunch was particularly acute last week, the deadline for bills with a fiscal impact to clear their houses of origin. But the volume of bills is only part of the problem. Bad time management is also a factor.

As Huffman pointed out, his was among many policy committees that did not hold a single vote on legislation in January or February. He suggested that lawmakers could develop an alternative to this "deadline-driven, poorly scheduled system we have."

There is no doubt about where the blame lies: It is with the ruling Democrats, who have majorities in both houses and could fix these issues without a single Republican vote.

"There are too many bills, and I think we can govern with less," said Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat who has emerged as a champion of legislative reform. He noted that the Assembly would reduce the bill limit by one-third next year.

Not good enough, in my view. I've had countless meetings over the years with Bay Area legislators going through their list of pending bills - and I've never seen one that could not have been reduced by half, or more, without any discernible damage to the state.

Feuer cautioned that the hearing time limits do not necessarily reflect the level of deliberation in the Capitol. He pointed out that most legislators meet with constituents and others affected by their actions. Also, sometimes hearings extend well past the opening testimony, with legislators having a chance to question witnesses and focus on substance.

"It's the give-and-take from which you learn something, not the canned presentations," said Feuer, who cited the Thursday hearing in the Judiciary Committee he chairs as an example of a "very engaged discussion" that followed the brief opening testimony. The subject was mortgage relief legislation.

Still, when lobbyists are voicing heartfelt concerns about a process that works for them but shuts out everyday Californians, there can be no greater signal that something is terribly awry in our representative democracy.

"These rules really disenfranchise the public," said Kanouse, the EBMUD lobbyist. "They are wrong, just wrong."

John Diaz is The Chronicle's editorial page editor. You can e-mail him at jdiaz@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page E - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle