The State of California has many distinctions and ranks highly among the states in a number of categories. U.S. News’ Best States Rankings places California #19 overall. (Across the board: Health care #7; Education #21; Economy #4; Infrastructure #32; Opportunity #49; Fiscal Stability 42; Crime & Corrections 23; and Natural Environment #5.) The 24/7 Wall St. Best and Worst Run States list places California at #14 among its peers.
But numerous state agencies in California do not have reputations for efficient, error-free management or best customer service experience. Tales of long waits at the DMV are common and after passage of Motor Voter legislation, numerous reports surfaced of difficulties in registering voters.
Nonetheless, it was still shocking to read recent reports of up to $2 billion dollars of fraudulent unemployment claims (associated with 640,000 accounts) at the EDD (the state unemployment agency), including an estimated $400 million in “claims improperly filed in the names of inmates in state prisons,” as was this colorful story from the Los Angeles Times:
The stack of cards carried more than $133,000 for unemployment benefits, issued by California’s Employment Development Department under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act passed by Congress in March, according to a five-count federal indictment against Mateer unsealed last month. Many of those cards were in the names of victims of identity theft, according to federal prosecutors.
That Maserati was purchased with some of the unemployment insurance benefits the 30-year-old Pasadena man fraudulently obtained by using stolen identities, the indictment alleges.
A report this week suggested that “the state let its guard down well before the COVID-19 pandemic began in March, failing to keep up with what other states have done to flag bogus claims.”
It is hardly unprecedented for a government agency to be burdened with outmoded technology and processes, though some factors present in California make this situation more likely: The Democratic-dominated state government — responsive to the challenges posed by a highly diverse population, much of it in urban areas, wide disparities of income, expensive housing, unequal access to healthcare and education, and so on — will encounter many compelling demands competing for funding. Purchases of computers and software for the EDD or the DMV — or ensuring that vulnerabilities in the system are identified and remedied — may get short shrift.
But if government (and in particular, if the legislature with responsibility for making funding decisions) is working well, these problems won’t be slighted. Unfortunately, term limits hobble the ability of the legislature to work well.
When we limit the terms of legislators, we limit their opportunity to develop expertise in a policy area. By the time they’ve figured things out, they’re departing the legislature or running for their next office (where that expertise may or may not be relevant). And if they’ve figured things out, they hardly have time — or the clout as first- or second-term legislators to convince their colleagues — to resolve or remedy the problem.
For new legislators (with term limits in place) it’s easier to pick a high-profile area (rather than supportive administrative technology), perhaps a partisan hot topic with the interest of voters and activists, that may get more attention and a following to boost their campaign for their next elective office.
When someone can stay in place for a while, they can devote attention to the lower-profile, but still essential matters of making things work.
And worst of all from the standpoint of voters, when things go wrong, the legislatures, legislative leaders, and even the backbenchers responsible for letting things get out of hand are long gone. They’ve moved on before we can hold them accountable.
An anecdote will provide a contrast: Nicholas Petris served in the California State Senate from 1966 to 1996 (when he was termed out after passage of Proposition 28). He was my state senator for most of those years. Among his several areas of expertise was higher education. His district included Oakland (and the University of California Office of the President) and Berkeley (home of the UC flagship campus). Because of his expertise, he was an effective advocate for UC. As an old school liberal (responsive to competing needs in the state), he didn’t roll over for the University, but he knew what was critical. And — this is as important as advocacy — his expertise enabled him to be an effective and sophisticated critic. No one could pull the wool over his eyes.
Good governance in this area was possible. It’s a good bet that no one in the state senate since Petris departed Sacramento has had as good a handle on issues critical to the University of California. That depth of expertise is a thing of the past.
One of the L.A. Times‘ stories on the EDD scandal references “Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Laguna Beach), chairwoman of the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review.” Her Assembly biography notes that she is a businesswoman and community leader, a graduate of Yale University, and is serving her first term.
It’s not impossible that through her leadership (with supportive allies) the problems at EDD (and the DMV) will be resolved before she leaves the Assembly. But Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris doesn’t have much time learn how to use the resources at her command as a new member of the Assembly, to figure things out at the troubled agencies, to interact productively with state leaders inside and outside of the Assembly, to make a public case for her diagnosis and proposed solution, and to ensure that a fix is implemented.
(Image of Maserati SUV from Maserati USA.)