Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona • Page 23

ai EDITIONS Saturday, November 3, 1981 The Arizona Republic PROPOSITIONS Propositions 1 0 1 108 are touted as money savers By JOEL NILSSON Arizona Republic Staff Two of the 15 ballot propositions on Tuesday are being billed as money savers by their backers. DtAKneHinH mi ic an otfpmnt to circumvent I UWVItlV'l u. g- four vetoes by Gov. Bruce Babbitt, who steadfastly has maintained that the Legislature nas not ironeo. out administrative bugs if federal funds to Arizona are to be subject to legislative review and appropriation.

Proposition 108 would lower the state spending limitation to 6.5 percent of personal income from 7.18 referendum, Anderson said. "We see this measure, in part, as an element of a continuing legislative attack on the initiative." Proposition 100, backed by the secretary of state's office, would require that initiative petitions be filed at least six months before an election, instead of the current requirement of four months. Anderson called it "a pretty nasty hatchet job" that would cut down on he already difficult time constraints of initiative petitions. "It deals with a problem that is really not a problem," he said. It is an outgrowth of a 1982 petition drive to repeal the "Sagebrush Rebellion," which got locked in a court dispute over the validity of signatures.

A random sample showed it fell short of the required number of signatures and it was ordered off the ballot by Secretary of State Rose Mofford. However, backers of the drive got a court order placing it on the ballot even though all the signatures could not be checked in time. Proposition 103 is a proposed constitutional change that would permit jury lists to be compiled for judicial districts, instead of by the counties. percent and impose additional spending resixicuuii on the Legislature. Under the proposal, a state Kevenue wwnmission would be formed to estimate the amount of revenue in ttu novf fisml venr.

The Legislature then could spend no more than 98 percent of that sum; the 1 it A J. I remaining percent would nave De set asiae in a "rainy-day fund" for emergencies. The two propositions, it approved, wouia amena the state constitution. They were referred to voters by the Legislature, which for the past two years has erappled with severe budgetary problems. which could be tapped only with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and approval by the governor.

Babbitt "will probably vote against it," said Jim West, the governor's spokesman, because it is "kind of unnecessary." West said the rate of spending as a percentage of state personal income has dropped continuously, and is now at 6.3 percent, well below the 6.5 percent ceiling imposed by Proposition 108. The Legislature, he said, now can control spending "anytime it wants to" through the appropriations process. Sen. Alfredo Gutierrez, D-Phoenix, also opposes Proposition 108, but conceded that it also is politically dangerous to oppose such a proposal. "I just think it will cause serious problems in a relatively short period of time," Gutierrez warned.

"To impose this lower limitation will, in times of need, lead to substantial trouble." In times of economic hardship, state revenues drop but human-service needs, including education, tend to increase, Gutierrez said. "This thing will limit our ability to respond," Gutierrez added, recalling that its referral by lawmakers was "legislative extortion" by Hill and others, who vowed to withhold their votes on tax increases unless the measure was referred to the ballot. Hill disputed the claim by Gutierrez that services would be affected in times of economic hardship, saying the rainy-day fund could be used in such instances. He also posed this question: "If society is having a tough time meeting its obligations and personal income is down, why shouldn't taxpayers expect government to cut down on its spending appetite too?" Hill acknowledged that spending as a percentage of personal income has dropped every year since voters adopted the constitutional spending limitation in 1978. Asked why the proposal calls for 6.5 percent and not 6.3 percent, the level of current spending, Hill quipped, "I would've loved to (have had the lower percentage) but I didn't get the votes." Proposition 101, the other fiscal-control measure, would permit the Legislature to pass a law making all federal funds flowing into Arizona subject to legislative appropriation.

The proposal also would allow creation of a permanent legislative committee to exercise control over federal and state funds when the Legislature is not in session. Hill said it would keep the Legislature from being "blind sided" by federal programs that last only a few years, then force the state to pick up the funding. The state's general-fund budget is about $2 billion, but when federal funds are included, state spending swells to more than $3 billion. The federal funds go directly to state agencies, boards and commissions. "We don't know how much or where it goes until after the fact," Hill complained.

Gutierrez, however, countered that the proposal would require the Legislature to be in session "full time," or it would be forced to delegate the review to the governor. If not, then the state could face the loss of substantial federal dollars, he said. He said that federal funds are allocated to states at the whim of Congress and that the state has no control over federally imposed guidelines. There also is disagreement over which federal funds would be affected, he added. "What you have here is a supreme act of pique," Gutierrez charged.

"Republicans couldn't get around the governor and the questions he's raised all these years are still unanswered." Babbitt vetoed GOP-backed legislation four consecutive years, beginning in 1979, because it apparently was unconstitutional and called for a cumbersome review process. The Republicans have gotten around the constitutionality issue posed by Babbitt by seeking to amend the constitution. Proposition 101 does not specify how the funds would be reviewed. A state law would have to be enacted to set the criteria. Voters also will be asked to approve or reject two other ballot measures.

They are: Proposition 100 a proposed constitutional change that would reduce by two months the amount of time initiative petition gatherers would have to submit signatures to the secretary of state's office. John Anderson, executive director of Arizona Common Cause, a citizens lobby, vehemently opposes any plan that would weaken the state's initiative law. "The Legislature, over the years, has displayed a very horrible attitude toward the initiative and This measure would enable the Superior Court in a Proposition luo got on uie Dauoi wim uipurusxin suDDort and was strongly backed by Republicans and conservative Democrats. Sen. Jeff Hill, R-Tucson, the proposal cruet sponsor, said it would reverse the way the Legislature annually approves its budget Now, appropriations subcommittees mane cnenHintf rprnmmendfltions.

which are forwarded to joint House-Senate Appropriation Committee for perfunctory approval, according to run. Mov rpvcniip niflp of the ledpp.r is examined. and in the past two years, new sources have been county to establish judicial districts and then to select jurors from lists maintained by each county. The Legislature placed the measure on the ballot by a 35-17 vote in the House and 30-0 in the Senate. Maricopa County has been divided into two districts, one serving the Mesa area and the other the rest of the county.

An argument in favor of the proposition is that it would provide a way for Superior Courts to reduce costs. Jurors are reimbursed for travel expenses based on the number of miles they ravel. Nanette M. Warner, president of the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, says that selecting jurors from districts would reduce the variety of people who would sit in judgment "In the American justice system, juries are composed of fellow citizens who are selected at random from all walks of life," Warner said. "Picking jurors from exclusive districts would diminish your basic rights.

Keep in mind that this change would apply to civil lawsuits involving a lot of citizens, not just criminals on trial." tapped to balance the budget, as is required Dy me constitution. "This imposes checkbook accounting on state government," said Hill, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a member of the Senate appropriations panel. The advantage to the state, he added, is that by April 15 of every year, the Revenue "Commission tells the Legislature how much it can appropriate and spend for the ensuing fiscal year. The safety value would be the rainy-day fund, Proposals would expand utilities panel, cut scope "i believe that any time, any American worker, no matter what, can withdraw Ns labor and be a free man. Unions are trying to divert attention from the real issue Proposition 102 will ban strikes by public employees.

Darwyn Aycock of Arizona AFLClO Ray Rottas Arizona State Treasurer Labor, right-to-work group spar over 2 ballot issues "It's already in common law," Aycock said, referring to judicial decisions against public-employee strikes, btrikes are not a problem in this state. To come in and dump on public employees is a ludicrous way conservative Republicans in this state have ot trying to set up public employees as a straw man and then dump on them. "I believe that at any time any American worker, no matter what, can withdraw his labor and be a free man. In Poland, they can't." Bob Morris, Arizona Right to Work chairman, sees the issue in a different light. "In Arizona, strikes are currently illegal," Morris said, "but there are no penalties.

What is a law if it has no teeth? "Arizonans have the right to not be held hostage when fire, education and police service are needed. Proposition 102 would protect that right." By FRANK TURCO Arizona Republic Stall The Arizona Corporation Commission may be in for some major renovation. Voters in Tuesday's general election will have an opportunity to decide propositions to expand the commission, change the way its members are selected, reduce its responsibilities and alter the way it decides utility rates. They include: Proposition 104, which would expand the commission from three to five members and allow the governor to appoint the commissioners to four-year terms. Proposition 105, which would allow the Legislature to switch control of the Securities and Incorporations divisions of the commission to other state agencies.

Proposition 106, which would expand the commission to five members but retain it as an elective body, with commission terms being reduced from six years to four. Proposition 107, which would remove from the state constitution the requirement that the commission use the "fair value" of a utility company's property to help determine rates. The expansion issue appears to have strong statewide support; the three existing commissioners, most of the candidates running for two commission seats and several organizations favor it. However, there's wide divergence on whether commission members should be elected or appointed. Those who want to see the commission expanded say that more members are needed so that two members can speak to each other from time to time without violat ing the state's open-meeting law.

Currently, the three members of the commission can't do that because, under the law, anytime a majority of an elected body gets together, it's considered a public meeting, requiring a 24-hour notice. "We can't exchange ideas, discuss staff situations or anything without going through a very formal procedure," commission Chairman Richard Kimball said. In addition, those who support expansion say it would increase the opportunity for geographical distribution of the commissioners, as well as help spread the commission's workload. Kimball, the only elected member of the current commission, said commission positions are much too important for the people of the state not to be directly involved in the selection process. It's simply not right, he said, for the people to give up their voting franchise when so many of the commission's decisions directly affect their finances and budgets.

"It's not the way to go," he stressed. Commissioners Marianne Jennings and Junius Hoffman, both of whom were appointed to fill spots vacated by elected commissioners, differ both with Kimball and with each other. Jennings said the commission needs people experienced in finances and law and that the appointive system is the best way to ensure that experts in those fields fill the commission seats. "As a consumer, I would feel more comfortable with someone who was appointed," she said. Hoffman said he's a coin tosser on the issue, saying the appointive system is good when someone good is doing the appointing and not so good when someone not so good is doing it.

"If St. Thomas Aquinas were doing the appointing, then I would favor appointments; but if the devil were doing them, then I would favor elections," has been his favorite statement in explaining his position. The appointive system also is backed by a citizens committee organized in support of passage of Proposition 104 and the Phoenix Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. Both stress that the appointment of commissioners provides the best opportunity to seek qualified professionals who can bring to the commission the necessary knowledge and experience in regulatory law and finance. If both expansion proposals Propositions 104 and 106 gain voter approval, the one with the most votes will be the winner.

Although the winning proposal would become effective immediately, it would have no effect on the selection in the general election of two people to the current commission. Proposition 105 has generated very little interest in the state, with no organized opposition surfacing. There is some support for the measure, however, with Kimball leading the way. Kimball is a longtime supporter of the notion that the Corporation Commission be changed to a public utility commission and that the Securities and Incorporation divisions be removed from its control. "They ought to be moved to areas within the state government that are better equipped to handle them," he said.

Kimball said Securities might fit well with either the attorney general's office or the banking department and Incorporation might work well under the control of the secretary of state's office. The proposition only gives the Legislature the authority to transfer them to other areas at some future time and does not specify where they should be moved or when. The Chamber of Commerce supports the measure, also, saying that the debate as to whether the commission should solely be responsible for utility matters or continue to handle other areas cannot be decided until the Legislature has the right to make the transfers. Kimball also has been the lead figure in promoting the passage of Proposition 107, although he's been getting some help from several candidates for commission seats. "It's one of the most important issues on the ballot," Kimball maintained.

The state constitution now requires the commission to use the "fair value" of utility property in order to determine rates but does not define it The commission, in order to be consistent, has for years used a combination of the original cost and the replacement cost of the property, weighing each 50-50 to determine what it considers to be the fair value of property. That figure then is plugged into the rate base of a utility, allowing it to collect money on the fair value of its facilities. "It's an absurd, wasteful method," Kimball said. "It's an incentive to be wasteful and leads to 1 more-expensive plants." Most other states stopped requiring the use of fair value as a rate-setting method many years ago, but Arizona has been unable to do so because it was written into its constitution, according to commission officials who helped lobby for placing the proposal on the ballot. Kimball suggested that there are many other ways to establish rates.

"We have to come up with some criteria where we look at performance, efficiencies and good management," he said. If the measure passed, the commission then would be allowed to establish its own methods of determining rates, depending on each individual utility and case. However, the constitution still would require that the rates be "just and reasonable." Morris insisted that Proposition 102 would enforce what already is law, noting, It will finally punish those people who break the law." Proposition 102 is, in effect, an attempt to do by the ballot what the state Legislature has been unable to accomplish. Several times, lawmakers were able to send a bill to Babbitt banning public-employee strikes, but each time, the governor exercised his veto. Once, a strike-ban bill died in the closing hours of a By DON HARRIS Arizona Republic Staff Ballot propositions aimed at banning public-employee strikes and doing away with the last vestiges of the Little Davis-Bacon Act have stirred up a couple of old combatants organized labor and the Arizona Right to Work Committee.

The issues, viewed by labor as anti-union, appear on Tuesday's ballot as Proposition 102, the strike ban, and Proposition 300, which would prohibit cities and towns from paying so-called prevailing wages on public-works projects. Prevailing wages are strongly influenced by union rates. The measure on strikes would amend the state constitution to prohibit strikes by public employees and would require that those who participate in such work stoppages or slowdowns be fired. If rehired, strikers would take an automatic 10 percent pay cut and would not be eligible for a raise in wages or benefits for a year. That seems simple enough, but a battle is being waged by the Arizona Education Association on the grounds that Proposition 102 "threatens all 55,424 public-school employees." The association, lifting some language from the proposition, insists that the measure would transfer control of "compensation, hours and conditions of employment of public employees" from state law to each local school board.

Taking the argument a step further, the group says that teacher tenure, a provision in state law that makes it extremely difficult to fire a teacher, could be nullified by any school district. Gov. Bruce Babbitt agrees with the teachers and told them so at a meeting last month. He said it would "dismantle" the public-education system. State Treasurer Ray Rottas, a Republican, disagrees with the Democratic governor.

He pointed to an opinion offered by Attorney General Bob Corbin, another Republican, who said Proposition 102 would do no such thing to public education. Rottas said the unions are trying to divert attention from the real issue that Proposition 102 would ban strikes by public employees. Nevertheless, organized labor, with the teachers group out front, has been warning of the dangers to education contained in Proposition 102. In well-produced television and radio ads, the association has been spreading its message. As of Oct 21, it had spent $125,000 trying to defeat the proposition.

Darwyn Aycock, secretary-treasurer of the Arizona State AFL-CIO, said the proposition isn't needed. legislative session. By using the proposition approach, lawmakers were able to bypass the governor. Like Proposition 102, Proposition 300, the Little Davis-Bacon repealer, is an attempt at an end run around Babbitt. Not much was left of Little Davis-Bacon the law that required state government to pay prevailing wages on construction projects after the state Court of Appeals ruled that certain portions of the act constituted an unlawtul delegation of legislative power to labor organizations.

This proposition would remove from state statute all provisions of Little Davis-Bacon, which is patterned after a federal law, and would forbid any community from enacting such an ordinance. The intent has been to protect employees in public-works construction from being paid wages lower than they would get on private-sector jobs. Dudley Brown, president of the AFL-CIO Phoenix Building and Construction Trades Council, said the measure "a product of a group of Republican legislators" conflicts with the often-stated position of the Legislature in favor of local control. "This is certainly contrary to what this group has been preaching since they have taken control of our Sunday: Health-care propositions governing body," said Brown, calling for the defeat of Proposition 300..