Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Legislative term limits in California and the faces of change
(USC Thesis Other)
Legislative term limits in California and the faces of change
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
LEGISLATIVE TERM LIMITS IN CALIFORNIA AND THE FACES OF CHANGE
by
Matthew Wheeler
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT
August 2010
Copyright 2010 Matthew Wheeler
! ""!
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
When deciding to tell the stories of those who have served in the California
State Legislature vis-à-vis the stories of those who very likely may serve one day in
the same capacity, I barely fathomed the level of work that this research would entail.
To complete this study, I traveled by airplane, car, taxi, metro train and ferry a total of
8,649 miles from coast to coast. I amassed 14 security badges, was required to
complete two background checks, and met the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives. Following each interview, I would write my summary, attempting to
glean every detail from the experience itself. I composed these summaries, which
became the individual stories, in some of the most iconographic locations, including
the basement of the U.S. Capitol, the Rayburn Room off of the floor of the U.S. House
of Representatives, the bars of the Old Ebbit Grill and Simon’s, multiple airplanes,
living rooms, hotel lobbies, and on the beach of the Pacific Ocean.
I had never pictured myself as someone who would become attached to my
subject matter; however, the people detailed in this work are nothing less than
exceptional. Adversities overcome, elections won and lost, personal triumphs and
shortfalls, all have developed a diverse group of people who already have, and others
who one day may, promote society’s public policies and institutions.
The inspiration to conduct this project came over dinner at the Napa Rose
restaurant in Disney’s Grand Californian hotel at Disneyland. A colleague and fellow
Trojan Kelly Sherfey suggested taking Warren Bennis’ and Robert Thomas’
acclaimed leadership book, Geeks and Geezers, and applying it to California politics.
! """!
Kelly’s own copy of the book has served as a guide throughout this entire journey. I
thank Kelly for her creativity, ingenuity and thoughtful idea, which inspired this work.
I wish to acknowledge the contributions of my doctoral advisory committee
and the exemplary support they have shown as this project was underway. Professor
Harry Richardson, University Professor Kevin Starr and Dr. Dora Kingsley have also
personally guided this research in special, personal and meaningful ways. It also a
great honor and distinction to be one of the final doctoral students to receive the
privilege of advisement by Dr. Chester Newland, prior to his retirement from USC
after 45 years of tenure. I thank you all for your unique contributions, perspectives,
criticisms, and overall support that have afforded me the opportunity to complete this
research and USC’s doctoral degree.
One night as the project was developing, I shared the interview list with my
two best friends, Jason Bryant and Andrew Kiefer. Never shy to critique, both
reorganized my interview list in what amounted to the most exceptional list of leaders
ever to serve the state of California. Their contributions did not end there, reminding
me that Friday nights were not for “dissertating,” in addition to opening up their
expansive personal contacts. Thank you both for attempting to make me a statistic,
but most of all, for your unwavering support.
Without the encouragement of my mother Susie, I would never have thought I
could put two sentences together let alone complete a doctoral program. Since I was a
small child, I have been encouraged by my mother to persevere and take on new
challenges, all without reservation. Even when I doubted my capabilities, she was
! "#!
there to push, promote and support. Thank you for being that catalyst mother, I love
you.
And finally, to the love of my life, Katie Meade. Cancelled plans, excessive
travel, boring recounts and stories, countless trips to the Los Angeles campus, and a
variable mood, thank you for standing by me through the completion of this project.
Your support and encouragement have enabled me to follow through with the
culmination of my academic career. Thank you for being this person in my life.
! #!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
PART ONE 1
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Historical Background and Initiatives 3
Chapter 3: Term Limits in Practice: 15
1990-Today & Part One Conclusion
PART TWO 28
Chapter 4: Generational Leadership 28
Chapter 5: Research Methodology 37
Chapter 6: Those Who Have Served 48
Jim Brulte 50
Jim Costa 57
Ross Johnson 62
Bill Leonard 69
Bill Lockyer 75
Curt Pringle 82
David Roberti 89
Jackie Speier 96
Chapter 7: Those Who May Serve 103
Merlyn Calderon 105
James Gallagher 112
Stephen Hansen 118
Steve McShane 126
Sara Myers 132
Karen Pank 138
Crystal Strait 144
Christopher Young 150
! #"!
Chapter 8: Analysis and Part Two Conclusion 159
Analysis of Those Who Have Served 159
Analysis of Those Who May Serve 165
Comparative Analysis 171
Part Two Conclusion 175
References 177
Appendix A: Profiled Interviewee Biographies 180
Appendix B: Interviewee Timeline Chart 194
Appendix C: Individual References 195
Appendix D: Available Interviewee Websites 196
! #""!
LIST OF FIGURES
Image 1: Jim Brulte Elected Service 50
Image 2: Jim Costa Elected Service 57
Image 3: Ross Johnson Elected Service 62
Image 4: Bill Leonard Elected Service 69
Image 5: Bill Lockyer Elected Service 75
Image 6: Curt Pringle Elected Service 82
Image 7: David Roberti Elected Service 89
Image 8: Jackie Speier Elected Service 96
Image 9: Merlyn Calderon Profile 105
Image 10: James Gallagher Profile 112
Image 11: Stephen Hansen Profile 118
Image 12: Steve McShane Profile 126
Image 13: Sara Myers Profile 132
Image 14: Karen Pank Profile 138
Image 15: Crystal Strait Profile 144
Image 16: Christopher Young Profile 150
Table 1: Interviewee Timeline Chart 194
! #"""!
ABSTRACT
Legislative Term Limits in California and the Faces of Change
Over the preceding forty years, the voters of California have directly enacted
many significant public policy initiatives that have changed the face of politics and
governance in the Golden State. In the face of the changes enacted, the leaders of
contemporary California now struggle to govern the most populous state in the union,
many of these struggles being attributed to the passage of these statewide initiatives.
From the inception of the United States, the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers
warned of the unintended consequences of a direct democracy and furthered the use of
a representative model of our government. However, as California struggles, the roots
of the systemic problems have yet to be addressed by a rational body seeking
fundamental change. Despite the fact that many of California’s fiscal and policy woes
can be directly traced back to the passage of these initiatives, little has been
accomplished that will change the way California seeks to govern.
Legislative Term Limits in California and the Faces of Change discusses the
specifics of four statewide propositions that have altered the state government and
state budget. As this research opens discussing the voter enacted initiatives that have
changed the state government, it goes on to tell the stories of sixteen individuals who
have been touched, personally, by these policies. Qualitative interviews of these
individuals were conducted and contrasted amongst one another, discussing
generational similarities and differences under the context of leadership, in addition to
linking political culture to generational identity. For some, opportunities have been
! "$!
availed as they may one day seek to lead the state. For others, those who defined the
political and policy landscape of California for decades, their careers in elected service
have ceased or taken other courses. These individuals compose the face of change in
California and this work tells these leadership stories.
Following this analysis, the study asserts that until fundamental change in term
limitations for state legislators is enacted, California will continue in its governance
struggles. !
! %!
PART 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The state of California has long been credited as a catalyst of progressive
public policies and political agendas. The California State Legislature is no exception
to this assertion, as can be witnessed over the past decades of organizational changes
that have shaped the way laws are created and implemented in the Golden State.
When one looks at fundamental and structural flaws in the way the state of California
is governed, often term limitations placed on state legislators is cited as one
predominate reason why California seems to have become un-governable.
From the time the California State Legislature became a full-time lawmaking
body in 1966 through the 1970s and 1980s, state legislators carried a high degree of
clout within the third house of lobbyists and the office of the Governor. Many thought
that this power wielding was too much, particularly that exhibited by some of the
highest-ranking members of the state Assembly and state Senate. In response, a
statewide proposition was introduced to curtail the power of state legislators by
forcing some of the most senior members out of service.
Proposition 140 was placed on the November 1990 ballot alongside 27 other
statewide propositions. Although outspent by a margin of 31-1, the proposition passed
by a slim margin of 52% of voters.
1
With the passage of Proposition 140 in 1990,
state legislators came under term limits, which capped service in the state Assembly to
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
%
!California Secretary of State March Fong Eu. Statement of Vote: General Election November 6,
1990. Retrieved Online: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/90_gen_sov.pdf. March 27, 2009.
! &!
three, two-year terms and service in the Senate capped at two, four-year terms.
2
The
era of the career California politician that had been created in 1966 within the state
legislature had come to a close. In the early part of the new millennium, many
individuals who were regarded as being high profile fixtures of both houses left the
State Capitol.
With the exit of term-limited legislators, the California State Legislature has
seen a fundamental restructuring in its culture. With no less than one-third of the
entire legislative body turning over every two years, heavy reliance has been placed
upon those individuals who stay behind after term-limited members leave: the
legislative consulting staff and lobbyists. Whether this is prudent or wise practice
born out of necessity, legislative staff and lobbyists now carry a high-degree of power,
as they have become the ones with essential institutional knowledge. Strategy, politics
and public policy adoption have all become a part of the daily lives of these
individuals who do their best to serve during the brief stints that state officials may
now remain in office.
Many agree that term limits may be a good idea in theory but not in practice.
However, what is the State of California to do with term limits now in place and
engrained into the structural framework of California’s legislative branch? This
analysis discusses the historical factors and propositions that led to the adoption of
term limits, the unintended consequences of term limits on state legislators.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
California Proposition No. 140 of 1990. General Election November 6, 1990.!!!
! '!
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND INITIATIVES
To understand the culture of the California State Legislature that led to the
adoption of term limits by the California electorate, one must understand the various
organizational changes that took place prior to the passage of Proposition 140.
PROPOSITION 1A
Prior to 1966, the California State Legislature governed as a part-time entity,
just as 46 other states still do today. As opposed to operating 12 months out of the
year similar to the United States Congress, the California State Legislature was
scheduled to be in session no more than four months of each year. Then Speaker of
the Assembly Jesse M. Unruh championed the cause to make the state legislature into
a full-time lawmaking body, arguing that extended and special sessions had become
commonplace and required legislators to deal regularly with the extensive issues of the
most populous state. Moving to a full-time legislature was also thought to remove
dependence upon the full-time third house of lobbyists and also counter the clout of
the full-time Governor.
3
Following the passage of ACA 13 by the state Assembly, Proposition 1A was
placed on the 1966 ballot, which was also an election year for the office of the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
Bebitch-Jeffe, S. “A History Lesson on Part Time Lawmaking.” The Los Angeles Times. August 8,
2004. Retrieved Online: articles.latimes.com/2004/aug/08/opinion/op-jeffe8. March 27, 2009.
! (!
Governor.
4
Incumbent Governor Pat Brown endorsed the proposition, as did
gubernatorial candidate Ronald Reagan. Following the passage of Proposition 1A by
73.5% of the vote, the state legislature became a full-time entity.
5
The passage of
Proposition 1A served as the means to employ a year-round staff of analysts and
consultants to advise the 120 full-time elected officials serving within the state
legislature.
This shift in governance structures made California the first state within the
union to adopt a full time legislative body. In subsequent years, the states of
Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania followed California’s lead by also moving to
a full-time legislative model.
6
When Proposition 1A was implemented in California in
1967, much of the power that had rested within the Executive branch and third house
of lobbyists was shifted into the full-time Legislative branch. A high degree of power
became vested in the Speaker of the Assembly whose job was to lead the 80-member
lower house of the state legislature.
Over the next two decades through the 1970s and 1980s, power would
continue to grow within the state legislature and, in particular, in the role of the
Speaker of the Assembly. In 1980, Democratic lawmaker Willie Brown of San
Francisco would ascend to the Speakership, a role he had vied for since his election to
the Assembly in 1964. Democrat Willie Brown was placed in the Speakership by a
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
Inventory of the Constitutional Revision Commission, 1964-70. Online Archives of California.
Retrieved Online: oac.cdlib.org. March 27, 2009.
5
Idem.
6
National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved Online:
www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2004/backgrounder_fullandpart.htm. March 27, 2009.
! )!
vote of 28 Republicans to 23 Democrats, overthrowing the rule of powerful Leo
McCarthy.
7
As Speaker, Willie Brown would govern the state Assembly with incredible
strength. Known to be a fierce negotiator and power wielder, Brown carried enormous
clout. This power transcended many boundaries, including political party, the
Governor’s office, and, in particular, the third house. Brown’s connections to
lobbyists and the expansion of his personal law practice were susceptible to question.
Adversaries were eager to see the reign of Speaker Brown come to a sunset and
needed to find ways to remove him from office. This would not be an easy task, given
his presence and stature within the state legislature alongside his high degree of
popularity in his urban San Francisco Assembly district. Brown, susceptible to term
limitations imposed upon his office by Proposition 140, left the Assembly in 1995.
PROPOSITION 13
Passed prior to Proposition 140, no discussion of California politics and
unintended consequences would be complete without an overview of Proposition 13.
Known to be the political scapegoat of many, if not most of California’s problems
with governance, Proposition 13 has become the backbone of the state’s funding and
budgetary discrepancies. Placed on the June 1978 ballot alongside 30 other tax-driven
initiatives, Proposition 13 gained overwhelming support, garnering 65% of the vote.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7
Office of the Chief Clerk of the Assembly. California's Legislature. Sacramento: California
Legislature, Assembly, 2006.
!
! *!
Entitled the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation, Proposition 13 was born
out of the desire to cap escalating property tax rates in California and to deliver
balance between affluent and low-income communities.
8
In summary, Proposition 13 added Section 2 of Article XIIIA to the California
Constitution. This section changes California’s property tax system from an assessed
value assessment (market based) to an acquisition value assessment. Under
Proposition 13, at the time of a property’s new construction or change of ownership,
the property’s value is assessed and recorded. As long as the property is not
transferred to anyone aside from immediate family, the taxable value of the property
may not increase more than the rate of inflation or 2% of the value of the property,
whichever is less.
9
In theory, this caps property taxes at a rate that allows people to
remain in their homes by not pricing them out through taxation despite escalating
property values that may dominate the neighboring market.
The placement on the ballot and eventual passage of Proposition 13 by a wide
margin was fueled by taxpayer discontent of the 1960s and 1970s. Legislative
involvement relative to Proposition 13 began in 1966 when Governor Edmund Brown
signed Assembly Bill 80 into law. Assembly Bill 80 removed the power of municipal
tax assessors and collectors to impose arbitrary property tax assessments, which had
become a scandalous practice in many locales throughout the state of California.
10
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8
Picker, L. “The Lock-In Effect of California’s Proposition 13.” National Bureau of Economic
Research. Retrieved Online: www.nber.org/digest/apr05/w11108.html. September 25, 2009.
9
Constitution of the State of California (Text). Enacted 1849.
10
California Assembly Bill 80 (Text). Statutes of 1966.
! +!
Under Assembly Bill 80, all property tax assessments were held at the market value of
the property creating a uniform system of property tax assessment throughout the
state. However, as property values increased in a booming California economy, the
property tax value followed, thereby pricing many people out of their homes.
As the California population continued to increase throughout the 1970s, the
demand for services and housing followed. Although the demand for services and
housing were supported by the increased population growth and the payment of
subsequent taxes, the demand also spiked local economies and their real estate markets
to high levels. With property taxes valued at the market rate of the property, many
individuals who had purchased their properties years ago were now being forced out
of the market by their inability to keep up with the escalating rate of property taxation.
Once enacted, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association stated that residential
property taxes went down on average 57%. Since 1978, the same organization
estimates that Proposition 13 has saved California taxpayers collectively $528
billion.
11
However, this $528 billion are funds that the state of California would have
received in revenues, contributing largely to the state’s inabilities to balance its
financial demands.
Former State Senator and previous Chair of the Budget Committee Steve Peace
described the political climate of California in the 1970s as nearly reaching a
“taxpayer revolt.” “A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
%%
!Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “Our Accomplishments.” Retrieved Online:
www.hjta.org/about-hjta/history-hjta. September 26, 2009.!
! ,!
Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes.”
12
Although
most agree that a solution was necessary to keep people priced within their homes,
Proposition 13 has created a complex state budget structure that has polarized political
relationships within the State Legislature, in addition to the relationship between the
state and local governments. Peace contends that “the proposition has become the
untouchable subject of California politics, and it is not politically popular for
Sacramento lawmakers to attempt to change it.”
In practice, Proposition 13 has fundamentally changed the relationship of local
and state government by changing the way local governments receive a great deal of
their funding and revenues. The California state government since 1979 has collected
property taxes and redistributed them to local governments under a new formula.
Local governments have become increasingly dependent on the revenues received
from the state government, strapping municipal service delivery and the capabilities of
local governments to self-fund. However, although property taxes are collected by the
state, under Proposition 13, sales tax formulas were also reconfigured, allowing a
greater amount of the sales tax to remain at its point of sale. In response, many local
governments have enacted plans to attract sales tax dollars to their jurisdictions. Many
of these plans have promoted the practice of “fiscalizing” land where local
governments can attract sales tax to their jurisdictions by incentivizing the
development of “big box retailers,” in addition to automotive and shopping malls, all
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12
Peace, S. “Cure Prop 13 ‘Sickness’ by Reassessing Commercial Property, Boosting Homeowners’
Exemption and Cutting the Sales Tax.” Cal-Tax Digest. Published by the California Taxpayers
Association. February 2000.!!
! -!
projects that yield large sales tax dollars. Although these retail outlets attract
shoppers, it has been at the expense of socially conscientious planning practices that
have isolated many urban areas that are “grown out” to their limits and capacity.
Affordable housing, heavy industrial manufacturers, and non-sales tax generating
entities have all been discouraged from development in most areas of the state, which
has impacted local communities and the balance of their economies tremendously.
As Peace stated, many of the outcomes of Proposition 13 have been deemed as
favorable to California voters, saving property owners a great deal of money over the
years since its enactment. However, this has been at a communal cost which
lawmakers are politically unable to change under California’s current system of
governance. Proposition 13 changed the way in which the state of California funds
itself. Further, it changed the way local governments fund, placing a greater
dependence upon the state for funding for services such as transportation, education,
and health care delivery, thereby creating many negative externalities upon California
communities. Coupled with other statewide ballot initiatives, such as Proposition 98
(to follow), the state is left with an increased inability to sustain service delivery at the
progressive levels that have become the reputation of the Golden State.
Although Proposition 13 was passed by a vote of the people in 1978, it has
created a new playing field that state lawmakers must navigate. This complex playing
field has decreased the options available to lawmakers to make decisions and
prudently govern the state in a practical manner. These inabilities to act have led to
the diminished perception of the California system of governance and those who
! %.!
attempt to administer it, all factors that have led to the term-limited environment in
place today.
PROPOSITION 98
The 1970s not only brought the passage of Proposition 13, but, earlier in the
decade, it brought three separate California Supreme Court rulings under Serrano v.
Priest. Separate rulings in 1971, 1976 and 1977 under Serrano v. Priest stated that
property-tax-based systems of finance for public schools were unconstitutional and
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
13
Before this
ruling, local governments largely funded public education through property tax
revenues. In affluent areas where property values were higher, public school students
were funded at a higher rate per pupil but with a lower rate of taxation upon the
property holders of that jurisdiction. Poorer school districts were not able to fund per
pupil spending at the same rate, which caused California public education
disproportionately to favor wealthy school districts and their students. Under the
Serrano v. Priest ruling, the state had to make the distribution of funding to public
schools more equitable. The state legislature responded with a capped rate that any
one school district could receive in funding per pupil, a payment that would now be
made by the state to the school district directly. Excess funds were passed on to
lower-income districts, leveling the playing field of per-pupil funding.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13
Serrano v. Priest, 1976 (Text). Retrieved Online: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ca/cal3d/18.html.
September 25, 2009.
! %%!
The action of the state legislature following the Serrano v. Priest rulings
brought about the practice of consolidated public school funding from the state at a
per-pupil rate. Through the 1980s, education reform groups, education unions, and
concerned parents took issue with the way the state funded education in proportion to
other state services. In poor budgetary years, the state had the ability to cut education
funding to preserve other programs, which angered these interest groups. Local
control had also disappeared from public education through the reliance upon the state
to fund public schools.
The Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act, or
Proposition 98, was placed on the November 1988 ballot and was passed by a very
slim margin of 50.7%.
14
Proposition 98 amended the California Constitution to
require a minimum threshold of public education funding for Kindergarten through
community college students (K-14). Under a complex formula, the constitutional
amendment sets a minimum funding benchmark that the state must meet per pupil
each year. In future years, this same benchmark must be met or exceeded. The only
way to suspend the requirements of Proposition 98 is through a two-thirds vote of the
state legislature or voter initiative.
According to a 2005 report by the California Legislative Analyst, the K-14
education budget allotment of the state’s general operating fund is approximately
45%.
15
This amount cannot be adjusted in times of fiscal crisis without a two-thirds
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14
“Proposition 98 Primer.” Published for the State Legislature by the California Legislative Analyst’s
Office. February 2005.
15
“Proposition 98 Primer.” Published for the State Legislature by the California Legislative Analyst’s
Office. February 2005.!
! %&!
majority vote of lawmakers making fundamental political sacrifices, something few
are willing to make given the highly emotional tie to public education by most voters.
Requiring this amount of state revenues to be spent on K-14 education ties the hands
of lawmakers when the annual budget is proposed and vetted at the State Capitol, for it
gives very few options in cuts and spending. This “auto-pilot” approach has polarized
the state legislature greatly over the years with fewer budgetary funds available for
debate among legislative Democrats and Republicans. In years of low financial
resources, this debate becomes even sharper as fewer options are available to
lawmakers to patch deficit holes and spending shortfalls.
PROPOSITION 140
Although the power of Speaker Brown cannot be fully credited with the
eventual passage of term limits for legislators in California, public opinion and many
political insiders rank it as a principal cause. In his book Basic Brown, Willie Brown
explains term limits and the provision’s relation to his role in the Speakership.
In 1988, I had been Speaker – Ayatollah – of the Assembly for eight years.
I would still be speaker today if it were not for term limits, a destructive
idea introduced by mean-spirited wretches from Southern California who
sought to deprive the people of San Francisco the right to reelect me as their
Assemblyman.
16
As previously mentioned, Proposition 140 was placed on the 1990 general election
ballot and was passed by a slight margin of voters. Brown would remain Speaker of
the Assembly until 1995, even when the Republicans took control of the state
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16
Brown, W. Basic Brown. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008, p. 16.
! %'!
Assembly in 1994. After 15 years as Speaker, unless term limits are one-day revoked,
Brown will continue to hold the record as the longest serving Speaker of the
Assembly.
Of those individuals who are now elected to the state legislature, many are
tasked with new partisan battles to retain their offices, forcing a new set of political
ideologies and policy decisions. By 1997, 67 of 80 members of the state Assembly
had been elected since 1994, signaling a high propensity of “junior statesmanship” in
the lower house of the State Legislature.
17
Further, with legislative seats now turning
over at a much faster pace, partisanship within the state legislature has become highly
entrenched. With legislators now having to fast track their careers with limited time to
accomplish public policy priorities, the consensus process has become obsolete at the
State Capitol.
REALITIES OF THE CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE PROCESS
The direct democratic approach of the California initiative process has become
a commonplace method of reform within the state. Meant to serve as a check and
balance upon state elected officials by ensuring the rule of the people, the initiative
process has become a common method of governance in California by usurping the
power of lawmakers by gathering the appropriate number of signatures and supporters.
Reform initiatives such as Propositions 13, 98 and 140 were all born out of the notion
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17
Silva, F. “Term Limits: This Reform Assures a Do-Little Legislature.” Public Policy Institute of
California Opinion Paper. Published by the Los Angeles Times May 7, 1997. Retrieved Online:
www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=196. March 30, 2009.!!!
! %(!
that the government was not listening to the needs of the people. Therefore, a select
group of people took issue with the perceived inaction of state lawmakers by placing
these fundamental reform measures before the people for a direct vote. The passage of
these initiatives clearly demonstrates the frustration of California voters by their
willingness to circumvent the entire representative lawmaking process. Far too often,
the initiative process can be used deceptively by encouraging a perceived outcome
through the media and playing to voter discontent, when in reality, the outcome will
convolute the system even more.
Another problem with the initiative process is that it amounts to decisions that
myopically benefit one particular area of public policy. In theory, the legislative
process is to consider all areas of public policy and then move those forward that are
needed to best balance the needs of the people. For instance, Proposition 13 took
taxation into account but did not consider the planning and zoning needs of a local
municipality. Proposition 98 took public education into consideration, but it did not
weigh the needs for low-income family heath care or rehabilitative services. Although
these needs may be very different, they are all funded out of the same state general
fund, which creates a need to balance social priorities each year.
The initiative process does not take multiple factors into account and singularly
moves forward a narrow objective. An educated electorate is the desired outcome,
where voters weigh decisions and alternatives prior to casting their votes on Election
Day. However, in practice, media dominance and an uninformed electorate are often
unable to overcome narrow policy agendas.
! %)!
CHAPTER 3
TERM LIMITS IN PRACTICE: 1990 – TODAY & PART ONE CONCLUSION
With term limits in place, the California State Legislature has seen a complete
turnover in membership since 1990. Although term limits were enacted in 1990 under
Proposition 140, voters also approved the system that allows state legislators to go
virtually unopposed and unchallenged by drawing their own representative districts
that staunchly favor incumbent political parties, even when members are termed out.
Subsequently a campaign finance system has been established that also gives
advantage to incumbents seeking reelection to their limited terms.
18
“Arguably, the
voters did not intend to establish a Legislature that had no continuity in the law-
making process or that had such a high turnover that nothing would get done,” stated
Fred Silva of the Public Policy Institute of California.
19
Term limits have brought the
end to cronyism in the California State Legislature, but, at the same time, it has also
brought forward a series of unintended consequences.
Solutions to term-limit problems most likely involve the following
alternatives: removal of term limits altogether to return to California practices prior to
1990; extending terms from what are currently allowed; a hybrid model of extended
terms and removal of term limits; or the status quo with current term limits remaining
in place. In any case, ultimate decision-makers, if change is to occur, will be the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
18
Silva, F. “Term Limits: This Reform Assures a Do-Little Legislature.” Public Policy Institute of
California Opinion Paper. Published by the Los Angeles Times May 7, 1997. Retrieved Online:
www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=196. March 30, 2009.
19
Idem.
! %*!
people of the state of California: the electorate. Any modification to the current term
limit requirement will require the majority vote of the California electorate to overturn
the constitutional provisions currently applicable to state legislators and term limits.
Although voter approval is based largely upon the actions of the state legislature and
its ability as a body to function effectively, the ultimate decision will be made by the
people as to the future of legislative terms for state officials.
“At its best, lawmaking is the art of reconciling differing opinions in full view
of the public,” Silva explains. “This process is supposed to take time, and the time we
have given legislators is simply too short. Of 22 states that limit terms, California’s
terms are among the shortest.”
20
Without question, the legislative process is meant to
be bureaucratic and cumbersome, ensuring that poorly crafted laws and regulations are
not hastily shuttled through the system, thereby becoming state law. However, when
term limits do not give elected officials enough time and the tools necessary to
complete their assigned tasks, has prudent public policy been implemented?
With a high degree of turnover, the state legislature has seen a loss in policy
expertise and committee leadership. Linda R. Cohen of the University of California at
Irvine Economics Department wrote, “In the long run, the share of Assembly members
serving their first two years will always exceed one-third and is likely approaching
one-half.”
21
With 27 standing committees in the state Assembly, any majority party
that wants to ensure leadership in all policy committees will place freshman legislators
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
20
Idem.
21
Silva, F. “Term Limits: This Reform Assures a Do-Little Legislature.” Public Policy Institute of
California Opinion Paper. Published by the Los Angeles Times May 7, 1997. Retrieved Online:
www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=196. March 30, 2009.!
! %+!
in committee chairmanship positions from their first day in office. Regardless of
policy expertise or background within a subject matter, partisan political control is
often regarded as being more important. The state Senate is no different in leadership
decisions, but with four-year terms it does not see the rate of turnover at the same
speed as with the lower house.
The loss in institutional wisdom transcends the boundaries of elected
representatives and lay people as well. With the loss of experience comes a need to
backfill from another source. This has created a heavy reliance upon those who stay
behind when members of the state legislature are termed out of office. Legislative
staffers have become an essential tool for legislators to rely upon, for in many cases
staffers are the only in-house people who were dealing with particular issues of public
policy in the preceding years. Legislative staff, many being junior staff members who
have not served in the State Capitol longer than five years, can remember preceding
policy attempts and former legislators and their previous efforts. Of even greater
concern, the third house, or lobbyists, have become educators of policy initiatives.
Many lobbyists have worked the halls of the State Capitol for decades, having been
legislative staff members themselves. Their work in the private sector gives lobbyists
a great deal of background knowledge that is used to educate members of the
Legislature from day one. However, lobbyists, unlike legislative staff, have an
economic interest and private investment in seeing particular policies carried out.
Further, lobbyists have the time to devote to educating new members of the state
legislature, something that legislative staff members may not have. When it comes to
! %,!
implementing policies that will reflect the best interests of the people, relying upon the
knowledge and expertise of lobbyists to make such decisions has large public policy
ramifications.
Just as state legislators become familiar with issues of concern and essential
public policies, their terms expire and most are required to leave office without
opportunity to serve in the other house. With so much time being spent learning the
issues, the Public Policy Institute of California notes that, since the inception of term
limits, “legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly.”
22
Less time is granted for looking over state agency recommendations and policy
implementations, with the office of the Governor only being engaged at the end of the
process when it comes time to sign bills into law.
With shorter tenures in elected state office, legislators are given a finite time to
accomplish personal policy agendas. Politically, this has forced massive polarization
to occur, whereby legislators rely upon the backing of their fellow political party
members to collectively move individual bills through the process. With only a
majority vote required (half, plus one vote) for most bills, the majority party has an
extreme advantage over the minority party in successfully shepherding bills out of the
state legislature and on to the Governor’s desk. Unless proposed policies by the
minority party are fairly innocuous, rarely do they garner the votes needed to survive
the legislative process. This makes one particular vote of the year particularly
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
22
“Have Term Limits Affected the California Legislature?” In Research Brief, November 2004, Issue
94. Published by the Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved Online:
www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1104BCRB.pdf. March 30, 2009.
! %-!
precarious, requiring a two-thirds majority vote to pass out of the state legislature and
on to the Governor: the budget vote. The minority party covets this two-thirds vote
requirement, for, in practice, it is the only time that the majority party is forced to
adhere to policy or political demands of the minority. This leads to staunch demands,
budget impasses that violate state constitutional deadlines, and partisan gridlock.
Term limits have only exacerbated these realities, as legislators have much less time to
accomplish policy objectives, making each vote they must cast a little more valuable.
In 2004, those who had served in the California State Legislature prior to term
limits were forced for the first time to leave state legislative service. Many of those
who were forced to retire included individuals who had worked for years on various
issues and problems that faced the state of California for decades. These included;
John Vasconcellos, who was not only the “Dean” of the state legislature, having
served 38 years, but also a longtime champion for health, human services, and higher
education; John Burton, the pragmatic and gruff President Pro-Tempore of the Senate
who had advocated for social causes and struggles for 26 collective years; and Byron
Sher, who was widely cited for his championship of environmental causes. When
discussing this specific set of legislators facing term limits, California historian and
then California State Librarian Kevin Starr stated that “this marks an end to the 20
th
Century California dream of a state able and truly destined to enhance the lives of
ordinary people.”
23
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
23
Starr, K. In Peirce, N. “Legislative Term Limits: Still a Good Idea?” Published by The San Diego
Union-Tribune; July 21, 2004. Retrieved Online:
www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040721/news_lz1e21peirce.html. March 30, 2009.
! &.!
Contemporary practice within the state government shows a great deal of
partisanship, inconsistencies, and inefficiencies from within. Over the past 20 years,
more budgets have been held up in partisan gridlock and approved beyond
constitutionally mandated deadlines than not. Since the approval of term limits for
state legislators in 1990, discontent with state leaders has not improved; most likely, it
could arguably be said that the approval rate among the California electorate has
declined. Convincing voters who still see a great disconnect between their state
government and their own livelihood that the answer to the problem is to allow those
in office, who many perceive as being the problem, to serve an extended period of
time in state office will be difficult at best. However, most involved with the inner-
workings of state government agree that one of the greatest catalysts of legislative
inefficiencies and partisanship is term limits.
When the state legislature’s approval rating is less than 40%, it is difficult to
convince individuals that the answer to legislative failure is extending the tenure of
those at the helm. However, in 2002 then President Pro-Tempore of the State Senate
John Burton, who faced term limits himself, placed Proposition 45 on the ballot.
Proposition 45 appeared on the primary election ballot in March 2002 alongside five
other statewide propositions. The measure would have allowed current legislators in
both the state Assembly and state Senate to serve for an extended period of four years
! &%!
in each house, affording elected members of the Assembly the potential to serve ten
years total and elected Senators the potential to serve 12 years total.
24
A national election review newsmagazine entitled Campaigns & Elections
summarized the crafting of Proposition 45 as a two-fold approach.
First, the initiative could be marketed as a means of restoring local control
to voters by giving them the ability to extend or impose term limits only if
they saw fit. More brazenly, because this initiative did not repeal term
limits, its supporters began to pitch it as a way to “preserve and protect”
those limits to voters.
25
This approach clearly gave deference to the voter by not changing current
constitutional provisions, but allowing for an extension if approved by an official’s
representative district.
Although the proponents of Proposition 45 outspent the opponents by a margin
near 9-1, the measure was unsuccessful, with nearly 58% of all votes cast opposing the
measure.
26
Often times, successful marketing and media campaigns, in addition to
poorly worded propositions, can impact the outcome of a vote; however, in the case of
Proposition 45 of 2002, this was not the result. Other measures, such as Proposition
93 of 2008 have been placed on the ballot offering other means of extending term
limits.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
24
California Official Voter Information Guide: Primary Election March 5, 2002. California Secretary
of State Bill Jones. Retrieved Online: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/viguide_pe02/main.htm. March 28,
2009.
25
“Proposition 45: Turning California Term Limits.” Campaigns & Elections Magazine, June 2002.
26
Secretary of State Bill Jones. Statement of Vote: California 2002 Primary Election. Retrieved
Online: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2002_primary/contents.htm. March 28, 2009.!!!
!
! &&!
If so many agree that extending if not doing away with term limits altogether is
one answer to California’s problem of inefficient and ineffective governance, why is it
so hard to convince California’s voters? Patrick Basham of the Cato Institute
characterizes California’s desire to keep term limits in place at their current limitations
as an experiment that has proved to be largely successful.
Since term limits were first put into practice, California has experienced
relatively crowded, competitive state primaries and general elections that
see closer races, more incumbents defeated, and more candidates running
for office. Both demographically and ideologically, the legislature is now
far more representative of the California beyond the State Capitol.
27
Perhaps the majority of Californians do not favor experience over change and the idea
of new, fresh perspectives in the State Capitol is still regarded as being favorable?
Perhaps it is due to the fact that, although term limits were enacted in 1990, it took
until 2004 for the measure to fully materialize with all members of the state legislature
who were in office prior to term limits being forced to vacate their seats? Term limits,
at least in their implementation, are still a new policy that is just coming into effect in
practice.
“We’ve broken the careerist grip on the legislative process and brought new
people and new ideas to Sacramento,” stated Lewis Uhler, a contributing author of the
original Proposition 140 language. “All we said in 1990 was that we were opening up
opportunities for more people, and that’s what happened.”
28
Many claim that the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
27
Basham, P. “California Dreamin’? The Campaign to End Term Limits.” Cato Institute, published
online March 5, 2008. Retrieved Online: www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3410. March 28,
2009.
!
28
Katches, M. “No More Museum Pieces: The California Legislature is a whole new place since term
limits have swept it clean.” State Legislatures Magazine. A publication of the National Conference of
! &'!
advantages of term limits still outweigh the disadvantages for a variety of reasons. By
having term limits in place, the state of California is effectively “expelling career
politicians, breaking up cozy power deals and bringing on fresh faces,” states
renowned political columnist Neal Peirce as published by the San Diego Union-
Tribune.
The result is increasing diversity in the legislatures and a counterbalance to
incumbents' many advantages, such as easier access to the media and
political money. Plus, it's claimed, rules have been cleaned up and
legislators are getting more formal training.
29
However, due to strengthened political party selection and control of candidates, the
reality is that narrow rigidity prevails rather than diversity.
Few would debate that term limits have enabled a younger group of more
diverse individuals to enter state politics through service in the California State
Legislature. In 1999, as term limits began to take effect, it was noted that more
women and Latinos were elected to the state legislature than ever before. At that time,
women made up 25% of the population of the state legislature, which was an increase
from 17.5% in 1990 when term limits were passed.
30
Latino representation has risen
from 6% to 19%, with Latinos holding both party leader posts in the Assembly by
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
State Legislatures. February 1999. Retrieved Online: www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/299caltl.htm.
March 30, 2009.
29
Peirce, N. “Legislative Term Limits: Still a Good Idea?” Published by The San Diego Union-
Tribune; July 21, 2004. Retrieved Online:
www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040721/news_lz1e21peirce.html. March 30, 2009.
30
Katches, M. “No More Museum Pieces: The California Legislature is a whole new place since term
limits have swept it clean.” State Legislatures Magazine. A publication of the National Conference of
State Legislatures. February 1999. Retrieved Online: www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/299caltl.htm.
March 30, 2009.
! &(!
1998.
31
At the same time, the average age in the state Assembly dropped from 59 in
1990, to 52 in 2004.
32
While diversity has increased within the state legislature,
membership turn over has increased as well. In 1990, only 14 new members arrived in
Sacramento to serve in the state Assembly where now no less than 40 will arrive every
other year following an election.
33
Further, the average level of legislative experience,
usually earned at the municipal city or county level, has been cut in half from ten years
in 1990 to five years in 2004.
34
At the end of the day, voters appear to like to see change. In the world of
politics, the status quo is rarely perceived as being a positive thing. Finicky and fickle
voters regularly see opportunities for improved government services, and usually it is
the politicians themselves who are reminding these voters that such changes are
possible. Term limits allow new perspectives, or at least the perception of change, to
enter elected office at the state level with new faces entering each house every 6-8
years from each district. In an age that glorifies diversity under a belief that it “takes
someone like me to represent me,” reverting back to the old days of a homogenous
state Senate likened to “fossilized remains,” and a state Assembly of power wielding
moguls with personal agendas is not a likely scenario.
It can be concluded that, at this time in California history, term limit extensions
or removal are not likely options for the state of California. Until legislative approval
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
31
Idem.
32
Idem.
33
Idem.
34
Idem.!
! &)!
ratings increase with the California electorate, few are going to be convinced that
keeping those in office around for a longer duration is the answer to California’s
governance concerns. For term limit extensions or removal to be viable options, the
state legislature in its current membership under original term limitations will need to
learn to work together, end partisan gridlock, and prove to the voters that place them
in office that their work together is worth preserving for an extended period of time.
Until this feat is accomplished, it is safe to say that extending or removing term limits
will not occur in California.
PART ONE CONCLUSION
Advocates on both sides of the term limit analysis can cite examples and
figures that support their respective arguments. Concessions have been made since
term limits became effective, some being positive steps into a modernized society and
others being irreplaceable losses. Like most studies into California political history,
unintended consequences are generally an outcome that few voters contemplate or
understand. Although the intended policy goal of term limits in California was
accomplished, that being to force the departure of the tenured leadership in the state
legislature, the maturity and internalized wisdom of both houses has been a price of
the term limits.
A broadly shared conclusion is that current term limit policy in California does
indeed need to be readdressed in order to remedy the lack of experience-based
expertise currently exhibited in the California State Legislature. The rigidly staunch
! &*!
partisanship, coupled with personal agendas and ambitions, have created an
unparalleled and unintentional “beast” that needs to be controlled on both sides of the
aisle. Expanding lengths of limited terms may not be the best outcome, for in all
actuality, current legislative leaders would only be increasing their tenure and quite
possibly the same failures that dominate today.
One final notion requires consideration prior to the conclusion of this analysis.
In 1966, Speaker Unruh said that the state legislature needed to meet full-time in order
to properly adhere to the necessary business of the most populous state in the union.
Essentially, the state of California was thought by some to be ungovernable with the
amount of time given to finalize the business necessary to run the state. During
Unruh’s time, those who were elected to office included some who did not have full-
time obligations of employment, such as students, retirees, or the wealthy who could
afford to live without a paycheck for a set number of months each year. Over the
years following the passage of the full-time state legislature, California has passed
several measures and propositions that have changed the way the state conducts its
business. The membership of the state legislature became careerist prior to term
limits, a population that also was lacking in diversity. Now, as the eighth largest
economy in the world, the state of California has again reached a point of inability to
effectively govern. California has come full circle as a state and is now in a place
similar to 1966 where the composition is non-careerist, frequently changing, but still
burdened with great problems with limited time to solve them. Through the enactment
of term limits, has the state returned to an unintended point of no return? If this notion
! &+!
is deemed to be true, where will state lawmakers now find the time to solve these
problems when it is already a full-time job for 120 elected officials?
Legislative service and the work of the government will never be efficient or
expedient, for government work is internally not designed to function in such a way.
The role of the government is to represent the best interests of the people who place
representatives in office, serving the needs of that electorate with practical and vital
social services and government functions. The question becomes, how can this
objective be achieved in the most practical and prudent manner acting as fiduciaries of
the people? Term limits may or may not inhibit this ability, but for the time being,
they are a reality in the state of California. Until voters are contrarily educated, term
limits will be seen as a public policy that has made significant changes in the way the
state of California does business; whether or not the outcomes are constructive.
! &,!
PART 2
CHAPTER 4
GENERATIONAL LEADERSHIP
“Our youngest leaders matured in the glow of computer screens; our oldest in
the shadow of the Depression and World War II,” state Bennis and Thomas in their
highly acclaimed generational leadership book Geeks & Geezers.
35
The study of
leadership, let alone political leadership in a generational context, requires some
understanding of the players and individuals who make up our American political
system. Much of the inspiration for Legislative Term Limits in California and the
Faces of Changes was derived from the Bennis and Thomas study, where the
formulation of leadership qualities is discussed through a generational lens. This
chapter will discuss relevant generational literature in relation to the political
leadership context of this research.
“I’ll have someone from my generation get in touch with someone from your
generation,” is stated within a cartoon depiction in the Bennis & Thomas book,
picturing a cross-desk negotiation taking place between two individuals of different
generations.
36
The relevant literature discussing generational differences does not
necessarily state that cross-generation leadership is nonexistent, nor does it conclude
that generational differences are such that governance and management across
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
35
Bennis, W. & Thomas, R. Geeks & Geezers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002. Front
Flap.
36
Idem.
!
! &-!
generations is impeded by differences in age. The predominate theme that emerges
from many generational leadership pieces is through the understanding of the
differences that exist across generations, we can better manage and lead contemporary
organizations.
For generational context, Lancaster and Stillman offer a summation of the
generations applicable to this research. Within their book When Generations Collide,
they state that the Traditionalist generation (a.k.a. the Greatest Generation and the
Silent Generation) was born between the turn of the century and the end of the Second
World War (1900-1945), which “combines two generations who tend to believe and
behave similarly and who number about 75 million.” The demographic that is often
discussed in generational studies today as they comprise the majority of the working
population, the Baby Boomer generation, was born between the years of 1945-1964.
Lancaster and Stillman state that the “Baby Boomers are the largest population ever
born in this country and number about eighty million.” In contrast, Generation X is
comprised of individuals who were born between the years of 1965-1980 and are a
“smaller but very influential population at 46 million.” Following Generation X, are
the Millennials, who were born between the years of 1981-1999 representing, as
Lancaster and Stillman assert, “the next great demographic boom at 76 million.”
37
Lancaster and Stillman assert that to understand who generations really are as
collective groups of people, one needs to adopt “ageless thinking.” This theory of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
37
Lancaster, L. & Stillman, D. When Generations Collide. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
2002.
!
! '.!
“ageless thinking” looks at generations as sharing a “common history,” with “events
and conditions that each of us experiences during our formative years that determines
who we are and how we see the world.” As a result, Lancaster and Stillman state that
each generation formulates its own “generational personality,” that allows one to make
generalizations over a spread of years.
38
Understanding that generational differences are not only positive challenges,
but an established new norm in the modern world is an important component in
understanding generational leadership. Lancaster explains that,
Generations have always clashed. But generation gaps in the workplace today
are wider than ever and of greater strategic importance. Think about it.
Americans are living and working longer. The average life expectancy at birth
in the year 1900 was 47. Today it’s closing in on 80. Suddenly, four
generations are facing off across the conference table instead of just one or
two.
39
Lancaster explains the Baby Boomer generation as being different from any
other. “When you have had to vie with 80 million peers every step of your career,
you’re bound to be competitive.”
40
Bennis and Thomas further this notion by
referring to the years between 1945-1954, the era when most members of the Baby
Boomer generation were born, as the “Era of Limits.” This time is described by
Bennis and Thomas is as a time of “stability without limitations. The promise of
abundance and progress was shadowed by the fear of nuclear destruction or another
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
38
Lancaster, L. & Stillman, D. When Generations Collide. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
2002.
39
Idem.
40
Idem.
!
! '%!
stock market disaster.”
41
Lancaster adds, “We were raised by parents who convinced
us we could make the world a better place; as a result, we tend to be idealists. We
came to the workplace with a strong desire to put our own stamp on things.”
42
The leaders who grew up as members of the Traditionalist or Baby Boomer
generations, were fortunate to have many icons to emulate when it came to
formulating personal leadership styles. However, as Bennis explains, experiences of
war and the discipline of industry created a “Lone Ranger” style of leader. “The Era
of Limits was a time of rigid gender and family roles that yielded few opportunities for
men and women to lead in the same sphere.”
43
At this time in our political history, organized religion, professional security
and advancement privilege, as well as trust in our elected leaders permeated standard
American thought. “Americans trusted public institutions, perhaps because of the
sacrifices they’d made to preserve them, bust also because so many of them had
benefitted from the public works programs as children in the 1930s,” state Bennis and
Thompson.
44
Adverse to the following generations, these individuals followed the
mindset that one must “pay their dues” to advance. In doing so, “you were prepared to
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
41
Bennis, W. & Thomas, R. Geeks & Geezers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002. Page
25.
42
Lancaster, L. & Stillman, D. When Generations Collide. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
2002.
43
Bennis, W. & Thomas, R. Geeks & Geezers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
44
Idem.
!
! '&!
endure an event or master a body of knowledge and that you were willing to
demonstrate respect for those who did he same before you.”
45
Bennis and Thompson further this notion in stating, “there was at root a social
contract that tied employer and employee together. The employee, to a certain extent,
gave up his individuality for the “brotherhood” of the organization. In reciprocity, the
organization guaranteed the employee the “good life” through salary and security.”
46
Gregory Smith discusses managing a new workforce, contrasting the
traditional workplace that Traditionalist and Baby Boomer generations are accustomed
to, with the new generation workplace that Generation X has developed. Smith notes
that within the traditional workplace, five large factors are inherent to the
organizational culture; employee security from the institution, promotions based on
longevity, loyalty to the organization, employees wait for direction and respond
accordingly, and respect is based upon position or title. Contrasting that to what
Smith coins as the new generation workplace, the organizational culture is quite
different. With the new generation workplace, security comes from within,
promotions are based on performance, loyalty is shown to the team, authority is often
challenged and respect is earned. These organizational differences clearly illustrate
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
45
Bennis, W. & Thomas, R. Geeks & Geezers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
46
Idem.
!
! ''!
the values of each generation and how those values develop within the organizational
culture and context.
47
However, times have changed, as has the environment that children are raised
within and the values that become predominant in society. Crossing the generational
gap from Baby Boomers to Generation X, Bennis and Thompson discuss how availed
options in the surrounding world can play great roles in the professional development
and leadership styles of individuals. “While kids who grew up in the fifties may have
felt the claustrophobia of their limited choices, kids of this era (1991-2000) felt the
agoraphobia of seemingly unlimited opportunity.”
48
They coin the span of time
between 1991 and 2000 as the “Era of Options,” contending that technology, media,
and contemporary culture has created a society and leadership style that is not plagued
by lack of choice. Realizing that an age of endless possibility has occurred, where one
can transcend gender, race, social, and sexual-identification boundaries that in a
previous age, were impermeable.
Yet, as the next generation of leadership is availed great opportunities and
choice, there are many predominate themes that have become engrained over time
within our society. Technological mediums and advancements have crossed lines,
which make it hard to filter available information and make appropriate decisions.
Bennis and Thomas discuss this in detail in stating that,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
47
Smith, G. “Baby Boomer Verses Generation X: Managing the New Workforce.” Availed online by
Business Know How. Retrieved Online: www.businessknowhow.com/manage/genx.htm. May 4,
2010.
48
Bennis, W. & Thomas, R. Geeks & Geezers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.!
! '(!
Nearly twenty years after the Watergate break-in, Americans remained
skeptical about political institutions. They voted in smaller and smaller
percentages, and a plague of political apathy spread across college campuses.
Boundaries between politics and entertainment blurred as MTV urged this
generation to “Rock the Vote,” and a presidential hopeful appeared on
television wearing dark shades and playing a saxophone. Polls, popularity
ratings, and lobbyist dollars determined government policy. Little wonder the
American youth maintained an ironic distance from the process.
49
However, many members of the next generations do not necessarily feel
disengaged from the process. “The contrast in aspiration and self-image between
geeks (Traditionalist & Baby Boomer generations) and geezers (Generation X) is
nothing short of dramatic. Geeks often strain to grab the brass ring on their first pass
rather than waiting a few laps to get comfortable in the saddle.”
50
Bennis and
Thompson found geeks to harbor “grander and more ambitious aspirations” than
geezers did at the same age, and found that they were even more impatient to achieve
such ambitious goals.
51
The generation of X’ers, and the Millennials to come, have
adopted the spirit of learning by doing, as opposed to accepting the tested reins from
an outgoing leader. All of this taking place in a society that has become transparent,
exposed, and accordingly held accountable for its actions.
Generational leadership research has much to say about the generations that
have come to power. These generations, as discussed, have accepted and relinquished
positions of power in the business and political arenas, providing data and theory
proposals relevant to this study. Yet the next generation, the Millennials, are
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
49
Bennis, W. & Thomas, R. Geeks & Geezers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
50
Idem.
51
Idem.
!
! ')!
becoming relevant in the context of political leadership, creating an entirely different
discussion within the field.
Each of the five major political movements in U.S. History has been triggered
by a crucial event, such as the Civil War or the Great Depression that then
came the subject of extensive examination. But the real driving forces behind
this constant and predictable shift in the fortunes of America’s political parties
and in its political institutions and public policy are underlying changes in
generational size and attitudes and contemporaneous advances in
communication technologies.
52
Hais and Winograd note that given the Millennial generation, and the fact that
the first half of this generation will be eligible to vote in 2012, the history of political
realignments suggest that the outcomes of the 2008 presidential election could become
solidified in American politics for up to four decades.
53
As the Millennials are just
becoming relevant on the canvas of adults capable of invoking change, the discussion
of their generation and the inherent characteristics that defines their commonalities is
becoming predominate in generational leadership research. Theories can be expressed
by looking back upon previous generations, yet new and unparalleled factors have
changed the course of modern leadership studies. Such factors include the age of the
internet, technological connections between human beings and a media driven society
that exhibits minimal boundaries.
Just as institutions have changed with time, the individuals who manage,
govern, and lead our organizations and society have as well. By understanding the
culture and society in which our leaders are formed through their developmental years,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
52
Hais, M. & Winograd, M. Millennial Makeover. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2008.
53
Idem.!
! '*!
one can comprehend a greater contextual awareness of how leaders think, rationalize,
and govern. Just as we look back upon our nation’s history for guidance, we must
look ahead, seeking to mold and prepare those who may one day lead our institutions.
! '+!
CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The research methodologies required to complete this project entailed a great
deal of qualitative data gathering, in addition to a brief quantitative analysis of the
subject matters themselves. However, the majority, if not the entirety, of the data
collection was gathered by using qualitative means.
Once the initial background research was completed (Part 1) through literary
and published sources, original research was conducted throughout the second part of
this project through one-on-one, in-person interviews. Preparation for the conduct of
these interviews included appropriate research on proposed interviewees, development
of selection criteria of interviewees, and the development of questions in a scalable
format, all of which is discussed next in greater detail. Once the interviews were
conducted, the pool of interviewees was reduced by one-third with two-thirds of those
interviewed chosen for publication under this project. Of those selected, an analysis of
their responses was added to this project discussing the similarities among the
interviewees, in addition to their differences.
SCOPE OF PROJECT
The background research conducted in Part 1 of this project discussed the
relevant changes that have shaped and molded the California State Legislature and
governance structure of the state of California during the past 40 years. This research
! ',!
concluded with a discussion of obstacles that face the leadership of the California
government today, including an extended discussion of the ramifications of
Proposition 140 (1990) and the term-limited environment that plagues today’s state
government.
At this juncture, a clear division is found between those who served for many
years and those who now serve or may seek to serve in the present and near future.
The latter category is made up of individuals who have fundamentally shaped the state
of California through public policies implemented, however under Proposition 140,
have been unable to continue to hold state legislative office. These people, or the half
of the “faces” of this project, were a significant ramification of Proposition 140. Yet
opportunity was created for those who may seek to serve, a group who have not held
state legislative office in California. The loss of privilege for some led to
opportunities for others. Those with availed opportunities to serve in the California
State Legislature compose a new category of “faces” to be discussed under this
project.
Most Proposition 140 research reports have focused upon the negative aspects
of the policy, political and practical factors that led to the measure’s passage, and the
long- term public policy ramifications that will affect the state of California unless
further action is taken to amend the existing limitations on state legislative service.
Yet few pieces have focused on the stories of the individuals themselves and their
leadership--the “faces” of term limits. These faces are not limited to those who were
barred from future state legislative service due to term limitations, but those who now
! '-!
have greater opportunities due to the term limit imposition. This project was
developed with methodologies that tell these stories in a way that humanizes the
ramifications of Proposition 140.
SELECTION CRITERIA: THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED
In 2004, term limitations on the California State Legislature were in place
moving many individuals out of state legislative seats. These individuals clearly
constituted a category made up of those who are term-limited from future legislative
service in California. Those who immediately followed and may still be in office, or
those individuals who may have since taken office, clearly constitute another category.
Then there are those who are true standouts within the California political arena who
most likely seek to serve in an elevated capacity in the future. These individuals,
those who may serve, constitute another category altogether. Therefore, we have
those who have served, those who are serving, and those who may serve as categories
for discussion within this research comparison. In order to separate the study, in
addition to avoiding those who are currently in state legislative office and their
professional limitations, this project selected those who have served and those who
may serve as the subjects for research.
For Those Who Have Served, it was less burdensome to set criteria that
allowed them to be placed in this category, for their professional elected history
naturally identified them. To have been placed on the Those Who Have Served
interview list, an individual must have had elected experience within the California
! (.!
State Government and have had a direct connection to term limits. For each
individual, this was demonstrated in different ways. For instance, Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger was selected for his recent work to change the governance structure
of the state government, including legislative term limits, and his authoritative and
sometimes confrontational position with the State Legislature. Governor
Schwarzenegger was the only interviewee not to have served within the California
State Legislature, yet he clearly has demonstrated a vital connection to this subject
matter. Congresswoman Jackie Speier was chosen as an individual barred from
further state legislative service who has moved on to another elected office that does
not have a term-limit. Interviewing Congressman Jim Costa followed this same
rationale. In summary, all individuals chosen in this “Have Served” category have
been: 1. Elected to state office in their professional careers; 2. Have a demonstrated
connection to Proposition 140; 3. Are currently not serving in the California State
Legislature, and 4. Have reached exemplary levels of contribution to California public
policy while elected. Many are still making contributions to California public policy,
only from a different professional political capacity. These contributions are
discussed at length within the individual stories of Those Who Have Served.
SELECTION CRITERIA: THOSE WHO MAY SERVE
For Those Who May Serve, setting criteria for this interview list was far more
difficult that with Those Who Have Served. Although a few of those interviewed as
future leaders have already been elected to public office, that was not enough to
! (%!
demonstrate a connection to those who directly dealt with term limits in the California
State Legislature. Criteria had to be placed on the research that showed a connection
to the State Legislature, even if the individual was not currently vying to return to
Sacramento in an elected capacity. The only proxy available is selection and service
as a Capital Fellow, serving as clear criteria demonstrating that an individual had at
one time a serious interest in California public policy, politics and the state legislature.
Since 1957, the collective four programs administered under the Capital
Fellows Program have placed recent college graduates into the California public
policy arena. What started as the Assembly Fellowship program affording 18
individuals per year to work in the State Capitol offices of Assembly members grew
into four unique programs administered by the Assembly, Senate, Executive and
Judicial branches of state government. The program is highly selective, accepting less
than 20% of all applicants each year and in 2009 was named the best internship in the
United States by Forbes Magazine. Fellows are placed directly under senior
policymakers and legislators, affording fellows the opportunity to draft state laws,
conduct policy briefings, and shape public policy as it makes its way through the
process. Fellows are paid a small stipend and receive graduate school credit for their
service.
With the criteria of Fellowship alumni in place, the interview list still needed
to be pared down to just 12 individuals. Many Fellows complete their year in their
placements then choose to stay on employed directly by the state, while many others
leave politics and public policy altogether and seek careers unrelated to their work in
! (&!
the state government. The final 12 individuals who were selected to be interviewed on
the May Serve list included those directly involved with state government, such as
Kyla Christoffersen, a lobbyist with the California Chamber of Commerce, and Paul
Navarro, Deputy Legislative Secretary for Governor Schwarzenegger, in addition to
others who have moved on to careers outside of California politics. Such individuals
include Chris Young, President Obama’s appointee as Associate Director of the U.S.
Department of Justice and Steve McShane, Owner and General Manager of
McShane’s Nursery and Landscape Supply. When looking for former Fellows to
interview as individuals who May Serve, aside from being Fellows, it was important to
find an even breakdown between political party representatives in addition to
individuals who have reached high levels of professional and personal achievement
within their short careers. The final 12 interviewees on the Those Who May Serve list
clearly embody these criteria.
FINAL INTERVIEW LISTS
The final interview lists consisted of the two predetermined categories--Those
Who Have Served and Those Who May Serve. Within each category, 12 individuals
were selected following the previously mentioned criteria. Choosing 12 individuals in
each category was thought to be a sufficient and challenging number of interviews to
conduct, while not so logistically difficult as to impede the chances of completing the
project. It was also decided at this point that of the 12 interviews conducted under
each category, only 8, or roughly two-thirds of the stories, would be included within
! ('!
the final publication. This number would ensure a variety of stories and diverse
backgrounds would make the final piece, yet similarities would most likely be found
among the interviewees.
The lists below show the individuals interviewed, the date and location of each
interview, and the professional position each individual held at the time of interview.
In some cases, individuals had already accepted different appointments and posts
between the time they were interviewed and the time of completion of this research.
However, the position listed is the position held at time of interview.
Those Who Have Served Interview List
Willie Brown; Interviewed April 12, 2010, in San Francisco, CA
Philanthropist, Willie L. Brown, Jr. Institute on Politics & Public
Service
Jim Brulte; Interviewed April 7, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Principal, California Strategies, LLC
John Burton; Interviewed April 17, 2010, in Los Angeles, CA
Chairman, California Democratic Party
Jim Costa; Interviewed November 6, 2009, in Washington, DC
Member, U.S. House of Representatives (CA-20)
Ross Johnson; Interviewed October 21, 2009, in Sacramento, CA
Chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission
Bill Leonard; Interviewed March 3, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Member, State Board of Equalization (2
nd
District)
Bill Lockyer; Interviewed November 9, 2009, in Sacramento, CA
Treasurer, State of California
Curt Pringle; Interviewed December 10, 2009, in Anaheim, CA
Mayor, City of Anaheim, CA
David Roberti; Interviewed November 13, 2009, in Los Angeles, CA
Attorney, Law Offices of David A. Roberti
Arnold Schwarzenegger; Interviewed May 26, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Governor, State of California
Jackie Speier; Interviewed November 6, 2009, in Washington, DC
Member, U.S. House of Representatives (CA-12)
Pete Wilson; Interviewed April 16, 2010, in Los Angeles, CA
Principal, Bingham Consulting Group, LLC
! ((!
Those Who May Serve Interview List
Merlyn Calderon; Interviewed March 8, 2010, in Watsonville, CA
Political Director, United Farm Workers
Kyla Christoffersen; Interviewed March 12, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Policy Advocate, California Chamber of Commerce
James Gallagher; Interviewed July 22, 2009, in Yuba City, CA
Supervisor, County of Sutter (5
th
District)
Stephen Hansen; Interviewed October 29, 2009, in Sacramento, CA
State Government Affairs, Genentech
Steve McShane; Interviewed March 8, 2010, in Salinas, CA
Owner/General Manager, McShane’s Nursery & Landscape Supply
Sara Myers; Interviewed March 9, 2010, in Cupertino, CA
Finance Director, Meg Whitman for Governor 2010
Paul Navarro; Interviewed March 2, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Deputy Legislative Secretary, Office of Governor Schwarzenegger
Karen Pank; Interviewed February 11, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Partner, Warner & Pank, LLC
Luis Portillo; Interviewed March 16, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Assistant Deputy Director, California Department of Consumer Affairs
Scott Reid; Interviewed October 28, 2009, in Sacramento, CA
Undersecretary, California State & Consumer Services Agency
Crystal Strait; Interviewed March 11, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
President, Young Democrats of America
Chris Young; Interviewed November 5, 2009, in Washington, DC
Associate Director, U.S. Department of Justice
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
By interviewing the selected 24 individuals, the contribution of this project to
academia and the field of public administration were to highlight the work of these
individuals and humanize the public policy ramifications of Proposition 140. To
achieve this objective, it was necessary to develop a series of questions that would be
asked of all 24 individuals. These questions needed to be personal in nature, but
specific to the field of political leadership and their personal development as leaders.
! ()!
Questions were meant to invoke emotion and go beyond the superficial findings of
educational backgrounds and professional positions held. In the end, the answers to
the questions would be used to tell the stories of the individuals as leaders and what
shaped their particular styles of leadership.
The following eight questions were asked of all 24 persons interviewed in both
categories:
1. What role has failure played in your life? How has this impacted your ability
to lead and take charge?
2. What are the defining moments in your life that have shaped who you are as a
person?
3. How has your leadership evolved over time? What would you define as being
your greatest professional accomplishment?
4. Where do you go, or have you gone, for inspiration?
5. What role have crises played in your life? Have crises impacted or changed
your ability to lead or leadership style?
6. What will your legacy be?
7. What leader, past or present, do you most admire?
8. What do you think is the role of the Executive Branch when it comes to
Legislative/Executive branch relations?
These questions reflected a desire to learn about how each person developed as
a leader. The questions pertinent to failures and crises were meant to discuss applied
learning and situational leadership. The questions relative to legacy, evolution of
personal leadership, and professional accomplishment were meant to highlight
forward, visionary and contemplative thinking that most of these individuals were
expected to exhibit. The final question on Legislative and Executive Branch relations
draws upon California political experience among of all of these individuals. As
varying perspectives were based upon the professional roles and experiences of these
individuals, including Governors, House and Party Leaders, and political operatives,
! (*!
this final question was meant to bring an additional unifying element for comparison
and contrasts among the interviewees.
CONDUCT OF INTERVIEWS
Uniformity among the interviews was essential to make this a scalable project
and also to identify the unique characteristics of each individual. Each interview was
conducted face-to-face, in-person, within each interviewee’s physical space. Personal
offices were always a desired location, but in some cases it was necessary to meet in
hallways, conference rooms, holding areas and lobbies. This necessity came from the
caliber of the individual and the amount of work that surrounds many of them on any
given day. For instance, the interviews of the two members of Congress were both
held in the Rayburn Room in the U.S. Capitol adjacent to the Floor of the U.S. House
of Representatives. The day chosen for interviews of Congressional members ended
up being the eve of the U.S. House of Representatives’ initial vote on pending
healthcare legislation. Going to the work of each individual, although away from their
private offices, was essential to completing each interview. Yet, this added to the
overall “experience” of interviewing these leaders.
With all interviews, observations of the physical space, such as office
adornments, personal photos, desktop array, etc., were noted and included within each
interview whenever possible.
When the interview questions and methodologies to be used were developed, it
was expected that all interviews would be audio recorded. However, at the time of the
! (+!
Washington, DC interviews, upon entering the U.S. Capitol the recording device was
confiscated due to heightened security. The interviews conducted that day, without
being recorded, were thought to be more authentic and less staged, possibly due to the
fact that they were not being recorded. From this observation, the remaining 20
interviews were not recorded.
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
As this project focused upon the qualitative findings and leadership of 24
individuals, it was difficult to find a place for quantitative data. However, as
separating the individuals by professional achievement was the criteria used to create
the two categories of interviewees, data was collected specific to the ages of those
interviewed.
Based upon the age of each individual at the time of final completion (April 1,
2010), the following statistics can be reported:
Within the category of Those Who Have Served, the average age of those
interviewed was 65. Within the same category, the average age of those
chosen for publication was 63.5.
Within the category of Those Who May Serve, the average age of those
interviewed was approximately 33.5 (33.66). Within the same category, the
average age of those chosen for publication was 32 (31.87).
Due to the sensitivity of identification fraud and the personal requests of many
interviewees, the actual dates of birth have not been included within the publication of
this project.
! (,!
CHAPTER 6
THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the individuals who made great contributions to the state of
California pre-term limitations is essential in acquiring a holistic understanding of
contemporary California. The leaders profiled within the Those Who Have Served
chapter fundamentally developed many of the policies that current state legislators
continue to further promote. Acknowledging the identities of these individuals as
belonging to Traditionalist and Baby Boomer generations enhances understanding that
these individuals grew up in a time framed as the “Era of Limits.” Decisions made,
policies promoted, and elections sought were all influenced by these identities and the
commonalities shared amongst members of these defined eras.
The individuals who once governed California saw the world and the context
of leadership in a very different way than the generations to follow. Research shows a
profile of Those Who Have Served leaders as strong, spiritual and steadfast, not
veering away from crises but rather seeing them as opportunities for change and
growth. Governing as unitaries as opposed to collective teams, these individuals
worked across aisles as individuals who could find common ground and compromise
through pragmatic thinking, while valuing the experiences of those who preceded
them as historical and elected leaders. Much can be learned by looking back upon
history and applying tested models and framework.
! (-!
The scenarios and stories featured within this work are meant to do more than
entertain or inform; they were meant to inspire. All leaders profiled, experienced and
future, have made great things happen within their representative communities. Be it
saving lives through the implementation of public policies, or being a strong role
model for future generations, a debt of gratitude is owed to these selfless people.
Without their sacrifices, the face of California would be far more troubled.
! ).!
IMAGE 1: JIM BRULTE ELECTED SERVICE
! )%!
JIM BRULTE
According to Senator Jim Brulte (ret.), he is “a pretty good team player.” He
laughs, and then furthers this statement by saying “as long as I get to be the
Quarterback.” For those who have worked with Brulte throughout his career, this
assertion should come as no surprise. Meeting with Brulte, a highly revered strategist,
leader, and catalyst of action in California Republican politics, is a very comfortable
experience. His physical demeanor alone is reflective of a successful quarterback as
he towers well over six-feet tall and displays a dominate stature. However, he does
not seem to use his physical presence to other’s disadvantage. Brulte just comes off as
an overall nice guy who is comfortable with the place he finds himself professionally.
As he was interviewed, Brulte propped his feet up on his large wooden desk and kept
his left hand in a sack of wrapped candy. Popping fruit-chew starburst as he answered
all questions, reflecting before answering, yet displaying a great level of confidence in
all answers offered.
Brulte is meeting in Sacramento this day, a trip he does not care to make too
often. His home is the Inland Empire region of the Los Angeles metro area, a place he
knows well as its former state legislative representative. Most days he works from his
Rancho Cucamonga office, working with other individuals essential to the GOP
movement in California. Although his Sacramento office is his secondary
professional home, it does not lack in impressive features or revealing memorabilia.
Hung central above his high-back executive chair is a photo of the California State
! )&!
Senate taken in the chambers with all members seated neatly at their desks. Brulte,
then Republican leader, is one of two individuals standing. Then President Pro-
Tempore of the Senate, John Burton, stands proudly next to Brulte. Those who knew
the relationship between Brulte and Burton understand that, although a large
ideological rift separated the two, a strong respect and relationship was mutually
exhibited for one another. Together, they accomplished great things and were able to
successfully move many public policies forward on a bipartisan basis. As the rest of
the office space is surveyed, one has no doubt that Brulte is a strong Republican. A
large photo of nearly iconic dimensions of Brulte with Ronald Reagan is proximately
displayed next to ticket stubs to President George W. Bush’s inaugural ball.
When looking back upon the defining moments of his life, Brulte cites
becoming a Christian in 1975 as shaping and changes his life. “Becoming a Christian
has kept me grounded, knowing what we do here is important, but we are just passing
through this place.” He goes back in time further, discussing his childhood. Brulte
confesses that he wasn’t a “joiner” and felt like an “outsider” to most clubs and
organizations. Yet it is this feeling of separateness that helped to shape and define
many of his convictions. “I am not a defender of the status quo, really, because I
never felt a part of it,” explains Brulte. Perhaps this helps to explain how Brulte
stands so assured of himself, not cocky, but confident in his career as a public servant
prior to the implementation of legislative term limits.
Through most of the interview, Brulte was propped back in his chair, relaxed,
and focused as if a football game were on the wall in front of his desk. However when
! )'!
asked about the relationship between the Legislative and Executive branches and
specifically the role of the Executive, Brulte leans forward with both feet planted
firmly on the ground. “Some one in government has to be the adult, and as a general
rule, legislative bodies are consistently incapable of adult action,” explains Brulte.
“So, the Chief Executive (the Governor) has to be the adult.” Brulte explains that the
Chief Executive is enabled to do this, as the Branch is “unitary,” only working for one
person if the Governor is strong enough. “When I was the Republican Leader of the
Senate, I had to find 20 Senators, 40 Assembly members and a Chief Executive to get
anything done,” said Brulte. “The Chief Executives can do it themselves.” Leaning
back into his chair, Brulte smirks as he shares “the dirty secret of legislative bodies.”
Brulte states that “they (legislative bodies) respect, they react to, and ultimately
reward strong Chief Executives.” He offers Governor Pete Wilson as a chief example
of this notion, explaining how six of Wilson’s eight years of service as Governor were
with the opposing political party in control of the State Legislature. “Yet, he (Wilson)
got most of what he wanted because he was a strong Chief Executive who drove the
legislature to his point of view.”
Brulte admits that relationships within the Legislative branch, in addition to the
Legislative branch’s relationship with the Executive, get complicated. “Politicians in
general are really good at allocating pressure, but they suck when it comes to
allocating pain,” states Brulte. “Every politician wants to be at the grand opening of
the park, but when the park closes, where are they?” Brulte says that this is why he
believes in strong Chief Executives, as they can set a goal and if they are indeed strong
! )(!
enough, they can reach it. “Legislative bodies can’t get there,” Brulte states, “because
they have to find the common denominator.”
It should not come as a surprise that Brulte most admires a strong Chief
Executive, a man he once worked for as a “Junior Nobody.” “Of all leaders,” Brulte
explains,
I most admire Ronald Wilson Reagan, a man who knew what he believed,
was willing to suffer digs and arrows to implement his beliefs. A man who
had the courage of his convictions and changed the world, all the time being
a really nice guy.
It is clear that Brulte respects relationships, in addition to statesmanship. This is clear
through the insights that he offers and the individuals whom he offers as exemplary
examples of his core values, notions and beliefs.
When asked about failure and the role it has played in his leadership, Brulte
explains, “I’m probably afraid of failure, and this fear has probably created an
aversion to risk taking.” Brulte takes some time to think and then states “I don’t think
it (failure) has affected my ability to take charge. If there is something that I want to
be in charge of, I figure out how to be in charge of it.”
Moving the interview forward, Brulte discusses his professional
accomplishments and states that his Safe Surrender of Newborns bill, a measure that
has saved hundreds of lives, has to be his greatest legislative victory. “SB 1368 allows
individuals to drop newborns off within 72 hours of their birth at any hospital and a
few other spots, with no questions asked.” “Clearly,” states Brulte, “this is the most
important thing that I have done in government. I have saved lives.”
! ))!
Brulte has learned through crises, as long as crisis is defined as “a period
where there is a significant problem, without many options, where a condensed
duration of time is available to find a solution or course of action,” he offers. “Crisis
has probably made me a better leader, you know. It has always been educational,”
explains Brulte. Having presided as his party’s leader in both houses of the State
Legislature, through periods of statewide fiscal crises, utility shortage, partisan
gridlock and eventually the recall of the Chief Executive, Brulte has learned how to
successfully lead in times of crises.
“Simple people who overcome considerable obstacles,” explains Brulte, “now
those are inspirational people.” Brulte states that he gets inspired everyday, looking
back to his childhood when he was inspired by people he admired, leaders, those he
looked up to. However in his adult life, Brulte sees his inspiration as coming from
those who take a “cursory view.” He offers Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
as an example, explaining how someone becomes motivated to seek change through
an event or experience. This motivation, this catalyst for change, becomes highly
inspirational to Brulte.
Brulte has an impressive career to look back upon, in addition to the role he
plays today as a primary political insider within the state of California. As an elected
representative from the Inland Empire, Brulte termed out of both legislative houses
after a strong 14-year career. Today he leverages those contacts forged, moving
politics forward in California in a way that he fundamentally believes is within
society’s best interest. As for a legacy, Brulte hopes that it has not been written. “I
! )*!
will be highly disappointed if the most important thing I am going to do in life, I’ve
done before I am 54.”
! )+!
IMAGE 2: JIM COSTA ELECTED SERVICE
! ),!
JIM COSTA
People like Congressman Jim Costa, which is very apparent as one spends time
with him in Washington, DC. Elected to the U.S. Congress to represent the diverse
issues of the San Joaquin Valley of California in 2004, Costa embodies the very best
of his roots while looking ahead at progressive, innovative, and practical methods to
solve problems. Meeting with Costa in the U.S. Capitol hours before the public
healthcare vote, much is on the Congressman’s mind as he still humors constituents
and individuals vying for his time. Standing in the crowded, yet spacious hallways of
the Capitol, Costa was frank and precise in his answers as interview questions were
posed.
When asked about the defining moments of his life, he is quick to credit the
good sense values that were instilled in him by his parents. Costa’s first generation
American born parents had taught him that there is no substitute for hard work.
Perhaps this value was driven in to him on the family dairy farm, located well within
the district that he represents today. Further, his parents taught him that you should
always treat people as you would like to be treated, regardless of whether it is
reciprocated. These moments and life lessons have shaped who Costa is as a man, a
father, and a legislator.
Costa’s identification with the San Joaquin Valley is very apparent, for it is
engrained within all that he discusses. Perhaps that is due to his upbringing and
continued work on the family farm, or his identification with his alma mater, Fresno
! )-!
State. When asked about his greatest professional accomplishment, Costa was quick
to reply by stating that:
Helping the people of the San Joaquin Valley has been my greatest
professional accomplishment. Whether it is helping individuals with state
or federal government problems, or helping communities or major
industries, I have tried my hardest to help those whom I represent.
Having served a distinguished 24-year career in the California State Legislature prior
to his election to the U.S. House of Representatives, Costa sees the problems of all his
elected offices as being the same, all worthy of hard work relative to the contemporary
needs. “The challenges today are immense due to the economic problems that we face
at home and abroad,” stated Costa, yet he seems to understand the need to persevere
and tackle the challenges that are presented before him.
A man who needs little frill, Costa seeks inspiration in the natural beauty of his
home state. When asked where he seeks inspiration, he mentioned by playing the
piano and listening to music, yet he concluded by mentioning the beauty of the state
he represents as inspiration in itself. “I go to the high Sierra Mountains to do a little
hiking. I can sail in the summer and ski in the winter.” Clearly his own insightfulness
can be invoked by looking around him, being reminded that he represents more than
people back in California.
When asked about the role failure has played in his life, he firmly responded in
stating that one “learns from adversity.” Having been in elected office for nearly 30
years, clearly the challenges that have been brought before him are not new, yet you
learn from what you experience. When discussing crises, Costa mentions that crises
make you more responsive, if not sensitive to taking a comprehensive view.
! *.!
“Anybody who deals with a crisis successfully walks away a better person for having
done so.” Costa mentions that we all have crises in our lives, it is just how we choose
to deal with them that marks who we are as people.
Costa admires and respects history, drawing on his own Portuguese ancestry
and taking pride in his status as a second generation American. When asked what
leaders he most admires, Costa mentioned the Founding Fathers of our nation. “They
had to deal with tremendous challenges that faced our nation at that time, and they did
so successfully,” stated Costa. Costa also mentioned other great American leaders
who have shaped our great nation as we see it today, including the work of Theodore
Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. However, in reflection, he
added that he also has present-day leaders that he admires; young people with
disabilities. Costa quietly notes “they (young disabled children) have so much love to
give.”
“Every Executive Branch that I have worked with, including four Governors of
California and 2 Presidents of the United States, seem to forget that we are co-equal
branches of government,” remarked Costa when asked about the role of the Executive
Branch when it comes to Legislative Branch relations. “To alter this, the Legislative
Branch has to remind the Executive that our forefathers wanted three co-equal
branches of government.” Again responding with a notation to the original authors of
our system of governance, the forefathers that enacted our American system of
democracy and their intentions are important to Costa. He seems to respond as if he
! *%!
means to say that when we look at the work of our ancestors and forefathers, the
answers to many of our problems are there.
Prior to ending our interview, Costa asked that all his responses be read back to
him for accuracy, ensuring that he had not been misquoted. It was particularly
important to him that all of his answers reflect his efforts and desires to help not only
his representative constituents in the San Joaquin Valley, but all Californians.
Although he is humble in his demeanor, it is clear that Costa has a global viewpoint.
His answers were precise, but open to interpretation and challenge. A self-proclaimed
member of the fiscally conservative “Blue Dog Coalition,” Costa is a Democrat
serving a very conservative, agriculturally sensitive community. Balancing the need
to be a moderate on issues that are important to his constituents by not being polarized
on one end of the political spectrum, Costa is seemingly a very balanced legislator.
One day, when people look back upon his legacy, he hopes it will be that “Jim
Costa worked hard on behalf of the people of the San Joaquin Valley and California –
tried his best, and hopefully changed people’s lives for the better.” It is clear that
Congressman Jim Costa has already worked towards this legacy and will be
remembered fondly in California, the nation’s capitol, and aboard by those who have
worked with him.
! *&!
IMAGE 3: ROSS JOHNSON ELECTED SERVICE
! *'!
ROSS JOHNSON
Senator Ross Johnson (ret.) doesn’t think in terms of failure or crisis. When
asked what role crises have played in his life, he reminded the author of his legislative
career that spanned over 26 years and the fact that he was always a member of the
minority party. However, Johnson added, that there is one universal statement “this
too shall pass.” He contends that people get caught up in emotions as opposed to just
finding a way to muddle through a situation or crisis.
Sitting in Johnson’s eighth floor office located near the freeway in downtown
Sacramento, much can be discerned by looking around the sparse walls of his personal
space. Upon walking into Johnson’s private state office, one immediately notices the
fact that it could belong to anyone in the building. The state issued desk is empty
without paper or personal items, adorned only with a business card holder and a laptop
computer with mouse. There are no photos or personal items, such as campaign
posters from the many elections Johnson won (and never lost), or photos with great
leaders or public figures. Only a print painting of flowers is there, looking like it
could have once hung on the wall of a budget motel room. If Johnson were a man of
ego, one would not know that from his office. Clearly, this space is meant to serve as
a place of serious work.
Chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) since
his appointment by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, Johnson is happy to work on
the campaign finance issues about which he is passionate. In his role as Chairman of
! *(!
the FPPC, one can see that Johnson has found a place where he thinks he can
effectively promote change in an area of public sector work that is often scrutinized:
politics and political reform. However, Johnson is quick to state that, if it were not for
term limits, he would still be back in the State Assembly representing the same district
that he was originally elected to in 1978.
Looking back upon the 26 years that Johnson spent in the State Legislature, he
quickly reminds one that he was used to losing and that was part of his daily life. As
the first Republican leader to serve in both houses, the State Assembly and Senate,
Johnson states that losing battles is something that, as the minority party, you have to
learn to live with. Personally, Johnson didn’t like the familiarity of regularly losing
battles, but he adds that it was a reality that he was forced to accept.
When interviewing Ross Johnson, it is very apparent through his demeanor and
responses that conservative values were something that were instilled within him at an
early age. When asked about moments that have defined his life and political career,
without reservation Johnson references a book of cartoons from his childhood entitled
“A Cartoon Cavalcade.” This book was a collection of political cartoons that
appeared in print from the Revolutionary War until the early 1940s. As a child, not a
day went by that Johnson didn’t open this book and glance at a quick sketch cartoon.
To this day, Johnson says, he thinks of this book each day, and, as situations arise
within the state government, he is often reminded of a cartoon from this book. To
analyze this sentiment, one might think that Johnson considers the state government to
be a bit of a joke connecting his beloved book to routine actions he still observes
! *)!
firsthand. Johnson traces his conservative ideologies back further remembering his
early, and strong, opinions that he formed throughout the 1952 Presidential election.
Johnson clearly recalls watching the race unfold on his family’s “10” black and white
television, formulating permanent thoughts on leading figures such as Taft, MacArthur
and Eisenhower. During that same election, Johnson saved 50 cents to donate to the
Eisenhower campaign so that he could proudly wear an “I Like Ike” button.
Talking about his past is something with which Johnson does not seem to feel
comfortable. Although his opinions, ideologies and career are as logical as they are
impressive, Johnson is eager to talk about the issue that had led to his acceptance of
this interview in the first place: term limits. To understand Johnson’s sentiments
towards legislative term limits in California, one would have to understand a story that
he was hesitant to share. In the late 1980s, Johnson was approached by longtime
friend and Los Angeles County Supervisor Peter Schabarum. Schabarum wanted to
know how to qualify an initiative in California placing a proposition before the voters
of the state. Johnson, knowing the process well as a legislator and former attorney,
explained the entire process to Supervisor Schabarum, effectively giving him a
roadmap as to how to qualify an initiative. What Johnson didn’t realize for several
months was that he had charted the course towards qualifying Proposition 140, the
political initiative passed by the California voters in 1990.
When Proposition 140 passed, Johnson was the Republican Leader in the State
Assembly. All four leaders of both parties and houses had joined together to block the
passage of Proposition 140, working together to gather support and funds to block the
! **!
measure from passing. Johnson discusses his decision to oppose legislative term
limits, citing that term limits were already in place. “We had them [term limits]
throughout the history of our country,” states Johnson. “They are called elections, a
renewal of your contract as a legislator. For Assembly members this occurs every two
years and for Senators every four.” The three leaders, minus Johnson, countered the
passage of Proposition 140 with a lawsuit stating that it violated their constitutional
rights to run for re-election. History and final courtroom actions would not support
this argument. Johnson felt that the “people have a right to make the decision
regarding term limits,” and for that reason, he did not join the lawsuit to fight the
people’s decision.
Johnson ran for the State Senate once termed out of the Assembly, and he won
that election. Johnson had never planned to run for that office, nor Congress, as
opportunities to do so pre-term limits had been presented and declined. Johnson adds
that he liked what he did in the State Assembly and had no desire to do anything
different. Johnson considers himself to be fortunate not only to have a job, but to have
a job that he enjoys doing. He offers a sidebar of how lucky he is to have a job that
you would spend your time doing anyway if you didn’t need the paycheck, as this
gives one a “leg up” in the world.
As the final question of the interview was posed regarding Executive and
Legislative branch relations, Johnson had no hesitation in sharing his viewpoint.
Johnson contends that the State Legislature and the Executive branch need to be
reorganized to “mirror” one another. Johnson contends that the Executive branch
! *+!
needs to operate the government, while the Legislative branch should provide the
oversight of the Executive’s operation. Legislative committees should be set up to
“mirror” state agencies, boards and commissions, so that seamless oversight between
the two branches can exist. “There is nothing as permanent as a temporary
government program,” Johnson forcefully adds, stating that if proper enforcement and
oversight were in place and if Legislative and Executive roles were clearly redefined,
the government would operate more effectively.
Johnson’s sentiments highlight that he is a man who is not adverse to change, a
leader who would welcome opportunities to reinvent the way the state of California
governs. When asked informally about the notion of California moving to a part-time
legislative model as it had prior to 1966, Johnson states that he would support the
model if the bureaucracy [Executive branch] went part-time as well. The need to have
oversight and enforcement in the public sector is again emphasized, which helps to
explain why he may feel so comfortable in his Chairman role with the California
FPPC.
A statesman to the core, Johnson clearly feels that the state now operates in a
very different way. “Members don’t get to know one another anymore,” adds
Johnson, “and relationships in the Legislature were very important.” Johnson recalled
one time while he served in the Senate and was joined in the Senate lounge by a
Democratic colleague. The Assembly was in session and the broadcast was on in the
lounge. A Democratic member of the Assembly was speaking on the television. The
Democratic Senator turned to Johnson and asked, “who is that?” Aside from the
! *,!
relationships among members of the Legislature being lost, Johnson adds that
partisanship and inexperience have become the norm at the State Capitol, which has
led to a contemporary organization that cannot function or effectively govern. “What
we have now is a case of the blind leading the blind, where members are now led by
inexperienced staff brought on from their campaigns and young lobbyists.” Although
Johnson agrees that a greater degree of diversity is now apparent in the current
membership of the State Legislature creating new opportunities for others, it has been
at “what price” he questions.
Johnson doubts that he will have a legacy and hopes that one-day his five
grandchildren may remember him. A man who has seen the effectiveness of action
dissolve in the State Legislature, to be replaced by a higher degree of partisanship and
inexperience, now has moved on to other things. Johnson doesn’t want a monument
erected in his honor, or a school named after him within the Orange County districts
that he represented for 26 years. What he wants is the fair and proper governance in
the most populous state in the nation. Perhaps this goal is something that Johnson can
further as the Chairman of the FPPC or as someone who holds the relationships with
many who have moved on to other positions within the government or private sector.
Or perhaps he will just be content with his grandchildren indeed remembering who
their Grandpa is.
! *-!
IMAGE 4: BILL LEONARD ELECTED SERVICE
! +.!
BILL LEONARD
“He tried,” states Senator Bill Leonard (ret.), when asked what his legacy will
be one day. “I wish that I had been successful in working with a majority of like-
minded people,” continues Leonard. “I worked with anybody and everybody to seek a
common goal, solution, or plan.” Sitting on the 23
rd
floor of a downtown Sacramento
high-rise, Leonard oftentimes gazes out over the incredible view of the riverbeds and
local topography as he reflects prior to answering interview questions. There is a
telescope by the window and the walls are covered with antique and contemporary
maps. Although Leonard served as a State Legislator from 1978-2002, there were few
opportunities for him to be able to embrace the majority as a Republican. Leonard
still seems content with this and cites examples of when he was able to work with the
Democratic caucus of both the State Senate and Assembly, in addition to Governors of
both parties, throughout his elected tenure. “I learned a lot from Willie Brown,” states
Leonard, after a thoughtful pause. “Although we rarely agreed on much, he is a
servant leader. Some don’t get the distinction.”
Leonard is not a loner, and he has a strong appreciation for the role that has
been vested in him by voters in multiple elections. When asked how his leadership
has evolved over time, Leonard again turns to servant leadership to help explain how
he serves in office. “It’s always been a servant leadership for me. A leader is a
servant to his constituency – be it a chamber, or a legislature, etc. I’m here at your
pleasure, I’m here to serve you,” Leonard says with a smile. Perhaps it is this notion
! +%!
of being a true representative, coupled with life lessons that have developed this
human being into a strong, yet humble official.
“My Dad was one of the greatest leaders I’ve known, worth emulating,”
explains Leonard. “He was rarely in the top position, but he regarded his influence as
greater being the Treasurer, or the Chair of the Nominating Committee. He saw this
role as enabling him to lead for many years into the future.” Leonard cites his father
as being some one he turned to for inspiration, alongside historical figures and leaders
from another time. “What did other men and women do when they were confronted
with similar challenges?” asks Leonard. “How did people, such as the early disciples
of the church go from persecution to disciples in less than three centuries?” Leonard
appreciates history and has clearly learned from it. A theme of looking back to leaders
from other times will be a central theme to many of Leonard’s responses.
When asked about failure and its role in his professional life, Leonard responds
by saying “Blessed by God, I don’t think I have ever failed. The proof is that I have
never lost an election for public office and things happened at the right time to meet
the objective.” However upon reflection, Leonard looks back on his time in the State
Legislature and quickly remembers his earlier statement seeking to work with more
like-minded people. “In 24 years of legislative service, I lost more bills than I ever
had signed,” explains Leonard. “Losing bills has forced me to choose to work with
other leaders to convince them that my ideas are sound, or to go outside to appeal to
the people directly on the ballot.” However, Leonard notes that, had people listened, it
would simply be a different set of troubles with which the State would be grappling.
! +&!
“Failures ultimately lead to success, I strongly believe this. You have to be
optimistic.”
“I have always loved the legislative process and I observed legislators for years
before I got there,” Leonard explains when discussing moments that have defined who
he has become as a leader. “The bonding between legislators, the way different
people are treated, this all fascinated me.” However, Leonard states that there are
downsides to serving in an elected body. “There’s always lots of winks and nods,”
states Leonard. “I don’t do that. Shake a hand, wink, to then go on and do something
contrary to what I said I would. People who know me know that I will fulfill any
commitment that I make. That is the turning point,” Leonard contends. “As a
legislator, I watched and learned and chose the best path for me.” When discussing
other defining moments, Leonard cites accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior,
“Has been my guide to the most big and little things I have done. To do what Jesus
Christ would do or be consistent with what he would teach.”
“Some people live a life of crisis, that gets them to lead,” says Leonard when
discussing the role of crises in his life. “For me, my future is already taken care of so
all the crises blend into the background.” Leonard stated that crises had played a
minor, insignificant role in his life. “There is no crisis that rises above all others,”
explains Leonard. “Crises are a challenge of the moment, but you have to focus on
that topic and move forward incrementally. From this point, you learn and reflect,
asking yourself if plan B would have worked instead?”
! +'!
“Whenever people tell me that they are running for leadership of some kind
within a body,” Leonard says,
I ask them who their campaign manager is. If they don’t know, I know that
they do not have a good leadership team together. If it is a legislator or a
group of people trying to move this person forward, I know they get it.
Leonard, who served as Republican leader of both houses, states, “Despite the title, no
one is really alone as leader.” Leonard has learned a great deal throughout his career
in elected office, a great deal of which he practices on a day-to-day basis as a current
elected official. “I had a hard time learning how to delegate and recruit, then allowing
individuals that I trained to do their respective jobs. This was particularly hard as a
leader in working with caucuses.”
Leonard can cite numerous contributions that he made and is proud of over the
years of service in the State Legislature. “I’m proud of certain things, in particular,
those that have changed or saved lives,” explains Leonard. “Such as lowering the
legal threshold for blood-alcohol content to .08, this has saved lives, but there is a
half-life to all laws.” Leonard’s words are as if he understands his own mortality as an
elected official, as if to say that when I have moved out of office, some things will stay
in place, others will drift away. “I protected free speech passing a law that states that
students cannot be held liable for misconduct when speaking in papers or in public,”
furthers Leonard. “We have a natural right to freedom, but we need constant
vigilance.”
! +(!
“The first step towards understanding the role of the Executive when dealing
with the Legislature, is understanding that the two were never designed to get along,”
contends Leonard.
This understanding helps to outline your leadership. As an Executive, you
are forced to ask permission, and sometimes even your friends will not go
along with your plan. As a legislator, oftentimes a group of my colleagues
would put together a letter to send to the Governor, asking for a particular
action on a bill, Leonard explains.
“And in most cases, he would do it.” However, this led to what Leonard refers to as
“Leonard’s Law of Countervailing Gratefulness.” One day, Leonard asserts, this law
will be the first chapter in his book. “When the Governor would take the action we
requested, we would not even say thank you,” adds Leonard.
This went both ways. But what I realized is neither side understood what
sacrifice some one went through to make a decision. There was never any
appreciation or support for the ultimate decision-maker, some one who may
have gone out on a limb to support each other.
This led, as Leonard contents, to a disproportionate level of gratefulness and a
disconnect between the two parties. “When it comes to the working with the other
side of the aisle, if some one crosses it, you always thank them as you wouldn’t have
expected them to take this action,” says Leonard. “Most of the time you do not agree
with this person, so you are grateful.” Leonard states that things, such as your closest
political allies, should not be taken for granted as they often times are in elected office.
“This taught me a lesson in saying thank you,” Leonard states. “Learning to
appreciate some one and showing it now ensures that you will not lose them in the
next round.”
! +)!
IMAGE 5: BILL LOCKYER ELECTED SERVICE
! +*!
BILL LOCKYER
“In the legislature, you get paid to have an opinion,” remarks California State
Treasurer Bill Lockyer. “People do it with differing degrees of intelligence, honesty
and rigor.” If anyone would know the ins-and-outs of the California State Legislature
and the psyche of its members, that person would be Bill Lockyer. Having served 25
years in the State Legislature including his role as the President Pro Tempore of the
Senate, Lockyer knows how California’s legislative branch still attempts to work.
Sitting in his State Treasurer’s office under a painting of a small child being muffled
by a hand with the phrase “Censorship is Un-American” above it, Lockyer does not
hold back in his assessments of his own personal history as an elected official, nor the
other statewide Constitutional Officers or Legislative leaders he works with on a daily
basis.
Lockyer was quick to accept this meeting, and it was scheduled in the early
afternoon on a Monday. After waiting for some time, his conscientious and thoughtful
staff offered to reschedule the meeting for later in the afternoon. When we finally sat
down to meet later that day, he apologized profusely, mentioning that there was a new
group of Executive Fellows that he was meeting with and they had extra time.
Lockyer clearly believes in the role of the young and the next generation of leadership
to come. Perhaps this can be attributed to his ninth grade teacher, who became his
surrogate mother following the death of his own. When mentioning his teacher, he
picks up a framed picture of the two of them behind his desk. Working with her was
! ++!
one of the defining moments of his life, for it was she who interested Lockyer in a
“focused way” in politics and public policy.
When thinking of other defining moments within his own life, Lockyer recalls
working as an Administrative Assistant for Assemblyman Robert Crown when Crown
was struck and killed by a passing car while jogging. After much consideration,
Lockyer ran for that seat and was elected to the State Assembly. He would hold this
seat for 9 years prior to being elected to the State Senate and later California Attorney
General and California State Treasurer. “I’ve only lost one election,” notes Lockyer,
“and that was for High School Student Body President where I lost to my best friend.”
Lockyer has no problems discussing his three marriages, citing the first two when
asked about the role of failure in his life. “You get better at it each time,” he says with
a laugh.
A very telling moment during this meeting was his response to the question
regarding the evolution of his leadership skills and greatest professional
accomplishment. “In the legislature, you manage very modest staff resources, where
very little management skills develop,” states Lockyer. “You learn by looking at the
big bureaucracies.” Lockyer mentions that it was not until he chaired the Judiciary
Committee, where at that time 23% of all pieces of legislation were sent, did his
management skills begin to mature. “Of course, as President Pro Tem of the Senate,
much more managerial work is expected of you; working on the budget, high volumes
of work, and providing leadership for colleagues.” However, Lockyer makes an
interesting contrast between the Executive and Legislative branches, noting how hard
! +,!
it is to manage an Executive branch office and department. “You have to learn to
delegate serious responsibility and hold those to whom the work is delegated
accountable. Keep asking yourself what are we managing to?” furthered Lockyer. “If
I have done anything right, it has been hiring and retaining incredible people. My
office is thought of as being one of the best run in the state,” said Lockyer. “My
greatest success? My team.”
With each question asked, Lockyer sat back and thought for a moment before
responding. His answers were thoughtful and inspired, well thought out prior to
beginning his responses. This observation helps to support his response when asked
where he turns for inspiration. “Inside a lot,” said Lockyer. He discusses T.S. Lewis
and his discussion about public sector men with sunken chests who require external
praise. “I feel a strong sense of internal goal setting, worthwhile goal setting,”
explains Lockyer. As a Democrat, he notes, he has also looked to the teachings and
wisdom of many great leaders from the past, including Abraham Lincoln, and
Theodore Roosevelt. Next to Lockyer’s desk is a portrait of Lincoln and on his desk is
a bust of Roosevelt.
“When it’s tough, you need to both listen to people carefully and chart a
straight forward direction,” said Lockyer when asked about crises and their impact
upon his life and leadership style. Although he admits that most of his crises were
personal in nature, he mentions that crises enforce reflection on who you are. He
explains that crises can be anything when it comes to politics, sometimes it is
personal, some times it is directly attributable to the job you have chosen to accept
! +-!
through election. Lockyer notes times that he has given serious thought to running for
Governor of the State of California, “then came Jerry Brown again, and of course,
Schwarzenegger,” he adds. Crises or failure do not seem to concern Lockyer much, as
he does not seem to have a reactionary style of personality. Given the massive
economic “crises” that California has faced throughout his entire tenure as State
Treasurer, this observation of his own collectivity provides great insight.
Modest in his background and political and public accomplishments that span
over 36 years in elected office, Lockyer has no idea what his legacy will one day be.
“Probably there is very little that will be remembered,” states Lockyer. “Hopefully
there will be some embedded changes within the system that will last.” An avid
reader and contemplative person, Lockyer has sought wisdom from many sources that
have added to his persona in office. He discussed his admiration for many private
sector individuals. People he described as extraordinary, such as the creators of the
modern economy, entrepreneurs or inventers such a Edison or those who built the
transcontinental railroad or the internet. “The were visionary people,” explained
Lockyer, “with entrepreneurial insight combined with business acumen.”
Understanding the “acumen” of these individuals and allowing himself to be inspired
by these visionaries has clearly played a role in how Lockyer has governed throughout
his years in public office. Without question, Lockyer will have a memorable legacy.
“The Executive branch could demonstrate greater fidelity towards the interests
of the legislature,” stated Lockyer when asked about the role of the Executive branch
relative to its relationship with the Legislative branch. As an individual who has held
! ,.!
the most powerful office in the upper legislative house and now sits in a top Executive
post, Lockyer has insight. Lockyer states that there should be “friendly tension”
between the two branches, however, he does not pause for a moment when stating that
it is much harder to be on the Executive side. “The general role of the Executive
branch is to execute and administer the politics that the legislature writes,” explains
Lockyer. “However,” he adds,
this is very difficult to do in a political environment where the tendency of
the legislature is to be driven by newspaper anecdotes. Firing the director is
not the answer. You need to fix the system and not allow the media to drive
your responses and policies.
Lockyer mentions that much of this can be attributed to term limits, as it is hard to
develop these skills in a short period of time. “Our goal as the Executive and
Legislative branches should be to run more efficient bureaucracies,” explains Lockyer.
“We need to get everyone together to work on efficient spending, not politics. We
should be working towards a common purpose.”
When Lockyer was President Pro Tempore of the State Senate, he used to
mention to his colleagues that the “plural of anecdote is not evidence.” Lockyer is a
thoughtful and informed human being who has worked within the public sector in
elected office for over 36 years. He has never lost a public election and has managed
to stay in public office for this entire duration without lapse, despite the enactment of
term limits while he was serving in the State Senate. Meeting with Lockyer is an
interesting experience, for there is something different about the demeanor of his
Executive office. Although it is situated in a historic and regal state building, one
might think it would feel old and stodgy. Yet it is not at all, rather, it is warm, friendly
! ,%!
and modern. Lockyer’s staff is personable, friendly and outgoing. Each seems happy
to be at work despite the constant ringing of phones with angry Californians on the
other end who are unhappy with the state of the California economy. Much of this
will be concluded as being attributable to a man who “gets it.” Holding public office
is not about legacy building, nor is it about monuments erected or named in one’s
honor. It is about serving constituencies to the best of one’s abilities and having the
ability to assemble a team that is capable of doing the work. Perhaps that explains
why the State Treasurer’s office in the midst of a statewide economic crises is such a
pleasant place to be. Perhaps this would also explain how some one, such as Lockyer,
has remained in office even in the face of term limits.
! ,&!
IMAGE 6: CURT PRINGLE ELECTED SERVICE
! ,'!
CURT PRINGLE
Mayor Curt Pringle likes to meet early for breakfast at the Mimi’s Café on
Harbor Boulevard, right in the heart of his city, Anaheim. When Pringle walks in,
everyone is happy to see him. Especially Susette the waitress who reminds Pringle
that she was the one yelling his name at the 4
th
of July parade. Susette instantly knows
Pringle’s order and has it in front of him quickly. Pringle smiles and quietly mentions
that Susette likes to show off a bit, making sure that others are aware of her standing
in the community and friendship with the Mayor. Before Pringle is able to discuss the
nature of the interview, he is entrenched in his local Orange County newspaper. Over
the top of the newsprint pages he says, “I can’t start my day until I see where my name
is or is not in print.” Although Anaheim is the 10
th
largest city in the state of
California, most Mayors probably do not need to survey the morning paper to see what
the press has to say about their policies. However, Pringle is no ordinary Mayor.
Pringle is a man who has fundamentally changed not only the landscape of his local
community but the institution that governs the entire state. “My greatest professional
accomplishment was when I was elected Speaker of the California State Assembly on
January 4, 1996,” explains Pringle. “Republicans never had that job to that degree,
nor the apparatus that Willie Brown had evolved into that office. I moved that
institution forward and enacted professional change in the institution itself.” It is not
commonplace to hear of elected leaders discussing institutions and governance
structures, perhaps because it demonstrates the mortality and lifespan of elected life.
! ,(!
Yet Pringle has a lot to say about Sacramento and does not seem to miss it on a day-
to-day basis.
Pringle does not shy away from the word “failure.” In fact, he openly credits it
with his success in being elected to the State Assembly and eventually as Speaker.
“Failure is one of the most important parts of leadership development,” confesses
Pringle. “I ran for the City Council three times and lost each time. But if I hadn’t lost,
I would never have been Speaker.” Once Pringle was elected to the State Assembly in
1988, he only served one term before the Democratic challenger defeated him in 1990.
Yet Pringle again credits failure as leading to later successes. “When I returned to the
Assembly in 1992, I was put in a place where my experience allowed me to be
Speaker,” Pringle explains. “Having lost my seat in the Assembly, only to gain it back
two years later, puts the job in the proper context. It allowed me to see that its
(failure) not the be all and end all of life.” Although Pringle admits to having fear of
failure, “I’ve lost enough to know that I will survive. If you succeed or fail, you’ll still
survive.”
When asked about his legacy, Pringle discusses his two children. Pringle’s
daughter was actually born during his first term in the State Assembly. “Hopefully
one day my personal legacy will involve being married to the same wife and having
kids who still love you, when it’s done,” Pringle says. Yet his professional legacy is a
different story. “When I was in the Legislature, we changed many systems. I can, to
this day, physically point back and cite examples of how it (the Legislature) can
operate, even bi-partisanly,” Pringle asserts. “We changed the way the state
! ,)!
government worked and introduced a freedom-friendly, market-based approach to
governance.”
Without question, Pringle prides himself on his conservative principles and
affiliation with the Republican Party. However, Pringle is not a partisan, at least, not
seemingly. When asked about those individuals he admires most, at the state level, he
offers former Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown. “I admire Brown’s leadership,”
explains Pringle.
I see him (Brown) as a leader with power, but that power was accrued due
to his leadership. I saw many occasions where Brown didn’t get his
personal will accomplished, but that of his caucus. He had a keen
understanding of his caucus and others and was an astute policy advocate –
he understood it.
Pringle’s year as Speaker defines a great deal of his contemporary leadership,
understanding the art of relationships and the need to protect not only one’s personal
integrity, but that of one’s representative office or position. Pringle offers President
Ronald Reagan as an example of this leadership, citing Reagan as a leader he greatly
admires at the federal level. “Reagan was a good person, surrounded himself with
good people and strong principles, then moved his policy agenda forward with like
principles,” Pringle states. “He (Reagan) too understood policy, but he also
understood his own limitations.”
Having served at the helm of the State Assembly as the leading Republican in
the State Legislature, Pringle intimately understands the nuances of California
governance. When asked about the role of the Executive branch when working with
! ,*!
the Legislature, “I believe by definition, the role of the Executive is to offer a position
and respond to the legislative outcomes,” Pringle explains.
A Legislature can offer its position, but it has evolved into a place where the
Executive has become a negotiator in the process. I do not think that’s the
Executive’s role; it is not the place where they should be focused.
A theme of working together within the government comes up many times
with Pringle, understanding where other members of the Legislature may be on an
issue and respecting their position. When discussing defining moments that have
shaped who he has become as a leader, Pringle discusses the road that led to the
Speakership. “You had to put things together in advance that were necessary to get
the job done,” contends Pringle.
This process shows the character of many of your colleagues, seeing what
deals others want to cut. This process defined me and who I would be as
Speaker. It has shaped who I am and what I think of myself.
Knowing that a Republican had not held the role as Speaker for decades made
Pringle’s role particularly meaningful, and, according to Willie Brown himself,
Pringle was the last Speaker to wield broad power in that office.
Pringle defines himself, when discussing the evolution of his leadership, as a
“policy, idea-driven leader who focuses on the power of ideas then rallying people to
those ideas.” Pringle explains “This is how you build cohesion, by building
enthusiasm around a set of principles and ideas.” Perhaps this is due to the fact that
Pringle is comfortable in his role as a leader and is not afraid to face conflict and
contrary perspectives. “I’ve been tested,” explains Pringle, as he discusses crises and
the role they have played in his own leadership. “Many people cower or move away
! ,+!
from crisis. I have always thought that my job was to step forward and solve it.”
Pringle explains that a tremendous amount of response to crises has framed who he is
as a leader. “The higher up you go in leadership, the bigger role they (crises) play.
They do not avoid you,” states Pringle. “I think I can respond well to crises, because
when they occur, I go to a strategic plan to resolve it.”
“I’m a simple guy,” Pringle states, when asked about where he seeks
inspiration. “I’m a faith-based person. I am prayerful – that has given me the ability
to focus and strengthen myself; my focus, my attention, my plan.” Pringle believes
that being a part of the same Orange County community for so many years has played
an inspirational role, in addition to knowing that community and how to effectively
serve it as a leader. “I need to know the community that I come from, that lends to my
ability to serve it.”
Pringle has served as Mayor of the City of Anaheim since 2002 and has
transformed the community in a variety of ways. Pringle’s approach in Anaheim has
been described as aggressively pro-business and “freedom-friendly,” seeking to
encourage the conduct of business, tourism and commerce. “I work well with them,”
says Pringle as he points across the street at the Disneyland Resort. “That is
important.” Pringle still spends a great deal of time in Sacramento conducting
business as a private public relations and land-use consultant, in addition to serving as
a Schwarzenegger appointee on the Public Employees Post Employment Benefits
Commission and to the California High Speed Rail Authority. Staying busy and
! ,,!
relevant is not something Pringle struggles with, nor is remembering the name of each
busser, server and host at Mimi’s Café on his way out the door.
! ,-!
IMAGE 7: DAVID ROBERTI ELECTED SERVICE
! -.!
DAVID ROBERTI
Sitting in this law office above the bustle of Wilshire Boulevard in Los
Angeles, Senator David Roberti (ret.) is quite comfortable discussing his convictions
and achievements, but in a humble manner. Surrounded by books, antique wood
furniture that is integrated with technology and a cup of perfectly sharpened yellow
pencils on his heavy desk, Roberti’s office is not what one might expect from a man
who led the State Senate for 13 years. His personal space is much less assuming and
not the least bit pompous, as one might expect of a retired California politician who
served in office for over 28 years. Rather, it is small and comfortable, giving Roberti
the room he needs to practice law and dabble in politics from time to time. Roberti
was extremely open to being interviewed, very honest and contemplative in all of his
responses to the questions posed. He seemed to understand the contribution that
leadership studies can add to formal academia, and what we all can learn by looking
back upon our past, seeking to emulate the good while learning from the bad.
“Even before I was an office holder, I should have run for Vice President of
Loyola Marymount University when I was an undergrad there,” explained Roberti in
discussing failure and the role it has played in his life. “I thought of one-million
reasons why I shouldn’t run because I didn’t want to lose. I would have won.” This
experience in Roberti’s life tugged at the back of his mind for years, which led to his
decision to run for State Assembly at a very early age. “Worse than losing are regrets.
I didn’t want to repeat those regrets.”
! -%!
Looking back on his career, it must have been the drive not to fear failure that
pushed his ambitious and progressive legislative agenda for 28 years. As a legislator,
Roberti took on massive and controversial issues that have fundamentally changed the
footprint of California today. “I’ve used my role in power to do great things.” When
asked about his greatest professional achievement, his answer was different than what
mainstream history might suggest. Roberti was well known for his efforts to take on
the gun lobby when he sought legislation that would restrict the sale of assault
weapons. Roberti was the first lawmaker in the nation to successfully pass such a
measure, eventually gaining the support of Republican Governor George Deukmejian.
However, it was his work to make California more compassionate that seems to please
Roberti the most. “I tried to help the state move towards a more compassionate level,”
explains Roberti when discussing his personal accomplishments in office. From
granting rights to animals, to promoting funding and after-school programs for “latch-
key” children throughout the state, Roberti carried many bills that greatly impacted the
people of California.
The gun legislation that Roberti is well known for passing was a common
thread among many of his professional accomplishments. Roberti took great pride in
passing the legislation with Governor Deukmejian, whom Roberti mentioned, was
expected to support. Roberti recalls the day that he was in the Governor’s office and a
note was passed to Deukmejian. That day, a gunman had entered Cleveland
Elementary School in Stockton, opening fire and killing 8 children. This experience is
a crisis that Roberti recalls having not only solidified his own feelings on gun control,
! -&!
but having profoundly affected the Governor as well. “This crises gave us
momentum,” explained Roberti. “No matter how much power you have as a leader,
you need crises to bring change to fruition.” Discussing the role that crises have
played in his life further, Roberti stated “Crises, hopefully, do not change your ability
to lead. Rather, crises just make you stronger and more able to lead.”
When Roberti was first elected in 1967, he freely admits to being extremely
partisan in his viewpoints and perspective. However, over time, he discovered the
necessity of working with the other side to bring them both into positions to
accomplish something. “My philosophy didn’t change,” explains Roberti, “I just
became a much more bi-partisan leader without losing my partisanship.” This was
how Roberti discussed the evolution of his own leadership, citing changes that came
with experience and maturity, which still did not change his position. Rather, it
changed his actions.
“Did I revolutionize the state when I had the chance? Hardly,” admits Roberti
when discussing what his legacy may one day be. “…but I had a chance to move it.”
Roberti laughed when the legacy question was posed, appreciative of the fact that the
question was posed as what his legacy will one day be, as opposed to what it already
was. Roberti cited many of his professional accomplishments from his time in elected
office, including animal rights, gun control, granting people the right to access their
own information and government records, after-school programs, but most
importantly, his desire to make California a more compassionate place. Heeding his
! -'!
own advice, Roberti seems very comfortable in what he achieved while in office,
seemingly without the regrets that pushed him to run in the first place.
“Instead of focusing on the next step,” stated Roberti, “you should find
satisfaction where you are at. Under term limits and with young people, this is harder
to do. At least you have to hope that the time you spent there, was worth the time of
your life.” This assertion, as offered by Roberti, is very telling of his personal
character, for having led such a successful political career with so many public
accomplishments to note, he is very modest and unassuming. Roberti had mentioned
that he was a shy child and very fearful of public speaking. His mother had enrolled
him in elocution lessons when he was growing up, something that Roberti confesses
helped him to overcome his “inbred limitations.” This was a defining moment in his
life, alongside the work of a high school teacher who assisted Roberti in breaking out
of his shell, motivating him to take challenges. For someone who would grow to
become a larger than life political figure, this is a different scenario than one might
have expected.
Everyone that Roberti admires has great flaws, just as most human beings do.
This is a fact that he noted up front, as if to say that regardless of how great a leader
one may be, all are susceptible to failure. Roberti furthered his comments on leaders
he personally admires in explaining those that he looks up to the most, were those who
“did their jobs, accepted responsibility, allowing the ‘chips’ to fall where they may,
without calculation.” Truman was such a man, Roberti noted, “except he dropped the
bomb. I still have great doubts about his decision to do that.” However, Roberti has a
! -(!
lot to say about Truman, a man who he states should be credited as having ended the
Cold War. “Truman ended the Cold War, not Reagan, because he put it in place.”
Roberti admires Truman’s abilities to make hard decisions, such as firing General
MacArthur, then taking responsibility for those actions. “He (Truman) took
responsibility without calculation and he retired and didn’t cash in.” Perhaps this
helps to explain Roberti’s role in California today, still engaged, yet not an outspoken
advocate or someone who seeks to stay in the spotlight through public accolade.
Another individual cited by Roberti as someone he holds in high regard was Governor
Pat Brown.
We are still living on his credit card. The infrastructure that was completed
by Pat Brown, such as the public higher education system, hasn’t been built
upon since Brown was in office. This speaks of his achievement throughout
his tenure as Governor, stated Roberti.
Roberti is some one who values history and ancestry, able to look back and
discern notable elements from past leaders and make their work applicable in the
contemporary time. Roberti said that he finds inspiration in historical biographies and
novels. As some one who enjoys reading, it seems as if the works he has read through
the years have had a strong impact on who he became as a leader.
“The Governor is in the perfect position to share his thoughts as he is not
running for reelection,” explained Roberti when discussing the role of the Executive
Branch. “The Governor currently has enormous responsibilities, but there is negative
discourse between the people of the state as to what should be done.” Roberti
explained the singular role that he perceives the Governor’s Office and Executive
Branch to hold, which prevents much greater things from happening. “The Executive
! -)!
Branch should initiate proposals and then see them through,” offered Roberti.
However, far too often Roberti notes, the Executive Branch waits for the bill or
measure to make it to his or her desk. “You don’t pick a controversy until it comes
home,” explains Roberti, realizing the political will of the Executive Branch in being
able to deflect many controversial decisions that never make it out of the State
Legislature. However, in Roberti’s experience, he notes that the Executive Branch has
rarely been the instigator of policy, which Roberti feels, is unfortunate.
“The more successful the politicians, the fewer constraints they place on
themselves. It makes you flexible,” states Roberti, looking back on other models of
leadership and how his own evolved with time. From a shy young boy born to an
immigrant father, to personal regret that would serve as a catalyst to initiate change
and political discourse, to a contemplative former legislator who is today pleased to
put his law degree to use; Roberti is a man to learn from. A dynamic, un-intrusive
leader who sought positive change in his home state, Roberti is an individual that will
continue to shape California well into his retirement from public office. At the
conclusion of the interview, Roberti stated that the questions were not what he
expected. “The interview was far more ethereal,” he said. Perhaps preparing for the
worst, only to be placed in positions that will bring out the very best, is something that
Roberti thinks he is not used to. However, Roberti seems to be very comfortable to be
in the skin he is in today, surrounded by his historical novels and heavy wooden
furniture, able to look back on nearly three decades of positive service to California.
! -*!
IMAGE 8: JACKIE SPEIER ELECTED SERVICE
! -+!
JACKIE SPEIER
Congresswoman Jackie Speier is not about to write her epitaph, she said while
laughing when asked about what her legacy would be. The newly elected member of
the United States House of Representatives has clearly taken to Washington, D.C., as
we met off the house floor in between casting votes, yet as a native Californian, you
can tell that she longs for the familiarities of her home state. Speier readily admitted
while walking around the grandeur that is a Fall day in Washington, D.C., from the
U.S. Capitol to her office in the Cannon House office building, that, if it were not for
term limits on state legislative service, she would be happy to be back in the State
Legislature in Sacramento. However, now she feels fortunate to be back in public
service where she can continue to advocate for the rights of individuals who may not
have a strong representative voice.
Our meeting was moved from her modest office, to the Rayburn Room off of
the U.S. House of Representatives floor. The day of our meeting was on the eve of the
much-anticipated public healthcare vote, and the U.S. Capitol was buzzing with
media. As we sat down to meet, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi walked into the
room to hold a short press conference. With flashing bulbs from the media and
Congressional staffers in every corner, it was hard to remember that an interview had
to be conducted and focus had to be kept on the subject of leadership. Yet, when
sitting down with Congresswoman Speier and talking candidly about her eventful life
on a couch in the corner, its almost as if nothing else is going on in the room.
! -,!
Do not be fooled by the ear-to-ear smile that radiates as Congresswoman
Speier walks into the room. Speier is a true fighter and some one who is not afraid to
look failure and fear in the eye. A dominant theme that was brought up throughout the
meeting was the central moment that defined her life in 1978 on the runway in
Jonestown, Guyana. At the time, Speier was a staff member to Congressman Leo
Ryan, who led a delegation to Guyana to investigate claims that constituents were
being held against their will in a cult compound. After inspecting the compound, the
delegation was ambushed by gunmen taking the lives of five individuals, including
Congressman Ryan. Speier was left for dead that day, at the age of 28, with five
gunshots piercing through her body. For 22 hours, Speier laid there, thinking to
herself that she would not live to be 80 or live to see 2.5 children to call her own. As
she lay there, Speier made a personal commitment to herself, that if she lived she
would never take a day for granted and she would dedicate her life to public service.
Today, over 30 years later, Speier represents the same district in Congress as the late
Congressman Ryan.
A paperweight sits on her executive desk in the Cannon House building that
states “What would you do if you knew you could not fail?” When asked about
failure and the role it has played in her life, she sits back and openly responds that
failure is “one of the hallmarks of my life.” She quotes Winston Churchill in saying
that “Success is never final, and failure is never fatal.” Speier refers to herself as a
three-time loser, citing three unsuccessful efforts over the previous 31 years to run for
elected office. However, anyone who looks at her track record in office can see that
! --!
Speier is anything but a loser. The element to discern from this moment in our
meeting is that Speier is not some one who is afraid to take risks, afraid to ask
questions, or retool a failure into a victory. When asked about the paperweight on her
desk, she is quick to say that power paralyzes people, but when you know that you
cannot fail, when you no longer fear it, you have nothing to lose. She again brings up
that day in Guyana, a day that she admits was a crisis, but a day that defined her and
made her stronger.
I had to prove to myself that I was strong, I am strong, I am tough, and that
day I chose not to be a victim. You do not know how tough you are, how
strong, or adaptive you may be, until you are tested. People who are not
tested have the misinterpretation that they are tough, when in many cases,
their assumption has never been tested.
Two days after she was released from the hospital following the Guyana
massacre, Speier filed papers to run for the seat vacated by the late Congressman
Ryan. Again, Speier states, “I decided that I was not a victim, rather I was a survivor
and fighter.” As she no longer felt physical pain in her body, she knew that she
needed to help others furthering the legacy of Congressman Ryan. She refers to this
as “great therapy.”
Prior to her election to Congress in 2008, Speier served 16 years in the
California State Legislature prior to term limiting out of both houses. During her
tenure in Sacramento, Speier fondly recalls many of the achievements she made and
enacted on behalf of the people of California. When discussing her greatest
professional accomplishments, she continues to mention the need to fight and
persevere. One of her personal favorites was the partnership she created with the CEO
! %..!
of eLoan and their financial privacy victory when she was a California State Senator.
After being “beat up and spit out year after year, I reached out to Chris Larsen and we
started a partnership working towards financial privacy legislation.” She then laughs,
mentioning that all of the sudden, the industry was willing to come to the table, and
we all moved forward together.
The next professional accomplishment discussed was helping women in
poverty, an area very close to her heart and personal in nature. Not afraid to ask
questions, Speier researched reasons why women in particular were susceptible to
poverty. Her results showed that one of the leading causes was the fact many were
owed court ordered child support that was not being paid. Speier passed legislation
that linked child support payments to holders of state issued licenses. For those who
owed back payments, no state license would be issued until the back payments were
remedied or resolved. The first case to come forward involved a doctor in San Diego,
who owed $100,000 in back child support payments. By involving the state Franchise
Tax Board as the collector of the back child support payments, in the first two-years of
her program, over $2 billion was collected and paid out to families. Clearly these
legislative victories were not the work of a self-described loser. Rather, they were
victories by some one who has learned to fight and bounce back from previous and
unsuccessful efforts with greater insight, strategy and wisdom.
When asked where she goes for inspiration, Speier first mentions her faith.
Then she mentions those who have come before her in public service and elected
office. She mentions Mother Theresa, Eleanor Roosevelt, and President John F.
! %.%!
Kennedy, Jr. “It is always inspirational to see that we have a common canvas between
those who have previously served in elected office, and those who serve today. Our
stories are very similar.” Yet, what was really moving in Speier’s discussion of where
she draws inspiration was when she mentioned her constituents. “Bringing the stories
of average people to the public and forefront, is a very moving and rewarding ability
to have as a public servant.” By bringing these stories and problems from her
constituency forward, Speier mentions that we realize “great triumphs from great
stories.”
Speier admires President Franklin D. Roosevelt of all leaders past and present,
recognizing the extraordinary challenges of his administration. She mentions the
demise of the financial system, which resulted in the enactment of some of the greatest
protections of our time. “Until we undermined them,” she continues. She cites the
Great Depression and the massive unemployment that was rectified with extensive
federal work programs. “Regrettably,” Speier continues, “ he also took us to war, but
did so effectively.” Speier mentions that he was able to do all of this as a disabled
man, yet that did not hold him back.
When asked about the role of the Executive Branch when it comes to
Executive and Legislative branch relations, Speier mentions that the system we have
in place (federally) has worked for over 200 years. “We have ceded too much
authority over to the Executive branch,” Speier readily admits, citing recent economic
crisis and bailouts of hundreds of billions of dollars without Congressional approval.
“The Executive branch must allow Congress to do its hard work, but they need to test
! %.&!
us from time to time.” The current healthcare initiative being sought by President
Obama was a strong example of this collaboration between the two branches, Speier
mentions, complimenting the President in his ability to collaborate with Congress and
learn from the mistakes of his predecessors who sought similar reforms.
Back to the legacy question, Speier states that she hopes that she will be a role
model for women, in particular. “I hope they (young women) can see that you can
handle lots of things in life, and succeed. You can have a career and be a mother.
You can be a legislator and still have a family. You do not have to abandon your
principles to succeed in politics.” Speier reminds us all to ask questions, question the
status quo and never be afraid to stand alone. This three-time loser is not afraid to
walk the talk that she offers, for through her failures, she has been “propelled to do
many more things in life.”
! %.'!
CHAPTER 7
THOSE WHO MAY SERVE
INTRODUCTION
The study of young leaders is particularly important, for these are the
individuals who will accept the reins of governance and serve as elected and appointed
officials. Some young leaders have already started this process and have been elected
to representative public posts. Understanding their viewpoints, in comparison to those
who have previously served within the same elected posts, facilitates understanding of
the organizational structures of governance models. All young leaders profiled within
this chapter were members of the Capital Fellows Program.
As members of the X and Millennial generations, young leaders of today have
a strong sense of responsibility and understand that much is expected of their
leadership as they accept varying roles. The young leader operates best as a team,
accepting leadership roles, but also seeking to extract the best individual
characteristics from a team-driven environment. The young leader has been raised as
under the “Era of Options,” having little memory of times without immediate access to
information and technology. These leaders have learned from mentors, individuals
who personally inspired each one, investing in them as the next generation.
! %.(!
Some feel as if the younger generation is saddled with a set of problems that
were created by earlier generations, necessitating even greater levels of crisis
management, creativity, and overall leadership. Dealing with these problems in what
has arguably become a highly inexperienced, partisan, less professional environment
in the state government will make this task even more difficult.
! %.)!
IMAGE 9: MERLYN CALDERON PROFILE
! %.*!
MERLYN CALDERON
Merlyn Calderon seems at home among the bright blue walls and worn, red
industrial carpet of her office. Calderon works out of the original United Farm
Workers (UFW) office, located on the main street of Watsonville, California, on the
upper level overlooking the bustling streets below. If these walls that surround
Calderon on a daily basis could speak, they would tell the story of the Strawberry
Campaign of years past, the movement that organized the Farm Workers. Although
the headquarters office is sleek and modern, now located in Salinas, the original office
in Watsonville is the one with which the workers themselves identify. It was on the
streets below that Cesar Chavez organized thousands of workers statewide to march in
support of fair wages, safe working conditions and civil rights. “People slept here,”
states Calderon, explaining the historical context of our setting. “This is the place that
people identify as part of the movement, so there is an emotional attachment to this
space.” The walls are bare except for occasional press clippings, campaign posters
and ornamental portraits of Chavez himself. Calderon only works out of this office
one or two days a week, the other days she works out of her car as she travels from
farm to farm throughout the “breadbasket” of California’s central coast and valley.
Calderon serves as the Vice President of the UFW and as the California
Political Director. To understand Calderon’s work, in addition to what drives her
professionally, one would have to understand this child of Farm Worker parents and
her admiration for Cesar Chavez himself. When asked of a leader, past or present, that
she admires most, Calderon smiles and responds with “isn’t it obvious?” Calderon
! %.+!
quotes Chavez; “It is not enough to progress as individuals while our communities are
left behind.” This summation is also how Calderon defines what her legacy will one
day be, that of helping people to help themselves; the mantra of Cesar Chavez.
Calderon grew up in this area and is at peace in her surroundings. When her
father died when she was nine, Calderon’s mother had to raise all six children on her
own. To this day, when Calderon seeks inspiration, she is drawn back to her family’s
original home, which sits on McFadden Road literally in the middle of the fields. All
that is left of her family home now is a windmill and aged garage where she played
with her five older siblings. “I think that it is important to remember where you come
from,” states Calderon. “When I lived on the east coast and I would return home, I
always had to make a stop here even though my family had moved to another part of
the valley.”
Calderon knew that she had to change the traditions of her family when she
saw the failures of her siblings to pursue education. She reveals this in her discussion
of failure and its role in her life. Of the six Calderon children, Merlyn was the only
one to go on to college and not start a family as a teenager. “I knew that the next
generation, my nieces and nephews, needed a new role model,” states Calderon. “All
that I do is not for me, it is for the next generation and the children of the Farm
Workers that I serve.”
When Calderon looks back to defining moments in her life, she quickly recalls
Mrs. McMillin, her ninth grade English teacher. Prior to high school, Calderon was
not involved and identified more as a rebellious and mediocre student. It was not until
! %.,!
Mrs. McMillin saw a quality in Calderon, one that others had dismissed, that her life
changed and she gravitated towards politics. Mrs. McMillin had stopped English class
telling Calderon to stop talking. Calderon recalls, “She (McMillin) announced that the
school was looking for student government candidates. She looked at me and said
‘Merlyn, you love to talk, you love to debate, why don’t you give it a shot?’” At this
stage, Calderon’s life changed as she became involved in the governance of her high
school and eventually was elected Vice President of the student body.
Calderon went on to college and then was accepted into the Assembly
Fellowship program, taking her away from what she knew on the central coast to
policy work in the State Capitol. At the conclusion of the fellowship, unsure of what
she was to do next, Calderon accepted the position as a Community Organizer back on
the central coast. It was 2002, a large election year in California. Calderon’s job was
to triple Latino voter turnout in Monterey County, something she did not feel qualified
to do. Calderon had very little knowledge of the UFW or the work of Chavez, but she
soon learned the importance of her work in addition to the overall movement.
Calderon succeeded in tripling the Latino voter turnout and found her passion in
mobilizing communities. She learned how the work of former UFW leaders, such as
Chavez or Dolores Huerta, had worked to empower individuals. Calderon learned
how to organize a home meeting, a grassroots network and a political movement that
would rival any in California’s history.
Following the 2002 elections, Calderon was offered an opportunity to return to
Sacramento and work in the State Legislature while she finished her Master’s Degree.
! %.-!
She recalls the long talk that she had with her mentor, Arturo Rodriguez, a leader
within the UFW who had worked with Chavez. Despite Rodriguez’ efforts to keep
Calderon with the UFW offering her other organizer positions, he saw Calderon’s
desires to go back to Sacramento. Before she left, he told Calderon that her home was
with the UFW and that she would be back.
Back in the State Legislature working for a progressive member of the
Assembly, Calderon learned first hand the role of crises. The summer of 2005 was
particularly hot, and a Farm Worker died in the fields due to heat exhaustion. The
UFW approached Calderon’s boss, Assemblywoman Judy Chu, to act by passing a
law that would seek to prevent further deaths in the fields. As the legislation was
being drafted, subsequent deaths occurred. Calderon explains that this was a “crisis of
epidemic proportions, and the state government needed to act quickly.” Calderon
organized the “Meeting Under the Sun” in the central valley city of Shaftner, bringing
in elected leaders to meet alongside the Farm Workers in the middle of the fields.
People sat on the backs of their trucks, on produce crates, and on the hot ground in
temperatures in excess of 100 degrees. Those in attendance from Sacramento finally
understood from this experience the intricacies of the problem and the need for swift
action. Although the State Legislature did not successfully deliver a bill to the
Governor’s desk that summer, Emergency Regulations by the California Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) were successfully implemented.
It was organizing meetings, such as the “Meeting Under the Sun” in the middle
of the fields that have helped to evolve Calderon’s leadership. “I have had to learn
! %%.!
how to empower as opposed to thinking that I have to do everything myself in order
for it to be successful,” explains Calderon. “It’s not just delegating, it’s empowering.
Just like Cesar.” Calderon discusses how she has learned the art of developing a
community, finding the proper tools to help people to help themselves. “Congress
doesn’t want to hear from me – they need to hear directly from them, the Farm
Workers. As Cesar said, ‘they just need the tools to deliver their own message.’” In
2009, Congressman Gutierrez of Illinois was interested in passing immigration reform,
so he traveled to Salinas. Calderon had to work with her constituency, preparing the
Farm Workers to give their own testimonies. “It was empowering to me personally,”
explains Calderon, “to watch them (Farm Workers) be empowered and courageous
enough to tell their own stories.”
Calderon has found her passion in the fields alongside the Farm Workers. “I
could do many things and earn more money, but that is not important to me,”
confesses Calderon. “I help people to help themselves.” Understanding this reality is
how Calderon sees the future of the UFW movement, which she reveals in discussing
Legislative and Executive branch relations. “Although the Legislature’s job is to write
and create the laws, while the Executive’s role is to implement and enforce, the state
doesn’t have the tools its needs to enforce the applicable laws in the fields.” Calderon
explains that of the 30,000 ranches in California with Farm Workers, there are only
150 CalOSHA regulators working to enforce the safety regulations in the fields. It is
the responsibility of these 150 individuals to ensure that the rights of the workers are
not being violated. To do this, the availability of clean drinking water and restroom
! %%%!
facilities on all 30,000 California ranches must be enforced. Calderon offers the
answer to the solution, “is to empower the workers to enforce the laws themselves,
and this is only possible when the Farm Workers are organized.”
! %%&!
IMAGE 10: JAMES GALLAGHER PROFILE
! %%'!
JAMES GALLAGHER
James Gallagher is Janna’s husband and Catherine and Maggie’s Dad. At
least, that is how Gallagher describes himself when explaining the defining moments
of his life. The 28-year-old attorney was elected to the Sutter County Board of
Supervisors in June 2008 to represent not only the most populous district in the
county, but also the largest geographically. Gallagher’s district, number 5, is also the
district that his grandfather once represented in the late 1980s. Sitting behind a large
oak desk neatly organized with a myriad of papers and court documents, Gallagher
explained the many facets of his life that have led to his accelerated levels of
accomplishment at a young age.
To understand James Gallagher, you have to understand all that surrounds him
in his daily life. Born and raised in rural Sutter County near Yuba City, California,
Gallagher aspired to be a part of something “big” that he knew from a young age
would occur. Sitting on a rice check with his father on the Gallagher family farm, he
explained that he wanted to dedicate himself to something more than just the here and
now. This was a defining moment in his life, knowing that his steadfast faith in God
would play a significant role in this something “big.”
Gallagher’s family has been a part of Sutter County since the late 1800s when
his Grandparents eventually settled in the county as Irish immigrants. Next to his desk
is a black and white framed photo of the original family farm owned by his great
Uncle Anthony J. Gallagher. This name is inscribed below the photo in faded black
letters, the photo clearly having been a part of the family’s history for many years.
! %%(!
Gallagher’s parents still reside in the same home and work the rice fields as full time
farmers. Growing up in a household of two supportive parents, Gallagher eventually
married his high school sweetheart after his graduation from the University of
California, Berkeley. Moving from a small, rural and conservative environment to a
university town known for its expressive liberal tendencies was another moment of
note that Gallagher said greatly defined who he is as a leader. Living in Berkeley
helped to give Gallagher a fuller picture of how others see the world and strengthened
his personal philosophy on life. Berkeley made his philosophy “more full,” and
prepared him to enter a world of differing perspectives and ideologies--politics.
Gallagher was accepted to the Assembly Fellowship program and served
within the office of Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa. LaMalfa, also a rice farmer from
rural California, is the individual that Gallagher admires most in the present day.
Considering that the leader Gallagher most admires from the past is Abraham Lincoln
should give an indication of how highly LaMalfa is revered by the Gallagher family.
Working for LaMalfa strengthened Gallagher’s political convictions and desire to
serve a constituency as not only a pubic servant, but also as a servant of God.
After working in the Assembly as a Fellow, Gallagher went on to law school at
the University of California, Davis, and was admitted to the California State Bar three
years later. Gallagher continued his work on a part-time basis in the Assembly, but
focused mainly on his legal studies. The law books behind his desk have large yellow
“used” stickers on their spine, having clearly been used recently to help to interpret the
! %%)!
law for his current clients. Evidently Gallagher sees learning as a process and his
current position as a new attorney is applied learning.
Gallagher explains that it is not the end of the world when you experience
failure, as we all do at some point. Looking back to his first election effort in fifth
grade against his best friend Paul for class representative, Gallagher remembers his
defeat and initial taste of failure. As his teacher explained to him, you can’t be
“obnoxious” with your beliefs and impose your vision and ideologies on others
without having first listened to what they expect from you. Gallagher learned a
valuable lesson in leadership with this experience, a lesson that he exercises with
every decision he makes as an elected official. Gallagher explains the need to relate to
people in a “real way,” allowing them to tell you what they care about, not just what
you care about. Even when two disagree, a relationship of trust can still be fostered.
Learning to relate to others is something that Gallagher sees as God working through
and from within him and ultimately, a critical leadership quality that has developed
over time.
In high school, Gallagher was a member of the Future Farmers of America and
once sought the elected office of Regional Secretary. In his campaign speech
Gallagher stressed the need for strong determination, which he finds ironic since he
lost the race. However, this call for determination is particularly telling, especially
within this scenario, for when we fail we must pick ourselves up and move on.
Learning to move on and learn from failure is difficult, but just as with crisis,
something leaders must inherently do.
! %%*!
It is hard to grow as a human being unless you ultimately experience suffering
of some kind, explained Gallagher when asked about dealing with crisis. What is
important is how you respond to this crisis. After a sidebar comment about crisis
stressing him out, followed by a small laugh, Gallagher remembered seeing his mother
battle breast cancer. Crisis is what brings people together and makes us better people.
For Gallagher, crisis such as dealing with a cancer-plagued mother, has drawn him
closer to God and helped him to develop a much deeper level of self-awareness.
Gallagher is hopeful that this relationship with God, coupled with his self-awareness
and drive to serve the public good, will ultimately become his legacy. “God
glorified,” meaning that when he looks back upon his career as an elected official,
observers will not necessarily see a “theocracy” per se, but will see what Gallagher
believes is God’s will which will be righteous, just, and loving.
There is much to learn from the young and dynamic leadership of Mr. James
Gallagher. Whether it is his penchant for relating to others or his ability to reflect and
seek wisdom, Gallagher has achieved much in a short tenure. Modest in his presence,
but comfortable discussing his achievements, Gallagher seeks to preserve the lifestyle
that he has experienced firsthand through his upbringing. Gallagher is not
embarrassed to admit that there are times in his life where he may not have “practiced
what he preached,” or may not have followed the path that God has charted for him.
However, it is the eventual realization that he may have gotten off track that
eventually drives Gallagher back to a place of focus and clarity.
! %%+!
In many places throughout the state and nation, this rural and communal
lifestyle is a distant memory or something that once adorned the cover of a weekly
magazine. However, for Gallagher, it is something that he actively works to preserve
and promote so that his young children will one day be instilled with the same values
and sense of place. Gallagher describes himself as a stakeholder in his community and
his work as a public servant is a testament to his appreciation for the values of his
surroundings. Being an elected official is not about a title, it is about preserving our
shared values and representing the people in a way that they wish to be represented.
As a fellow, Assemblyman LaMalfa imparted a valuable lesson upon Gallagher. No
detail is too small. The moment an official thinks that they are someone special based
on their elected status, at this point, their time in office should end. Representatives,
such as County Supervisors, are in office to serve. When constituents reach out to
their elected officials, their concerns are never too small or laborious for it is the job of
the representative to listen and serve. The lesson that Gallagher’s fifth grade teacher
imparted on the need to listen to those we serve prior to espousing what we want
others to hear is a fundamental lesson learned over 28 years of his life. That same
teacher, nearly 20 years later, contributed to his campaign for County Supervisor.
! %%,!
IMAGE 11: STEPHEN HANSEN PROFILE
! %%-!
STEPHEN HANSEN
Stephen Hansen points to a framed picture above his office desk. He
purchased the picture on one of his many nomadic travels abroad, this particular one
came from Ukraine. The picture is of a large lion holding a small lamb, very gently.
Hansen says that this photo embodies his philosophy of including the excluded.
According to Hansen, any time that you can do this, you should. He poses the
question, “are we really the lion that we always think that we are, the big dog who has
the place to exclude the weak?”
Hansen lives his life in this very way, seeking to help people to find the good
within themselves. When it comes to Hansen’s way of thinking about leadership and
his own style, he looks back upon many experiences with “vignettes of people” who
throughout his life have shaped him into the professional man he is today. Hansen
recalls his high school French teacher, who framed leadership in saying that “People
do not remember you for things that you do, but how you treated them.” Hansen
understands this assertion as he sees leadership as helping people to succeed and not
setting them up to fail. Working to funnel people down the right path and turning bad
means into a good end is something that is very important to him. Hansen is grateful
for all that he is surrounded by, for his own basic philosophies of leadership and life as
being developed by the great examples that surround him. He feels blessed by the
people who have seen potential in him and afforded personal opportunities for success.
Now he sits in his 21
st
floor office overlooking the expansive railroad yard
redevelopment project and Sacramento River. He is happy to point out items of
! %&.!
interest to visitors who are keenly interested in his bird’s eye view of Sacramento.
Currently working for Genentech’s State Government Affairs division in Sacramento,
Hansen has come a long way in self-actualization to the point where he finds himself
today.
Born in a small town in rural Minnesota, Hansen grew up a “latch key” kid,
learning to care for himself at a early age and, as he describes, “Becoming too
independent, too quickly.” He shares a metaphor of growth, describing two trees.
One tree grows in the arid and dry desert climate. This tree must struggle to survive,
being alone and without the shelter of other trees. This desert tree becomes hardened
and independent, for even though it is regularly challenged for survival, it will not
simply go away and die. The other tree is grown in the forest, surrounded and
sheltered by other trees. A canopy develops, sheltering and nurturing the small tree
and creating dependence for safety and security. If all of the other trees are chopped
down, the small tree will most likely break in a strong gust of wind, or not have the
ability to fend for itself and survive. Hansen sees himself stuck in the middle of both
depictions, having felt great love in his life, but still feeling the challenges of
oftentimes feeling alone.
Hansen’s mother did not make the best choices for herself, he states, including
raising Hansen and his older autistic brother on public assistance. Hansen knew that if
he was going to break the “cycle that fate had set out for him,” it would be necessary
for him to find a way out. In high school, Hansen turned to the Junior ROTC
program, which is where his leadership skills began to formulate. Hansen describes
! %&%!
his time in Junior ROTC as providing him with a “Paradigm of leadership to work
within life.” It is here that Hansen learned that you have to be responsible for others,
not only yourself. This ethic of training instilled responsibility, in addition to
accountability, which is the foundation that Hansen operates from to this day.
The only time Hansen mentions his homosexuality is in discussing why he did
not accept a ROTC scholarship for college. In high school, ROTC gave Hansen
choices, providing him with a path out of his personal circumstances. However,
Hansen describes this path as taking him to a point where, at the crossroads of
graduation from high school, he did not want to be told what his choices were. The
military’s newly enacted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexuals
serving in the military limited Hansen’s choice as to whom to openly love in exchange
for a college scholarship or professional line of work. Hansen did not see this as a
choice, but rather a clear indicator that the military was not his path, as he knew that
he could find other ways to serve.
“Having the power to have perspective, that is leadership,” explained Hansen
when discussing his work with a traditional family values lobbyist. Although the two
were usually political foes on matters of policy, they developed a friendship and found
a way where they could coexist, even when they disagreed. Hansen is an inclusive
person, drawing from experiences that have helped him to gain perspective and value
for other people’s viewpoints.
Hansen fondly discusses his grandmother, who recently died at the age of 107.
Hansen was close to his grandmother, for she helped to put things into perspective
! %&&!
reminding him to be grateful for his many blessings. At the age of 96, Hansen’s
grandmother was in the hospital with a broken hip. Shivering one night, a nurse asked
her if she was cold and would like a blanket. Hansen’s prideful grandmother
responded in saying that there are many needy people in the world, “go help them.”
This level of self-sacrifice is still inspiring to Hansen, and you can see the teachings of
his grandmother within him to this day. When discussing sacrifice and gratitude, he
thinks of holocaust survivors that he has been privileged to know, or the single
African-American teacher in his highly Caucasian high school. These individuals
have inspired Hansen, just as the leader he most admires, President Barack Obama.
Hansen seeks Obama’s leadership style as being different than any other
president’s. Obama has “changed the discussion,” Hansen states when thinking of the
President’s collaborative style of leadership. A self-admitted ageist, Hansen sees the
President as being the leader of his generation. A man who came from very little, to
then change his own course and destiny, moving on to achieve great things in the face
of adversity.
Baby boomers expect us (Generation X) to take care of them in ways that
they did not take care of us. The President (and Generation X) is being left
with trillions of dollars in debt with an expectation that we will finance
them and their needs.
At this juncture, Hansen sees this President as being one who can recognize these
problems and social shortfalls. This revelation will help to foster the awareness and
need for changed social systems that must come from Congress and the United States
government.
! %&'!
Hansen is not scared to criticize, for he is quick to say that leaders are not
perfect, they are human. Hansen admires Senator Ted Kennedy, for he was a man
who had real human failures but still achieved extraordinary things. At times of
failure, Hansen contends that things are put into perspective. It shows us as leaders
where we are in relation to our goals. When failure occurs, Hansen explains, we are
given an opportunity to recommit to what we want to do. As a self-described
overachiever, Hansen realizes that ambitious people set very high goals. “When one
does not necessarily meet that high point, has he really failed?” Realizing that failure
is a point that all leaders will face is something that Hansen is not afraid to discuss.
Hansen is also not shy in discussing crises, for he contends that it is these experiences
that take us to our knees and really shape us as leaders. Hansen sees crises as points to
where we can ask ourselves, “What can we learn from this.” Oftentimes, individuals
focus too much on the small stuff, giving small problems more importance than they
deserve. Hansen states that he no longer sweats the small stuff, for it is disrespectful
to those people who have so little.
Hansen takes little time in recalling what his greatest professional
accomplishment has been, noting an outcome that he describes as being “immensely
satisfying.” In 2004, after 5 years of work, Hansen’s advocacy efforts helped to pass
the first marriage equity bill in the United States. The California State Legislature
approved Assembly Bill 1967 in 2004, a bill that granted all Californians rights to
marry one-another, regardless of their identification as homosexual or heterosexual.
Prior to the passage of this bill, court action had always been necessary for
! %&(!
homosexual couples to marry. Being able to do this, not necessarily for himself, but
for other people is something that Hansen takes great pride in recalling.
When discussing the role of the Executive Branch, Hansen notes that the
Governor is the only one in the state who is looking out for the best interests of all 38
million Californians. For this reason, Hansen contends that the Executive Branch
needs to be the “grown up.” Hansen mentions that the “State Legislature can pass all
of the bills that they want, but someone has to be there to sign and implement them.”
Hansen’s experiences with the state government have led him to conclude that
“California politics are supposed to be a team sport. The current Governor
(Schwarzenegger) is not on any team, which has caused him problems yet given him
opportunities.” Drawing on the current composition and actions of the California
State Legislature, Hansen feels that legislators are too focused on being independent,
jockeying for their next job which fractures the branch. “Perhaps,” adds Hansen,
“this is a reason why we should revisit the term limits that have placed constraints on
the system, causing it to be dysfunctional.”
When asked about his legacy and what it will be, Hansen responds with “I
don’t know, it is not written yet. There is so much to do with little time to do it.”
Hansen recalls a poster at the summer Catholic youth camp that he worked at over
summers in college that stated “God put me on earth to do certain things, and, right
now, I am so far behind I am never going to die.” Hansen discusses idols including
Ted Kennedy, who recently passed away but even in death can still do great things.
“In death, you still work.” Having visited areas torn by war and disagreement, Hansen
! %&)!
adds that, “People still manage to coexist. Look at Belfast.” Perhaps Hansen will
realize his own mortality, perhaps not. Yet it is apparent that Hansen plans to devote
his life to finding ways to help people to coexist, as he has seen in his formal study of
peace and conflict resolution, and helping others to find their own inner good.
! %&*!
IMAGE 12: STEVE MCSHANE PROFILE
! %&+!
STEVE MCSHANE
It’s a cool day on the cusp of Winter and Spring on the Central Coast of
California, and Steve McShane is busy preparing for the open house event that is
coming to his Nursery in the week ahead. It’s a Monday, and McShane is pleased
with the festivities that just ended from the preceding weekend. It was his annual St.
Patrick’s Day party, infamous among friends and neighbors, which brought in over
200 personal friends and colleagues this year. The 3-day event ended with a wine tour
of the Salinas and Carmel valleys, on a chartered bus no less, and a live band at his
house which closed slightly after midnight. The police were never called, which is the
norm for McShane – he probably knows them any way as he has been an active
volunteer with the City of Salinas Police Commission. To meet Steve McShane, a
man who has never met a stranger in his life, is an experience in itself.
McShane sits behind his desk at McShane’s Nursery & Landscape Supply
under post-it notes taped to the wall stating adages like “Slow Down,” “Pimp Your
Garden” and “Penny for your thoughts.” There are actually many post-it notes
adorning the walls around his desk, alongside awards, newspaper accolades and
service plaques. Throughout his interview, he came back several times to an old
adage, one that he recently heard quoted by a German Baron. Recently sent on a
fellowship exchange to Germany, McShane quotes the Baron’s words, uttered while
visiting the Baron’s personal equestrian farm. “When you’ve been given this much,
it’s your responsibility to give back.” McShane comments on this in saying that “I
already see the huge responsibility that is on my shoulders due to what I have been
! %&,!
afforded.” He hopes to one-day leave the world better than he found it, making that
his legacy. However, he furthers this by saying “my most productive years are ahead
of me, I’m still learning.”
McShane has amazing clarity in his life and can see the big picture. Although
some may be dismissive in thinking that he is overly enthusiastic or insincere,
McShane could not be more authentic. As a soil science major at Cal Poly San Luis
Obispo, McShane knows the earth in a literal context. As a Senate Fellow, he worked
to pass the legislation (SB 309) naming the San Joaquin Soil as the official soil of the
state of California. Since 2005, he has served the Salinas/Monterey community as the
Owner of McShane’s nursery, a place where you can not only “Pimp Your Garden”
through his new landscape division or purchase a fruit tree, but also hold a private
community event complete with pizza from his wood fire oven. McShane has learned
the art of bringing the party to him, which is perhaps why he is so well liked by others.
McShane is not afraid to discuss failure even stating that failure has “played as
significant a role in my life as success.” Learning from others is something that
McShane knows well, however, “success is always a bit sweeter.” Elected to the
Hartnell College Board of Trustees, but then losing reelection, stung McShane quite a
bit. He chalks it up to experience and the reality that it is difficult to serve in such a
capacity when you own a business. He remembers becoming the Associated Students
President back in college as a write-in candidate. Not expected to win, he tripled voter
turnout that year. However, in a three-way race the following year he lost reelection.
! %&-!
“The peaks wouldn’t be really as exciting if the valleys didn’t exist,” states McShane
and he moves on.
Similar to McShane’s outlook on failure, he discusses the role that crises have
played in his life. “For me, every crisis is a learning opportunity,” states McShane.
“However, I have learned not to lead by crises. Things fall through, but they are
important learning lessons and good for mobilizing.” Although he tries to avoid
crises, he looks at them with “curiosity” and “respect.”
Those who have known McShane for years have most likely received a copy of
his annual goals and mission statement in the mail. Although he has not mailed these
out for a while, McShane likes to be held accountable to those close to him. He opens
his wallet and pulls out a paper copy of his personal mission statement. It has been
retooled a bit over the years, but still exhibits McShane’s character well. Each year he
takes a trip to somewhere new, considering this to be a retreat where he can retool, set
goals and write an update. This year it was to Patagonia, Argentina and he went alone.
Although he is extremely extroverted, McShane is clearly not afraid to be alone and is
comfortable in his own skin. Perhaps that is how he exudes confidence, minus the
arrogance that sometimes coincides.
When discussing leaders whom he admires, his first answer is Lincoln. He
then looks to the stack of paperback books atop his office filing cabinet and grabs a
copy of How to Stop Worrying and Start Living; Time Tested Methods for Conquering
Worry, by Dale Carnegie. “I’ve learned a lot from this guy, that’s why I pay my staff
to read this and write a book report on it.” He cites his parents, both entrepreneurs.
! %'.!
McShane proudly boasts that his father was listed as one of the top 20 business owners
in the Silicon Valley and that he has started several businesses on his own, as well as
sold them off for profit. Perhaps that is where McShane gets his entrepreneurial
ingenuity and has been successful in building a strong business that exhibits his sense
of personal, professional and community balance. “I have a business plan, and we
have done well,” adds McShane, pointing to the areas of future construction on the
grounds of the nursery.
When asked about his leadership over time, McShane states, “I’ve gotten better
at it. Like anything, it takes practice, practice, practice, in addition to welcoming a
good challenge and recognizing that even when it seems unbearable, you are
stretching.” McShane describes his leadership as something that evolves daily with
experience, from hiring and firing employees, to making difficult decisions that will
affect people’s lives. However, McShane sees a great deal of responsibility in his role
as a leader, stating that it is his calling to “build people to get involved by empowering
them.” It’s McShane’s view that very few people want the role of leader, the true role,
it is usually something that they are asked to accept. “Many people have leadership
skills, they just don’t even realize it,” continues McShane. “It is the role of a leader to
help them to realize it, so that they in turn can do good for other people.” McShane
walks over to his filing cabinet and pulls out a large manila folder that is filled with
personal notes, cards and clippings. “Whenever I am down or doubt what I may have
done for others, this is where I go,” he says. This folder is filled with every “thank
! %'%!
you” note that he has ever received, reminding him that his role as a leader surpasses
his day-to-day life.
McShane feels that it is the role of the Executive Branch, when dealing with
the Legislative Branch, to be the “bigger person in almost every situation or argument,
almost the parent.” McShane states that the “Legislature can be subject to a great deal
of infighting and stone throwing, and it is the Executive’s role to keep the decorum
and peace, holding the overall responsibility of the state government.” Having worked
within the State Capitol and District Offices of Senator Bruce McPherson for over five
years, McShane understands these assertions about the Legislative Branch from a
personal level. Now as a candidate for the Salinas City Council, 3
rd
District, McShane
is well versed in political organizational theory. “It’s not the things along the way
that are significant, it’s the people.” Knowing Steve McShane, this statement
summarizes his leadership.
! %'&!
IMAGE 13: SARA MYERS PROFILE
! %''!
SARA MYERS
“Failure isn’t inevitable,” states Sara Myers. “This is something that sticks
with me to this day.” Myers is anything but a failure, juggling two mobile phones, a
day timer, laptop computer in the headquarters of the leading Republican
Gubernatorial candidate in the state of California. The election is less than nine
months away and she has made her office in the campaign conference room this
morning. Her set up appears to be a “war room scenario,” mobilizing her for action at
any time. Juggling two phones at once seems to be a task that she has become
accustomed to, taking calls from donors, event planners and Whitman, the candidate,
herself. Myers is used to a bit of chaos in her life, having uprooted her life (and long
time boyfriend) many times to move for political campaign work. Listening to her
discuss a midterm report that she received her Junior year of boarding school stating
that “failure was inevitable” in math clearly seems to have been a mistake. However,
for today’s Director of Finance for Meg 2010, it still resonates.
Boarding school on the east coast clearly impacted Myers’ and her life’s
course. Although raised in rural Humboldt County, California, spending the formative
years on the east coast as a fourth generation family member seemed to instill what
she defines as the “trajectory” of her life. However, it was the decision to seek
campaign work that truly defined her life, a decision that she said was made
“uneducated.” Upon completing her undergraduate work, Myers’ sought work in
politics by sending multiple resumes and applications out for multiple opportunities.
She landed both an internship on a local campaign, as well as a paid policy fellowship
! %'(!
with the State Assembly. Myers was able to complete both projects, but it was the
political internship that captured her interest and, ultimately, her heart. “I loved
politics,” exclaimed Myers, “I had no idea that you could make a living by doing it.
Politics is an amazingly small world and it has been good to me.”
Myers was drawn to one of the central tenets of the political world,
fundraising, by one of California’s top experts in the field. “To this day, I have Joanne
Davis to thank for bringing me into this world. She (Davis) has been a phenomenal
mentor to me,” states Myers. However after years of professional fundraising
experience, Myers has only been on two winning campaigns. Recruited and drawn to
high profile and competitive races, Myers laughs at the role that failure has clearly
played in her professional life. Working on the former Massachusetts Governor Mitt
Romney’s bid for the presidency, then on to incumbent U.S. Senator Norm Coleman’s
failed reelection bid in Minnesota, does not seem like a strong track record. However,
as Myers explains,
We raised more money for Coleman than any other Republican election in
2008, with the exception of the Presidential race. I walked into Minnesota,
a state of nearly three million people knowing no one and turned what
would under normal circumstances be a small race, into the finance
battleground of the year.
Myers notes that, although both candidates failed in their elective bids for office,
neither failed due to not having enough money. “I set them up for success, and it was
fun,” states Myers.
Although Myers is clearly good at what she does, and admits that by definition
and her title, she is indeed a leader, she states “I have a hard time looking at myself as
! %')!
a leader. Politics is so collaborative. You have to push people towards their goal, but
it’s everyone’s work that leads to a success.” Perhaps that is what makes Myers an
exemplary leader, as being someone who pushes people to give their best. “This
(politics) is an uber-competitive field, you are always pushed to be great, and that
trickles down,” explains Myers.
Myers sees many things as being collaborative. When asked about inspiration
and where she goes to find it, she states that she goes to a variety of people who have
played fundamental roles in her life. This includes professional mentors, such as
Joanne Davis who gave her a start in politics. “Joanne doesn’t tell me what to do, she
guides me,” Myers details.
In politics, you are always pushed to your next level before you are ready.
You need someone there to validate that you can do it. It’s invaluable. You
need personal confidence, and that is when I turn to my family.
Along the same sentiment of collaboration, Myers also finds it difficult to
single out one leader whom she admires most. “I do not have one personal leader that
I can point to as having shaped my life,” Myers explains. “It is a whole combination
of people, different people, who have shaped my life. This includes political leaders,
historical figures, and especially my family.”
Although she speaks to collaboration eloquently and openly discusses the
competitive nature of political work, Myers does not sugarcoat the role that crises play
in her professional life. “Every day is a crisis in politics and you have to deal with it,”
contends Myers. “You fix it and move it. The crisis may change your direction a bit,
but you just move on.” Myers deals well with such scenarios, with a mentality of
! %'*!
learn by doing, then move on. “Anything can send your world into a tailspin, but you
deal.”
When asked about what her legacy will one day be, Myers laughs and states “I
think I am a little young for that, because I do not even know what I want to be when I
grow up.” Although her professional credentials indicate a successful future in
political fundraising, Myers is unsure if that will be her professional role for the rest of
her life. “Now, I am passionate about my work,” Myers explains. “I believe in what I
do and who I work for and I am willing to put the effort and energy into my job in
order to be successful.” However, Myers clearly indicates that her passion could
change, which would force her to consider other professional avenues.
Having worked with a wide variety of politicians from both the Executive and
Legislative branches, Myers had much to say about the role and relationship between
these unique facets of the government. “The Executive branch sets the tone and you
need to have incredibly strong leadership to be a successful Executive,” states Myers.
“That is not to say that the Executive is telling other branches what to do. The
Executive sets the priorities and helps to find the solutions that are reasonable to
resolve problems.” Myers understands that her comments work well in theory, but
oftentimes are lacking in practice. “At the end of the day, the branches have to work
together, which unfortunately, is not always the case,” furthers Myers. “This is when
my job gets harder, when it comes time to further your career and you have not been a
collaborative or strong leader.”
! %'+!
“Failure is not inevitable, if you work hard enough, you are not going to fail.”
Myers very confidently shares this statement as if these words guide her professional
life on a day-to-day basis. The girl who upset her parents with an at-risk math grade
has become one of the leading figures in Republican political fundraising operation.
Myers’ experience and credentials are clear indicators that she is on the road to
continued greatness, as she buckles down and prepares for another long and gruesome
battle on the political landscape. However, regardless of outcome, Myers has once
again done her job in setting her candidate for success.
! %',!
IMAGE 14: KAREN PANK PROFILE
! %'-!
KAREN PANK
Karen Pank reflects on a recent meeting in the Executive Office of the
Governor, the horseshoe. “The Governor was there,” she states, “and it wasn’t until
just recently that I realized that not many people know how to handle that.” Pank is
certainly no stranger to senior governmental officials, having achieved multiple senior
staff advisory roles in both the California State Senate and Executive Branch over the
span of her short, but impressive career. Pank accepted the interview with a great deal
of enthusiasm, eager to share insights in a modest, yet poised fashion.
“I am one in a million,” Pank says with a smile, sitting in her high backed
black leather chair. However, Pank is not arrogantly referring to her charm,
personality, or political savvy, she is referring to a statistic of adolescents surviving
bone cancer. Understanding the drive that was imparted in her at the age of 12 aids in
understanding the entrepreneurial and accomplished individual that she has become.
Describing what Pank refers to as a “fighter-survivor” mentality, grappling with an
abundantly fatal disease as a young child puts much into perspective and explains how
someone so young and unassuming has achieved such great professional feats.
Looking around her office, Pank has many notable accomplishments adorning
the walls: Multiple diplomas, photos with distinguished politicians, an original
Schwarzenegger cigar. However, what one notices across the organized, yet paper-
laden desk is a photo of Schwarzenegger holding her then four-year-old child Lauren.
“That’s my favorite picture of him in the world,” states Pank with an ear-to-ear smile.
The placement of this photo makes it very clear that her daughter Lauren is the real
! %(.!
reason why Pank gets out of bed each morning. “I look to her for inspiration,” states
Pank. She will point to this photo several more times throughout the interview as if
she is looking to both Schwarzenegger and Lauren for some of the answers.
When asked about failure and the role it has played in her life, Pank admits
that failure has had a significant impact upon her leadership. “Some times
negatively,” explains Pank. “Some people who are not afraid to fail are more creative,
make things happen because they are willing to take the risk. That’s not me! I work
harder, avoid failure at all costs by planning more.” However, as some one who fears
failure and avoids its probability whenever possible, Pank has held many positions that
are associated with risk and high stakes.
“While working for the Governor (Schwarzenegger), we all had a joke that he
just liked to see Gladiator played out,” laughs Pank as she discusses her time as a
senior advisor to the Governor. It is in this role to the Governor that much of her
leadership evolved. “I was at that table with a seat,” Pank explains as she refers back
to her recent meeting in the Governor’s office. “Working for a Governor, there is
press everywhere. You never know if something I said or did would end up in the LA
Times,” explained Pank when discussing the role of crises in her professional life.
“Every day in the horseshoe was a potential crisis day,” Pank states, “But knowing
this and knowing the high degree of attention that surrounds you makes you think. It
also makes you more detailed.” Furthering her statements on the role of crises, Pank
states, “I would not necessarily categorize anything that I have had to work on as a
crisis, as that is a pretty strong word. Although other people think I have.” Working
! %(%!
for a Governor in the Executive Office has helped to teach Pank how to deal with
varying situations, in addition to being calm and collected. “My style is not to show
crisis – be calm, be composed.”
Pank feels that she has become more assertive in her leadership as she has
matured. She explains how her leadership has evolved over time, realizing that you do
not always know it all. “Although I have become more assertive, I am still a quiet, in
the background, behind the scenes, move the pieces kind of leader,” Pank contends. “I
like to mentor and I am enabled to do it more. That’s the best kind of leadership; to
impact and give opportunities.” Pank discusses her relationship with
Schwarzenegger’s Chief of Staff Patricia Cleary as emulating this standard. “I learned
a lot from Pat Cleary because she gave me more opportunities and access than
someone at my level would normally get,” details Pank. “She (Cleary) provided quiet
opportunities for me. A lot of people gave me those spots, but Pat set the tone.”
Many individuals have impacted Pank’s life, which led to a great deal of
deliberation as to what leader she most admires. “I’ve fortunately had access to so
many interesting leaders,” Pank explains, “but I spend a lot of time in Senator George
Runner’s office and I like how he thinks through things.” Pank recalls a speech given
by Senator Dick Ackermann (ret.) when swearing in George Runner to the State
Senate and Sharon Runner to the State Assembly. Ackerman stated while swearing in
the first ever husband-wife team to concurrently serve in the State Legislature, “The
thing about the Runners is that they do the right thing, even when other people are not
! %(&!
looking.” This statement resonates well with Pank. “Some day if people say that
about me, I will feel really accomplished,” adds Pank.
Governor Schwarzenegger is another leader whom Pank admires. “A good
leader isn’t afraid of differing perspectives,” explains Pank while recalling her time in
the horseshoe working directly with the Governor. “That’s the way you should lead.
Have people around you representing many perspectives and let them fight it out. The
Governor (Schwarzenegger) listened to all sides of an issue.”
Pank is not sure when compromise became a dirty word in Sacramento. “The
Executive Branch has to find that sweet spot, where it can weigh in on the legislative
process as opposed to waiting for ill-crafted policies to be dumped on your desk,”
states Pank. Leaving many years of policy work in the State Legislature to join the
Executive Branch was a huge transition for Pank. She describes it as “very eye-
opening.” When discussing the role of the Executive in working with the Legislative
Branch, Pank states that the “Executive has to be the ultimate leader. Still respectful
of ideas brought forward by the Legislature, but able to help the Legislature to
understand the consequences of their policies and how they are to be implemented.”
Pank states that she is a “Fan of the ‘Big-5’ leaders. You have to realize that this is
not a star chamber. You have to know whom you represent, have strong leaders in
these positions and not be afraid to lead.”
Pank furthers her thoughts on Executive-Legislative Branch relations. “The
Legislature grapples with big ideas, what direction, what policy issues will California
take – but the Executive has to make it work,” explains Pank.
! %('!
You have to have the big idea person, but you also have to have some one
who can implement. The Executive is in charge of ultimately finding
compromise by taking the big ideas – not just for the political winds – and
making them work.
Pank has not achieved her greatest professional accomplishment yet, but she
states that advising many people in the public policy field has been very gratifying.
“I’m proud of my opportunities to work on Jessica’s Law and protecting children from
sex offenders” Pank adds. “It took years in the Legislature, but once I worked for the
Governor, we had the spotlight on the issue and the political push to get it done.”
Pank has had to explain to her daughter why she no longer works in the
“castle,” Lauren’s name for the State Capitol building. Pank left government service
recently and opened a governmental relations firm. “A lot of people I work for now,
especially in the law enforcement world, and I find inspiration in helping them to do
what they do, by helping them in Sacramento,” states Pank. “It’s a different talent.”
Pank still gets “sappy” watching floor debates, just as she does each time she views
the empowering film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. “Some debates can be so
inspirational, as are those who are drawn to public service.” Many others draw
inspiration from Pank, which has led to her success both within the “castle,” as well as
outside in the private sector. One day as a legacy, Pank states that, “I am leaving the
world a better place for my daughter. I like to think that I have helped the people that
I have advised and that I will leave California a little safer.”
! %((!
IMAGE 15: CRYSTAL STRAIT PROFILE
! %()!
CRYSTAL STRAIT
“I completely struggle with the fear of failure,” exclaims Crystal Strait. “I
think about it (failure) often and it can be all consuming. I’m afraid of shutting any
doors, so I tend to stay in the middle of something so as not to go through a passage
and shut something off.” Many doors have opened for Strait, but it has been her own
tenacity and road to leadership that has enabled the doors to open. Strait offers a tour
of her small, but comfortable trendy studio office, located a few blocks north of the
California State Capitol. An enormously large monitor sits on her desk, which Strait
chuckles over explaining its purchase. Strait is pleased to be interviewed and happy to
provide a tour and introduction of her coworkers prior to sitting down for lunch.
“Wanting to sit in the middle of something can be a strength too,” Strait continues. “I
am a political consultant, my niche is being a connector. I put together teams. By
sitting in the middle you see all of the doors and paths, even if I myself am not taking
any of those paths.”
Understanding this drive to link individuals under the guise of a common cause
helps to understand Strait’s fundamental political beliefs. “I see my role as being a
part of something bigger without depleting the role of that something bigger. That is
why I am a Democrat and a Catholic,” explains Strait as she discusses defining
moments within her own life. “I look back on the East Timor relief movement and the
Catholic church caring for the refugees. That is when I converted.” Growing up in
Southern California, Strait had many opportunities to see politics in play. In 1996, the
Republican National Convention was in San Diego, and Strait served as an intern.
! %(*!
Strait witnessed the speeches and the, as she describes it, “typical pomp and
circumstance.” Strait explained, “The only difference between the two parties was a
mascot. I was 16. I couldn’t tell you the substance of either side, but I could see the
imperfections in the two.” Strait began to see her role unfolding before her in politics
as she sought her own values and priorities relative to the government.
I believe that people need help and it is our obligation to help them. I saw
the Republican model as being too independent – not connected enough.
Everyone is floating in their own inner tube as a Republican, and I wanted
to be a part of a collective.
Strait found that collective as a member of the Democratic Party, a role that
she has taken seriously for over a decade. Now, after campaigning in 23 states, Strait
is the President of the Young Democrats of America. Prior to her role on the national
stage, Strait was the President of the California Young Democrats, the largest Young
Democrat organization aside from its national counterpart in the world. Strait shyly
tells the story of her election to the national office at the 2009 Young Democrats of
America convention in Chicago. “There were over 2,000 people there, and they
elected me their President,” admits Strait. Although modest of this achievement, Strait
is clearly proud.
When asked about inspiration and where she has sought it, Strait struggles to
find a definitive answer and then chooses not to give one. Instead, she offers that, “I
am a part of a young, professional community. We all commiserate together.
Although I go to them to commiserate or for solace, I’m not necessarily there for
inspiration even though I sometimes leave inspired.” Strait adds, “Inspiration is
something that we undervalue because we get in a track, and start doing things without
! %(+!
asking why.” Strait admits that she has never had the inspirational mentor, a fairy
godmother, and many of her friends have not either. “As a generation, we are very
independent, but we are learning to ask for help and guidance.”
In discussing her own leadership and its evolution, Strait explains, “I like to be
around people like me, the glass catchers.” Strait offers an illustration of leadership
roles by picking up a glass of water. “If I spill this glass of water, will you grab a
napkin and prepare, quickly try and help it not to fall, or sit back and let it spill?”
After a thoughtful pause, Strait continues.
I try and stop the glass, but as a leader, I’ve had to learn that there is value
in all types of people. The individual with the napkin is thinking ahead and
anticipating the problem, but what is hard is working with the people who
just let it happen. They do, however, keep people calm.
Strait explains that her leadership has changed over time, working away from the
mentality that you have to physically demonstrate that you are always working, to one
where your work product exemplifies your value. “Working with a variety of people,
such as those in the glass scenario is good for it has shown me that I do not always
need to be an integral part of the solution,” Strait adds.
“Leadership is not tested in the calm,” contends Strait, “it is tested in crisis. In
politics, everything is driven and crises are opportunities to test your leadership. We
analyze our greatest leaders in a crisis.” Strait admits though that she does not always
appreciate this theory in practice. “I’m the first to know that, in a crisis, I am being
analyzed. We have all seen this, from Martha Stewart or Barefoot Contessa, no one
likes a hostess who is miserable; it’s not fun. It doesn’t make you feel comfortable.”
Strait continues by applying this hosting scenario in a political model.
! %(,!
At a political event, you want to be together, not run ragged. We look at
these people, those leading the event and hosting us, and oftentimes we do
not think they are hosting stress well. That in itself can be the sign of a
weak leader.
Strait is enamored, by admission, with the leadership of the newly confirmed
Speaker of the State Assembly John Perez. “Perez is a whole new level of political
sophistication; he not only got elected, he gave himself room to grow,” Strait
contends. “What he is doing is very simple, back to basics. Perez is applying simple
structures that he learned from the labor movement, organizing as a principle, just as
Obama did as a community organizer,” explains Strait. She sees Perez as some one
who did not self-promote. Rather, Perez had followers who rallied around him and
pushed him upward. “This is the type of leader that I want to be,” adds Strait. “I
never want to be so egotistical where I just assume that I am the best person for the
job.”
Strait poses the question, “Do the ends justify the means?” She recalls her
freshman year of high school where she played the conservative voice on immigration
in a class debate. Accepting the conservative side of the argument, Strait spoke of her
grandfather immigrating and assimilating into American life. The opposing side was a
young Latina who cried, talking about the struggles of her grandfather as he struggled
to become an American. The opposing side won, but this story sticks with Strait to
this day as the action of one debate judge, a girl who happened to be the best friend of
the opposing debater. The judge voted for Strait because she knew the Latina’s
grandfather and knew that she was lying. Strait asks, “Will we do whatever it takes to
! %(-!
win?” Strait takes this with her to this day, placing these concepts into daily practice
as a leader.
Strait sees the role of the Executive in its relationship with the Legislative
Branch as being multi-faceted. “The top priority of the Executive is to administrate
what already exists, what is there. The state of the State is in the realm of the
Executive.” However, Strait understands that this viewpoint is entirely theoretical.
“The Executive is the best source to the Legislature if they are administering properly
on what improvements can be made to the state government. Because of this, there is
a healthy tension and that’s a good thing,” contends Strait. She believes that people
want a divided government and says this, admitting that she is a partisan. “Many
people vote for a divided government, and I will admit to having done so myself,”
explains Strait. “Republicans make great Executives when they choose to run a tight,
fiscally conservative ship and execute the letter of the law, no more, no less. With a
progressive Legislature, great things can move forward.”
! %).!
IMAGE 16: CHRISTOPHER YOUNG PROFILE
! %)%!
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG
Christopher Young knows that you do not have to change the world to effect
change. Young has seen this first hand and it has inspired him. However, it is through
others that have inspired him as a person that has instilled Young’s self-professed need
to inspire others. Young is inspired, and it is contagious.
Sitting behind his heavy, wooden, federally issued desk in a large, spacious,
rather grand office in the U.S. Department of Justice headquarters on Pennsylvania
Avenue in Washington, DC, Young is completely unaware of the position he now
holds. Appointed by President Obama in early 2009, Young worked within the White
House for a few months prior to transferring over to the U.S. Department of Justice,
just down the hall from the Attorney General’s Office. Although Young is as inspired
as he is enlightened, he is humble and understated. Bare hooks and nails adorn the
walls of his private office, with no personal touches to be found. A few banker boxes
are present, alongside countless binders that are neatly organized on the credenza
behind his desk. Above the credenza hang dark blue curtains (just as one would see in
the Oval Office), sheathing the window that looks out on to Pennsylvania Avenue.
What it lends to what makes Young so inspiring is this physical space. To a layperson
walking in, one is taken by the regality of his federal executive office. Young is
clearly well revered among the circles that surround President Obama, a man he
worked tirelessly to elect. However, it is obvious that Young doesn’t plan to get too
comfortable in his current surroundings as he has other plans to pursue.
! %)&!
When asked the icebreaker question regarding failure and that role it has
played in your life, Young is quick to admit that failure has played a central role in his
life. “I’m not afraid of failure, anymore, but when it happens, you have to embrace
it.” Raised in Sacramento, Young had a myriad of viewpoints that surrounded him as
an impressionable young boy. His father, who is clearly his hero even if that is not the
word he uses to describe him, spent numerous years incarcerated in juvenile hall and
state prison. His mother, a woman who worked hard to educate herself to then worked
in underrepresented communities as a public school teacher, and then later a Principal,
imparted the need to serve the public and communities in need of a voice.
Understanding this background helps to paint the picture that holistically encapsulates
Chris Young as a professional and the role that failure has played in his life.
It is not hard for Young to recall the opportunity that was afforded to him by
the President of San Diego State University, his undergraduate alma mater, to apply
and interview for a Marshall Scholarship. The year 2000 was the first year that the
renowned scholarship committee had accepted nominees from non-Ivy League
institutions, and Young’s name was pushed high on the list for interviews and
candidacy. Making it to the final interview, Young was plagued by his fear of failure.
Fear had permeated his existence as a high school basketball player, a grounded
college student, a one-day political hit-man, and the scared student that faced the final
interview with the British Consulate General in Los Angeles. Although he realized
that the award of the Marshall scholarship would have taken him to his dream
graduate study in Oxford, Young fully admits that he sabotaged the interview, afraid
! %)'!
of failure. His father had just died, he wanted to go home to the familiarity of
Sacramento, and he was unsure of a way to deal with moving abroad. Yet, Young
quickly observes, as he still sits behind his desk in his ornate office that, had this
failure not occurred, he would not be a Presidential appointee.
Young took this life lesson and didn’t chalk it up as a failure, rather he
accepted it as a parable that striking balance through being proactive, seizing
opportunities, and realizing that fate will intervene, will take one to where he/she is
meant to be. Never has this testament seemed so true as when hearing Young discuss
his work to elect President Obama.
In discussing defining moments in his life, Young recalls the fact that he was
on a partnership track with a top law firm in San Francisco at an early age. The firm
had afforded Young opportunities to facilitate change, something that he as an
individual is clearly driven to do. However, as Senator Barack Obama announced his
candidacy in early 2007 as a contender for President of the United States, Young
cashed in his savings and partnership track for a pay cut of 75% and an opportunity to
make history by electing Obama to the presidency. This role would place him in a
role where he would mobilize disenfranchised communities from a grassroots level.
Young would be sent from Northern California to East Waterloo, Iowa, a place that
Young describes as having weather that he didn’t know existed and a place that
separates East and West Waterloo by more than railroad tracks, but by racial lines of
inequality and a disproportionate administration of public services. Young’s greatest
professional accomplishment would be the mobilization of this community to realize
! %)(!
that the unthinkable could be possible. After talking to over 6,000 people, Young’s
caucus in northeastern Iowa was the only caucus to shut out all other Democratic
challengers. This outcome helped to catapult Obama into a position that would win
him the support of the state of Iowa. This moment culminated the work of countless
months on January 3, 2008, a date that Young has no trouble recalling.
Obama clearly inspires Young, which was a critical fact to discern from this
interview. It wasn’t his opportunity to stand beside Spike Lee and Oprah Winfrey on
election night in Chicago’s Lincoln Park, but rather it was the time in which he spent
with the to-be President one-on-one that would not shape, but refine his ability to
inspire others. Young sees Obama as a true leader, someone who can be a true
believer of what he preaches, all encompassing and able to feel the pain of others in an
empathetic way. Young learned from Obama directly that you must listen to others
without casting judgment, valuing the perspectives that can be offered by differing
viewpoints and perspectives. As mentioned, the ability to do this was refined by
Obama, not instilled, recalling other points in Young’s professional career that led to
his desire to encourage others.
On the second day as an associate attorney at Morse & Forrester, Young was
brought on to a team of litigators, a team that would seek to overturn a decision by
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Superintendent of Public Instruction
Jack O’Connell requiring all California high school students to successfully pass an
exit exam prior to the conferral of a diploma. For one year, Young would travel to all
parts of California gathering a team of unthinkable casualties of the executive
! %))!
decision, students who had achieved exemplary outcomes in high school yet were
unable to pass the state administered exam. This group of students included 4.0+
grade point average students, math “wizards,” athletes, and community leaders who
had been extended scholarship and grant opportunities by leading educational
institutions throughout the nation. To this day, Young keeps in touch with these
students, many of whom have gone on to realize incredible outcomes. Young knows
that he inspired these young, impressionable individuals, which continues to inspire
him as a human being. The theme of inspiration is again revisited, but it is another
story that truly inspired Young to persevere and seek to pull the very best from those
who surround him.
As a 17-year-old boy, Young wanted nothing more than to play basketball in
college and then move on to the NBA as a professional player. This was his dream,
which drove him to persevere in the sport throughout high school in Sacramento. The
University of Denver offered him a full-scholarship and ability to play basketball at
the Division II private school. However, not accepting the early admission access
hoping for a better offer, the school changed divisions, as well as head coaches, which
led to the revocation of the scholarship offer. Disappointed, Young turned to his
father, a man who was terminally ill and described as being a man who had given his
whole existence to raising his children and inspiring others. Young’s father asked him
if he could see himself doing anything else other than playing basketball. Young
replied fervently with a “no.” With tears in his eyes, his father punched him in his
stomach feeling as if he had failed as a father. The punch happened in the early
! %)*!
evening, yet the two stayed up all night thinking of ways that Young could pursue
sports, but in a more professional manner that would still drive his passions. That
night, the two concluded that Young would attend law school and perhaps one day, be
a sports agent or advocate. This night impacted him greatly in a way that may lead
one to believe that he completed law school at the prestigious University of California,
Berkeley, to please the father that had entered immortality. Yet it was this night,
coupled with the experiences to come with disenfranchised communities, social
inequalities that have shaped him into the individual that we see today.
Young is asked about crises and the role that they have played in his personal
life. Young is quick to accept the fact that crises, similar to failures, have been
learning experiences that have helped to guide the course that he is to take. Young
realized as he closed the eyelids of his father at the moment of death, that at this
juncture in life, you are completely honest with yourself. “You cannot take a fancy
house with you, what you take are memories of those you have wronged,” recalls
Young. “I don’t want any of these memories to go with me upon my departure, what I
want is to be able to say that I have inspired others and that beyond my death, the
impact that I have had on others will remain immortal. To be an effective contributor,
that is our job during our short time on Earth.”
Young closes reminding others that we indeed have more in common than
what pulls us apart. It is as if you are listening to President Obama in person, who has
clearly impacted all that Young is as a person, man and professional. Yet as fun as it
is to hear of personal tales from the presidential campaign trail, where he shot hoops
! %)+!
regularly with the President, scolded him for pettily dismissing other staff members
when under stress, and the evening that he drank multiple martinis in Sacramento with
the future first lady, that is not the defining impression that has been etched within his
head. It is the thought of his father, a man who was raised in the Watts neighborhood
of Central Los Angeles and become a highly respected gang leader in and outside of
prison that has truly defined Chris Young. For upon his parole from the famed
Folsom State Prison, Young’s father remained in the Sacramento area as opposed to
returning to his familiar roots in Los Angeles. He earned his undergraduate degree
from Sacramento State University in psychology and then went on to complete his
Master’s degree under the same major. As a preschool teacher in an at-risk
community in Sacramento, Young’s father sought to inspire children from the earliest
age to realize that it did not matter where they came from, anything was possible.
Young’s father would return to South Central Los Angeles, bringing Caucasian and
Latino individuals into the area, something that street laws prohibited, instilling
awareness and the need to coexist as communities side-by-side. Young realized upon
the death of his father that this man overcame incredible odds, went from a place of
incomprehension to most, to mentor the next generation. His father realized at his
parole that he had the ability to inspire change in others, leading him to do good and
make drastic changes in his life that would not lead him back to prison. His life lives
on through his son, who seeks to draw the best of others through an inspiration that is
independent of roots.
! %),!
Christopher Young is a leader through and through, someone who is ready to
move on to the next phase of his life that does not depend upon his close connection to
the White House. Young makes no secret of the fact that he has political aspirations,
seeking to take office at a local level, most likely mayoral, where he can inspire the
next generation and seek to implement positive change. In the meantime, he has a
wedding to plan with his fiancée and an interview to complete with the federal court
system, which would place him in a federal prosecutor position in the Southern New
York state jurisdiction. This interview is scheduled to take place in two-weeks time,
which may explain the unpacked boxes in his office.
! %)-!
CHAPTER 8
ANALYSIS AND PART TWO CONCLUSION
ANALYSIS OF THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED
The leaders selected under the Those Who Have Served category were chosen
for their individual attributes, in addition to collective qualities that unite them as
experienced leaders. Upon analyzing their responses to the eight questions posed,
many similarities were found among the interviewees, which should come as no real
surprise given their professional levels of achievement. For analysis sake, if one were
to create a single, universal profile of an experienced leader based upon this study, that
profile might look as follows.
Most likely, this leadership profile is of a man of approximately 63 years of
age. Opportunities were far greater for men than women of the Traditionalist and
Baby Boomer generations, with this profile belonging to the Baby Boomer. This
leader would serve well as an individualist, seeing a role as an executive with
oversight powers and authority. Although he is a strong leader, he is not afraid to
surround himself with a team of like-minded individuals who are oftentimes credited
with providing support to accomplish great things. From a development standpoint,
this leader would have learned a great deal as a child, with values imparted to him
since birth. The parents of this leader would have fundamentally instilled values into
him, including a work ethic and drive, which greatly shape who the leader has become
as a person. This leader respects heritage and history, often looking back to great
historical leaders and figures and comparing their personal journeys and
! %*.!
accomplishments, particularly from the public sector. This leader has learned from
history, does not shy away from conflict or crises, and is not afraid to fail as failure
creates opportunities for learning. He is a spiritual leader, most likely a Christian with
faith playing a significant role in his public life as well. This leader has strong rapport
with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, able to disagree by day, but place
politics aside by night and relate to one another as human beings. The relationships
forged are a precious asset to this leader, something taken seriously. Experience as a
leader is important and a great deal of emphasis is placed on accepting a role based
upon experience and level of accomplishment. He has most likely served within both
houses of the state legislature, seeking higher office due to necessity under the State
Law verses opportunities for upward mobility. Additionally, he has most likely served
as a figurehead within his own caucus, legislative body or political party. Although
this profile is a gross generalization of the 12 unique leaders surveyed by this study, it
is an accurate reflection of the majority of their responses.
Failure was a generally accepted term to those profiled as experienced leaders,
accepting failure as leading to eventual success. Speier referred to failure as the “story
of her life,” where Pringle stated that failure was “one of the most important parts of
leadership development.” Many admitted to fearing failure as it was something that
created doubt, yet it seems in the face of fearing failure, many attempted great things
and often succeeded. As each individual interviewed was at one time an elected
official, there was as common trend to discuss campaign failure, which oftentimes
occurred multiple times prior to success. A few responses indicated that failure was
! %*%!
out of their hands due to prevailing politics and empowered parties, but most
responses seemed to accept personal responsibility for failure.
When discussing defining moments, the experienced leaders all had very
personal responses about what influenced their decisions to run for office and excel as
public figures. A theme of spirituality and religion was shared by a few, including
Brulte, Leonard, and Roberti, citing that a religious upbringing and, in Roberti’s case,
a religious education, lent to their personal development. Costa and Roberti both cited
immigrant family members, while Lockyer and Pringle discussed their children. Most
responses included a moment where politics began to interest them, such as the
political cartoon book Johnson read as a child, or Leonard’s interest from a young age
in observing legislators. Although similarities existed among many responses, it is
hard to compare the extremely personal attributes and unique answers. For example,
Speier’s captivating near-death story in Guyana or Brulte’s admission to being an
outsider for most of his childhood, were highly private admissions. The leaders
profiled were not afraid to share some of their most personal and defining moments,
which helped to place a great deal of their individual leadership into context.
The evolution of one’s personal leadership brought many interesting and
insightful responses forward. In most cases, leaders discussed becoming better leaders
though experience and brought up instances of failure that led to greater success.
Speier stated that, “leadership is something that you may have innately, but most
people grow and that’s when you become a better leader.” Many leaders, such as
Lockyer, Leonard, and Speier, cited the need to learn to delegate and trust the team
! %*&!
that you have developed. Johnson and Leonard both cited frustration of being a
member of the minority party for most of their elected tenures, while Roberti and
Brulte discussed the need to work with the other side of the aisle to accomplish policy
outcomes.
Inspiration seemed to come in similar ways for the experienced leaders, citing
many shared motivating factors. The experienced leaders were well read, oftentimes
stating that autobiographies, historical accounts and newspapers provide a great deal
of inspiration. Speier, Leonard, Lockyer, Brulte, Roberti and Johnson all stated that
they look to those who have come before them and find inspiration in historical
stories. Costa, Pringle ,and Speier, all of whom are currently in elected office, find
inspiration in their constituents and the stories that they share with them as
representatives. Leonard, Speier, and Pringle, all cited faith or religion as a place of
inspiration, while Lockyer stated that he looks within himself when he seeks
motivation.
When discussing crises, Johnson replied, “this too shall pass, I do not tend to
think in terms of failure and crisis.” However, most of the responses from the
experienced leaders seemed to demonstrate a high level of respect for the role crises
have played in their personal development. Both Pringle and Speier used the word
“test” when discussing crises, stating that situations of crisis are an opportunity to test
one’s skills as a leader and demonstrate capabilities. Costa stated, “Anyone who deals
with a crisis successfully will be made a better person.” Pringle, Brulte, Speier, and
Roberti seem to agree with Costa, all stating that crises present learning experiences.
! %*'!
Brulte stated, “You learn from crises, it was always educational.” Johnson and
Leonard felt that crises were challenges of the moment and did not necessarily have a
crisis moment that uniquely contributed to their leadership development. Lockyer
openly stated “Most of my crises have been personal, so they forced reflection.”
The question of legacy and what each leader may leave behind made many
respondents seemingly uncomfortable. As human beings, the discussion of mortality
is an uncomfortable topic of conversation, yet as individuals who have all spent their
lives seeking the betterment of public good, the responses varied. Leonard and Costa
both used the word “tried,” stating that they hoped to be remembered as individuals
who tried hard to serve the best interests of those they represented. Leonard and
Costa, in addition to Roberti and Pringle, all stated hopes that their work in elected
office would be included as part of their individual legacies. Brulte and Speier both
intimated that they hoped their legacies had yet to be written, as both still feel as if
they have much to accomplish within their lifetimes. Johnson and Lockyer both stated
that they had no idea what their legacies would be, most likely, insignificant or
nonexistent.
When asked about leaders, past or present, whom each leader admired the
most, the responses were nearly uniform. Each leader cited a figure from the public
sector, most of them historical, most of the time belonging to the same political party.
For instance, all four Republicans cited Ronald Reagan. Three of the four Democrats
interviewed cited Franklin D. Roosevelt and two of the four cited Harry Truman. In
many cases, the leaders felt as if they needed to provide a disclaimer or justification
! %*(!
for their response. When Roberti cited Truman, he also spent a great deal of time
explaining his dislike of Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs over Japan.
Among other interesting responses, both Leonard and Pringle, self-proclaimed partisan
Republicans, cited Willie Brown as someone whom they both had admired, respected,
and enjoyed working by his side.
Of the eight questions posed, the final question relative to the relationship
between the Executive and Legislative Branches and specifically, the role of the
Executive, was the only true question of policy. The question was designed to seek
insight among those who have served within the legislature and what suggestions each
leader may have. For Speier, who is still a legislator, her answers discussing the
responsibilities that have been ceded to the Executive were nearly defensive. As she is
still in office and serving as a legislator, while attempting to work with the Executive
Branch, this may help to explain her position. Each respondent seemed to provide a
general overview of the roles, generally stating that the Executive is there to
administer the policies passed by the Legislature. However, Roberti stated that, with
all Governors whom he had worked with directly, they all seemed to forget that all
branches of government were designed coequally. Brulte described the Executive
Branch as needing to act as the adult as most legislative bodies were “incapable of
adult action.” Leonard asserted that the first step towards understanding the role of the
Executive Branch is realizing “the two were never designed to get along.” In all
responses, a level of dysfunction and misunderstanding between the two branches was
shared, citing a wish for greater collaboration and mutual respect. Leonard’s “Law of
! %*)!
Countervailing Gratefulness” suggests that each branch could benefit by
demonstrating a greater degree of empathy, sincerity and gratitude towards one
another.
ANALYSIS OF THOSE WHO MAY SERVE
Among those interviewed within the Those Who May Serve category, many
differences were found in how they perceive themselves as leaders, but a great deal
was also found that unites their varied perspectives. Although very distinctive in their
viewpoints on the world and personal politics, the connection among members of
Generation X and the Millennials Generation is quite impressive. For the sake of
analysis, a general profile of these future leaders follows based upon the responses of
those interviewed in the Those Who May Serve Category.
This leader may be a woman, or a man, as gender-based opportunities have
changed for members of this group. From a diversity standpoint, our leader may be
Caucasian, Asian, Latino, or a combination of all three, as again, greater opportunities
have been availed for these generations and members of diverse communities. The
average age of this leader is approximately 33, meaning they have seen six Presidents
in office, the fall of the Berlin Wall, multiple foreign wars waged and the development
of the information/technology age. Most likely, they came from a household where
both parents, potentially married or divorced, each worked outside the home. More
than likely, the leader grew independent very quickly and has been raised as a young
adult. As a young, or future, leader, they have a hard time accepting the title leader as
! %**!
they see politics and the professional world as a collaborative environment. They lead
in a tribal sense, where everyone within a team has a role to play, bringing different
strengths and weaknesses to the group. More than likely, this leader had great mentors
who have helped to shape and inspire, providing opportunities for success oftentimes
before the leader feels ready for the new challenge. The leader has been pushed by
others; therefore, they push themselves, oftentimes in a negative way. The leader sees
failure as something to be avoided and negative, oftentimes taking multiple paths to
avoid failure or the connotation of having failed. This leader is a change agent and
someone who sees the status quo as obsolete. There is always room for improvement
and, as a society, this leader seeks to better the lives of those in representative
communities. This leader does not look to the past nearly as much as they look to the
future. He or she is a dreamer, not a reflective thinker. This leader wants to leave the
world a better place and has ideas as to how they will one day accomplish this feat.
“Early on, I would not take certain changes because I was afraid of failure,”
explains Young. Pank would agree, stating that she avoids risks by “working harder,
avoid failure at all costs by planning more.” Strait struggles with the fear of failure
stating that it can be “all consuming.” To this day the thought of failure as being
“inevitable” from a high school math class still haunts Myers. For the young leaders,
failure is something that most will talk about openly yet perhaps not wholeheartedly
embrace. McShane states that failure has played “as large a role as success.”
Although most responses relative to the role of failure in their lives intimated that it is
a learning experience, a common thread of disdain was apparent among the young
! %*+!
leader’s responses. Hansen states that failure can show us what we do not know and
shows a leader where he/she may be in relation to goals. Among this culture of
individuals, failure is something to be avoided, perhaps at the cost of risk taking,
ingenuity, and creativity.
When discussing defining moments in the lives of the young leaders, many
similarities were found in their responses. Many defining moments were driven by
people, not necessarily experiences, such as the impact of a conversation with a
parent, or the relationship with a grandparent. Both Gallagher and Young stated that
discussions with their fathers on what their life journeys would be, fundamentally
shaped their professional lives. Hansen recalls the relationship with his surrogate
mother, his grandmother, and the series of “vignettes of people” who have impacted
him. Pank discussed surviving childhood cancer against all odds, literally making her
one in million to survive bone cancer. This experience instilled the fighter/survivor
mentality into her, which is reflected today in most of what Pank does professionally.
Pank, Calderon, Myers, and Hansen discuss how other people have seen great
potential in them, therefore, they have been afforded opportunities to succeed.
The young leaders have learned to lead, most likely, by emulating others.
Pank states that, “Mentoring, to impart and give opportunities, is probably the best
kind of leadership.” Pank had been afforded multiple opportunities, sometimes before
she was ready, by her mentor Patricia Cleary. Similarly, Myers states that she has
always been pushed to be great, oftentimes on to new projects before she is ready.
Hansen discusses how other people have seen great potential in him as a leader,
! %*,!
therefore he has worked proactively towards those opportunities. Calderon quotes
Cesar Chavez in saying that “It is not just about delegating, it’s about empowering.”
All of these young leaders feel a sense of obligation to the next generation, the need to
give back what they have received in the form of guidance and advice. McShane
quotes the adage, “When you are given this much, it’s your responsibility to give
back.” McShane sees his leadership role as helping people to get involved and
empowering people, realizing that many people have leadership skills, they just do not
realize it. Young has learned to listen to others, as has Gallagher, realizing that it is
not his role as the leader to myopically impart his viewpoints without first listening to
those that he represents and leads.
When it comes to inspiration, most of the responses by the young leaders
centered around the people and things that were in their immediate surroundings.
Hansen states, “Most of the inspiration I need is around me. Wonderful people who
set great examples for me.” Gallagher turns to people with more experience, stating
“If it worked for someone in the past, chances are, it could probably work again.”
Myers goes to her mentors, such as Joanne Davis, the lady who brought her into the
professional fundraising community and has since availed many opportunities for
success. Strait mentions that we unfortunately undervalue inspiration, as most young
leaders, tend to be embedded on a path without asking why? Young and Pank both go
to their families, seeking clarity by those closest to them, while Calderon returns to the
site of her childhood home finding peace in her roots. Inspiration for the young
! %*-!
leaders seemed simple and complex, oftentimes returning to a comfortable place to
retool and reconnect with their goals and professional aspirations.
“Every day is a crisis in politics,” explains Myers. “You have to deal with it,
fix it and move on.” Pank states that her style is not to show crisis, be calm, be cool,
and be collected. Strait adds to this by saying that “Crises are opportunities to test
your leadership, as we don’t tend to test this in the calm.” Gallagher states that in a
crisis, “It is how you respond that is key.” Similar to what Hansen states, “There are
many crises all of the time that impact our leadership style, but it is the major crises
that really shape us.” Of all of the responses, this group of young leaders embrace
crises and have successfully dealt with such scenarios. Having been placed in high
responsibility posts, many at early points in their careers, have availed opportunities to
observe and react to crises. Calderon discusses her opportunity to mobilize the Farm
Worker community in the face of crisis. In the heat of the summer as deaths occurred
in the migrant fields, Calderon had to work with policy makers to prevent further
occupational deaths. Calderon eventually succeeded by getting emergency regulations
passed, but only after coordinating a grassroots response with the Farm Workers. The
responses received seem to summarize that crises are valuable tools and, when dealt
with accordingly, can lead to greater outcomes.
Hansen explains that he does not know what his legacy will be at this time, as
“It has not been written yet, there is so much to do with such little time.” Hansen’s
sentiments are shared by Myers, Pank, McShane, and Gallagher, all of whom feel that
they may be a bit too young to be discussing or actualizing legacies. “My most
! %+.!
productive years are ahead of me, I’m still learning,” exclaims McShane. Calderon
notes, “It is not enough to progress as individuals when our communities are left
behind.” Similar to Young’s feelings of empowering and inspiring others to do great
things, both realize the responsibilities that are borne upon those who lead. Strait feels
that she is a mere “pebble” in many people’s legacies; therefore, she most likely will
not have a legacy. The young leaders have all progressed in their leadership at very
accelerated rates. Perhaps this is why many shy away from making definitive
responses to the question of legacies, for they are unsure as to what path they will
take.
When discussing admired individuals, both past and present, a common theme
emerges of individuals who have personally shaped the lives of each leader. For
instance, Young discusses the inspirational leadership of his father, who upon release
from prison until his untimely death, went back to at-risk communities to affect
change. Gallagher cites his first elected boss, Doug LaMalfa, and the many lessons
that LaMalfa imparted that have resonated with him. Hansen discusses President
Obama and his ability to “change the conversation,” making him the ultimate leader of
our generation. Hansen likens Obama’s development to that of most mainstream
young professionals, coming from very little, but with strong influences around him,
has been enabled to achieve great things. Strait discusses Speaker of the State
Assembly John Perez and his inspirational ascension to the legislative body’s top post.
Strait states, “Perez didn’t self promote, he was lifted up.” Calderon looks to the
teachings of the great organizer of the Farm Worker movement Cesar Chavez.
! %+%!
Although Calderon never was afforded the opportunity to meet Chavez prior to his
death, she lives his movement and his life’s work, feeling his inspiration on a daily
basis. The common thread among these responses is that most of those individuals
admired by the young leaders have had a direct impact upon the leader.
There was little deviation among the responses to the role of the Executive
Branch in Legislative-Executive Branch relations. Pank states, “The Executive is in
charge of ultimately finding compromise by taking the big ideas – not just for the
political winds – and making it work.” Calderon succinctly adds to this in saying
“The Legislature makes the laws while the Executive is there to implement and
enforce.” Hansen and McShane both agree in stating that the Executive’s role is to be
the “grown up adult.” Hansen notes,
The Legislature can pass all of the bills they want, but some one has to sign
and implement. The Governor is the only one in state government who
oversees what is best for 38 million people; he looks out for all.
In summarizing the responses of the young leaders, a strong Executive is thought to be
desirable. As each individual has worked within the California State Legislature, all
have seen from a first hand basis the need to symbiotically collaborate and move
forward to mutually beneficial goals.
COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS
This study has revealed that neither group of leaders studied can be categorized
well in general terms. Leadership is a heading, to be followed by multiple
subheadings that will change the characteristics of each individual leader and how
! %+&!
he/she chooses to invoke his/her qualities and talents. The ascension to leadership
roles and elected posts was far different for “leaders who have served” than among
“those who may one day serve.” Although the office of a legislator has similar roles
and responsibilities that are timeless, those who will fill such roles are very different
people today than many were prior to the passage of Proposition 140 in California.
When placing the collective profiles of each leader category side-by-side, it is easy to
see the similarities and differences that exist between the two subgroups of leaders.
For the sake of comparison, a few of those similarities and differences are detailed
below.
In many cases, experienced leaders see themselves as the authority figure who
may delegate and oversee functions as a member of a team. There is a hierarchical
role under this scenario where the leader has been self-defined, which has been
affirmed by other members of the team, as being in charge. With the future leaders, in
most instances the leader sees himself/herself in peer-to-peer roles as contributors of a
team. Although they may accept particular responsibility or oversight role, they are
still a contributor to the team and are perceived as leading through their contributions
to the greater good.
Young leaders perceive politics as being more of a collective good, verses
personal endeavor. As essential members of partisan teams, a greater degree of
gridlock has emerged. Experienced leaders cultivated and retained interpersonal
relationships, where it was not uncommon to work with multiple teams and coalitions
simultaneously of differing viewpoints and perspectives. This is not to say that young
! %+'!
leaders do not see the value or importance of relationships, rather, they work in
coalitions of like-minded individuals to achieve a common goal that may amount to a
zero-sum game.
For experienced leaders, the status quo is not necessarily a taboo place to be.
For prior to the enactment of Proposition 140, the political status quo permeated the
California State Government as the accepted norm. Although elected leaders worked
on new policy directives, many of them being forward-thinking and progressive, the
political and organizational status quo was nearly untouched for 30 years. In this
environment, legislators gained and held, oftentimes perfecting, leadership roles. This
change in the organizational environment has created great opportunities for the young
leaders, who now are availed many positions of elected leadership.
The experienced leaders have qualities engrained in them from their earliest
years. Most likely, this role to engrain such values was borne by their parents. There
has been a movement towards embodying and encouraging these values, verses
questioning and challenging what we know as individuals. The future leader is not
afraid to act as a change agent, questioning what he/she may have known as societal
norms for decades. One can see a great deal of this work already in practice through
the apparent change in demographics in the state legislature of those who hold office.
Women, members of diverse ethnic and racial communities, and disabled persons have
all found roles within state elected office, a change that seems to encapsulate the new
norm.
! %+(!
The role of the church and religion has changed, where experienced leaders
often cited spirituality and prayer as a place for inspiration, reflection and motivation
to serve the public. Young leaders, although many may identify as spiritual, cited
religion to a much lesser degree as playing a role in their leadership development. The
young leaders exhibit elements of self-reflection, but very little reflection when it
comes to political strategy. Unlike the experienced leaders who look back to similar
scenarios and situations in history, young leaders seek advice of those closest and look
forward. Where experienced leaders looked to historical figures and admired previous
and highly revered statesman, young leaders look to contemporaries and in many
cases, unknown individuals who have personally impacted the young leader.
Experienced leaders tend to gravitate towards crises as they see their roles as
problem solvers and crisis managers. Comfortable in their capabilities to lead through
a storm, experienced leaders oftentimes accept, if not request, situations where their
talents have been tested. Young leaders fear failure and crisis to a much greater
degree, oftentimes finding ways to circumvent situations where risk or ingenuity may
lead to a potential failure. In the competitive environment of young leaders, failure
does not seem to be as widely accepted, oftentimes stifling opportunities to learn and
test skills.
! %+)!
PART TWO CONCLUSION
Generational identity can be linked to political culture. This research started
with a discussion of the political culture and systems of governance in 1966 and then
followed significant changes in governance structures through modern times. A great
deal of research and perspective was offered relative to Proposition 140 and the
prevailing system of legislative term limits in California, leading into a discussion of
the individuals who have been directly affected by the implementation of this
initiative. Woven into this discussion was research on generational identity, detailing
the varying perspectives that are shared by members of differing generations.
Understanding these varying perspectives, in addition to analyzing the roots of these
perspectives and how they may have been created through world events and shared
experiences, provides more than a discussion on generational characteristics; it links
political culture to moments in time.
As California struggles with structural epidemics, understanding the intricacies
of the players who shaped modern California and the players who may one day accept
these same challenges as elected officials, provides tremendous value in the analysis
of leadership. As opposed to generally “clumping” legislators into a singular category
of “electeds,” this research has attempted to humanize a public initiative and show
how the formulation of public policy is more than a checkmark on a ballot or a call to
a legislator. Such policies affect people directly, some times for the betterment of
society at large, other times at a cost to others.
! %+*!
Unintended consequences of direct initiatives, in addition to legislative
outcomes are byproducts of many policies implemented. However under a democratic
system of governance, elected officials and those who have elected them to public
office have the ability to restore order or further a policy. The founding fathers in the
Federalist Papers cited the need to safeguard the will of the people through a
democratic system of representative government. Such a government exists in a full-
time structure in California, yet direct initiatives placed on the ballot circumvent this
representative system. Yet to be remembered, nothing ever has to be terminal unless
those who govern and elect choose to allow permeating problems go unresolved.
Although the political culture has changed over time, as have the generations
of leaders empowered by public office, a state the size of California will always be
plagued with policy problems. If such problems did not exist, there would be little to
no need for governmental entities and policymakers to exist. Finding a hybrid model
of leadership, learning from those who have served, and preparing for those who may
serve, is an imperative topic for further research.
! %++!
REFERENCES
Basham, P. “California Dreamin’? The Campaign to End Term Limits.” Cato
Institute, published online March 5, 2008. Retrieved Online:
www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3410. March 28, 2009.
Bates v. Jones, 1995 (Text). Retrieved Online:
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9TH&navby=case&no=9715
864v2&exact=1. March 30, 2009.
Bebitch-Jeffe, S. “A History Lesson on Part Time Lawmaking.” The Los Angeles
Times. August 8, 2004. Retrieved Online:
articles.latimes.com/2004/aug/08/opinion/op-jeffe8. March 27, 2009.
Bennis, W. & Thomas, R. Geeks & Geezers. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 2002.
Booth, N. “Court voids California term limits.” The Washington Post. October 8,
1997. Retrieved Online: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/special/termlimits/stories/ca100897.htm
Brown, W. Basic Brown. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008, p. 16.
California Assembly Bill 80 (Text). Statutes of 1966.
California Proposition No. 140 of 1990 (Text). General Election November 6, 1990.
California Secretary of State Bill Jones. California Official Voter Information Guide:
Primary Election March 5, 2002. Retrieved Online:
www.sos.ca.gov/elections/viguide_pe02/main.htm. March 28, 2009.
California Secretary of State Bill Jones. Statement of Vote: California 2002 Primary
Election. Retrieved Online:
www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2002_primary/contents.htm. March 28, 2009.
California Secretary of State March Fong Eu. Statement of Vote: General Election
November 6, 1990. Retrieved Online:
www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/90_gen_sov.pdf. March 27, 2009.
Constitution of the State of California. Enacted 1849. Office of Legislative Counsel -
Retrieved Online: leginfo.ca.gov
! %+,!
Hais, M. & Winograd, M. Millennial Makeover. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 2008.
“Have Term Limits Affected the California Legislature?” In Research Brief,
November 2004, Issue 94. Published by the Public Policy Institute of
California. Retrieved Online:
www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1104BCRB.pdf. March 30, 2009.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “Our Accomplishments.” Retrieved Online:
www.hjta.org/about-hjta/history-hjta. September 26, 2009.
Inventory of the Constitutional Revision Commission, 1964-70. Online Archives of
California. Retrieved Online: oac.cdlib.org. March 27, 2009.
Katches, M. “No More Museum Pieces: The California Legislature is a whole new
place since term limits have swept it clean.” State Legislatures Magazine. A
publication of the National Conference of State Legislatures. February 1999.
Retrieved Online: www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/299caltl.htm. March 30,
2009.
Lancaster, L. & Stillman, D. When Generations Collide. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers, 2002.
National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved Online:
www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2004/backgrounder_fullandpart.htm. March 27,
2009.
Office of the Chief Clerk of the Assembly. California's Legislature. Sacramento:
California Legislature, Assembly, 2006.
Peace, S. “Cure Prop 13 ‘Sickness’ by Reassessing Commercial Property, Boosting
Homeowners’ Exemption and Cutting the Sales Tax.” Cal-Tax Digest.
Published by the California Taxpayers Association. February 2000.
Peirce, N. “Legislative Term Limits: Still a Good Idea?” Published by The San
Diego Union-Tribune; July 21, 2004. Retrieved Online:
www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040721/news_lz1e21peirce.html.
March 30, 2009.
Picker, L. “The Lock-In Effect of California’s Proposition 13.” National Bureau of
Economic Research. Retrieved Online:
www.nber.org/digest/apr05/w11108.html. September 25, 2009.
! %+-!
“Proposition 45: Turning California Term Limits.” Campaigns & Elections
Magazine, June 2002.
“Proposition 98 Primer.” Published for the State Legislature by the California
Legislative Analyst’s Office. February 2005.
Serrano v. Priest, 1976 (Text). Retrieved Online:
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ca/cal3d/18.html. September 25, 2009.
Silva, F. “Term Limits: This Reform Assures a Do-Little Legislature.” Public Policy
Institute of California Opinion Paper. Published by The Los Angeles Times
May 7, 1997. Retrieved Online: www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=196.
March 30, 2009.
/0"123!45!!6789:!7;;0<=!><=?!4<@<=81";@!AB!!C8@8D"@D!12L#8"M
FFF59O?"@?H@;F2;F5J;0T08@8D
Starr, K. in Peirce, N. “Legislative Term Limits: Still a Good Idea?” Published by
The San Diego Union-Tribune; July 21, 2004. Retrieved Online:
www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040721/news_lz1e21peirce.html.
March 30, 2009.
! %,.!
APPENDIX A
PROFILED INTERVIEWEE BIOGRAPHIES
JIM BRULTE
Jim Brulte served 14 years in the California State Legislature, most recently as
Senate Republican Leader, before leaving office to join California Strategies. During
that time he developed a national reputation as a dynamic leader, and prior to the
election of Governor Schwarzenegger, was described as “arguably the most powerful
elected Republican in California.” He was recently appointed by President Bush to
serve as a Member of the Board of Visitors of the United States Naval Academy. He
was also appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger as a member of the Performance
Review Committee.
Brulte joined California Strategies in 2004 as a partner and heads the Inland
Empire office, the region where he grew up and later represented in the Legislature.
During his tenure in office, Brulte focused his efforts on education, regulatory reform,
crime reduction and common-sense legislation to improve California’s business
climate. His measures to reform the workers’ compensation and welfare systems have
saved billions of dollars for both California taxpayers and California’s business
community.
In addition to his political expertise, Brulte is also an expert on fiscal issues
and was the GOP’s lead negotiator for California’s 80+ billion dollar budget
negotiations.
Brulte graduated with a B.A. from California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona. In 1974, Brulte joined the California Air National Guard where he was later
honored as “Outstanding Airman of the Year” for the United States and its territories.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: www.jimbrulte.com
JIM COSTA
In January 2005, following a distinguished 24-year career as a member of the
California state Legislature, Jim Costa was sworn in as Member of the U.S. House of
Representatives representing California's 20th Congressional District.
The grandson of Portuguese immigrants who settled in the fertile San Joaquin
Valley near the turn of the 20th Century, Congressman Costa represents a district as
diverse in people as it is in crops. Made up of portions of Fresno and Kern Counties
and all of Kings County, the 20th Congressional District is home to a thriving
agriculture industry which produces much of what America eats. Fresno County is the
nation's number one agriculture producing county, Kern County ranks third and Kings
County is ninth.
! %,%!
Raised on a dairy farm in Fresno's Kearney Park area, Costa is a third-
generation family farmer. Costa's committee assignments reflect his long-standing
interest in the 20th Congressional District's major issues including agriculture and
water policy. He serves on the House Agriculture Committee, where he is a member
of the Subcommittees on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry; and Conservation, Credit,
Energy and Research. On the House Natural Resources Committee Costa is Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and is a member of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power. Costa is also a member of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee where he serves on the Subcommittees on the Middle East and
South Asia; and Europe. Costa is a member of the fiscally-conservative Blue Dog
Coalition and co-founder and co-chair of the Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus.
He is also a co-founder of the Congressional Water Caucus and a co-founder of the
Congressional Organ Donation Caucus.
During his first term in office, Congressman Costa put together a broad-based
bipartisan coalition aimed at developing a Regional Water Plan for Central California.
He also led the negotiations between the City of Fresno and the State of California that
secured the final funding necessary to complete and open the new Amtrak station in
Fresno. During the 109th Congress Costa continued to be an outspoken advocate for
building High Speed Rail Systems in California and across the nation and played a
leading role in the bipartisan effort to secure Highway 99 funding in the infrastructure
bonds approved by California voters in November 2006. In addition, Costa was a
principal in the successful bipartisan effort to secure Congressional approval of plans
to keep Fresno's 144th Air National Guard Fighter Wing viable well into the future.
The principal author of state legislation to create the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District, Costa continues to work with local and state officials to
clean up the Valley's air.
Costa's legislative initiatives have including sponsoring a bill directed at
resolving the beef crisis between the United States and Japan, legislation to extend the
Farm Bill and helping draft the legislation which is a result of the Friant Water
Settlement. He also was one of the leaders in the successful attempt to retain VOCA
funding.
His efforts during the 109th Congress won Costa recognition from National
Organization for Victim Assistance, which named him recipient of the Donald E.
Santarelli Public Policy Award for demonstrating outstanding public policy leadership
that has national impact. The American Farm Bureau Federation, named him a
recipient of its "Friend of the Farm Bureau" award and Costa received the "Spirit of
Enterprise" award by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
A product of Fresno County schools, Costa is a graduate of San Joaquin
Memorial High School and has a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from
California State University, Fresno.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: costa.house.gov
! %,&!
ROSS JOHNSON
Commission Chairman Ross Johnson was appointed chairman of the Fair
Political Practices Commission in February of 2007. An attorney and former
legislative leader, Johnson is a longtime proponent of political reform law and policy.
He represented Orange County in the California State Legislature for 26 years before
his appointment to the FPPC. He served in the California State Assembly from 1978
to 1995 and the California State Senate from 1995 to 2004, becoming the first person
to serve as a party leader in both legislative chambers. Throughout his tenure as a
legislator, Johnson authored and supported major political reform legislation and
ballot measures, and was a strong advocate for campaign finance, election, and
political reforms. He was principal author Proposition 73, a reform measure passed by
California voters in 1988.
Johnson earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from California State University,
Fullerton, and a Juris Doctorate degree from Western State University College of Law.
He is a former ironworker and a U.S. Navy veteran. He and his wife, Diane, now live
in the Sacramento area. They have two grown daughters and five grandchildren. A
Republican, Johnson was appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. His term
expires January 31, 2011.
Retrieved Online October 15, 2009: www.fppc.ca.gov
BILL LEONARD
Bill Leonard was appointed Secretary of the California State and Consumer
Services Agency in March 2010 after serving in the State Legislature for 24 years and
as an elected officer on the Board of Equalization for eight. He was first elected to the
State Assembly in 1978 running as a Prop. 13 tax cut advocate. In 1988 he was elected
to the Senate where he served in leadership and authored a tough anti-drunk driving
bill. He returned to the State Assembly in 1996 and served as Republican Leader.
During all that time, he became well known as a fighter for low taxes, quality schools
and a better business climate, as well as capitol wallyball games, sponsoring
Legislative Ski Day, and serving on the host committee for the California Prayer
Breakfast. After Bill Leonard was elected to serve on the Board of Equalization in
2002, he was re-elected in 2006 with more than one million votes. He has fought for
justice for taxpayers, and has advocated for taxpayer rights and public accountability.
In addition, Bill has spearheaded a pro bono assistance program to provide advice to
individual taxpayers appearing before the Board.
In private life, he is husband to Sherry; father to Tim, Mike, and Jacob; and
grandfather to Katie and Gavin. Bill is teaching Katie and Gavin some of his favorite
things in life: faith in God and American history. As the grandkids grow older, Bill is
! %,'!
sharing with them his favorite outdoor pursuits: hiking, biking, boating, skiing, and
golf. He worships at Warehouse Ministries in Sacramento.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: www.scsa.ca.gov/BillLeonard.htm
BILL LOCKYER
Bill Lockyer was elected on November 7, 2006 as California’s 32nd State
Treasurer. The State Treasurer’s Office (STO) plays a prominent role in helping
California meet the challenges of building the future for a growing and increasingly
diverse population. The STO has many tools to help provide residents what they need
to create a stronger California – good-paying jobs, superior schools, improved
transportation, quality health care, more affordable housing and a cleaner
environment. Lockyer is committed to putting those tools to maximum use.
Lockyer’s top priority is vigilant stewardship of taxpayers’ money.
• During the economic meltdown of 2008, the STO’s management of
billions of tax dollars that flowed through the State Pooled Money Investment
Account (PMIA) ensured the PMIA: did not lose one dollar of principal on any
investment; and suffered no losses from the failures or financial struggles of
AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae or Freddie
Mac.
• Lockyer is a leading voice in the call to adopt meaningful, long-term
budget reforms that get California back on a solid fiscal foundation, end
chronic budget deficits, strengthen the State’s credit rating and bolster its
credibility with taxpayers. In 2007, his office published the well-received
“Looking Beyond the Horizon: Investment Planning for the 21st Century.” In
the report, Lockyer advocated a longer-term budget planning and prioritizing
process to ensure California can afford both the public services and capital
investments it needs for the future.
• To increase accountability and transparency, Lockyer has proposed the
State establish independent citizen oversight of bond-funded public works
projects.
• Lockyer has led a national effort to reform the way credit rating
agencies grade tax-backed bonds issued by states and local governments. The
agencies discriminate against taxpayers by holding governmental issuers to a
higher standard than corporations. The result is government bonds get lower
ratings than they deserve. That hits taxpayers in their pocketbooks, because the
lower ratings force them to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in
unjustifiably high interest rates.
! %,(!
• Lockyer in 2007 launched an unprecedented campaign to increase the
purchase of California bonds by individual, or retail, investors. The
cornerstone is a first-of-its-kind web site, BuyCaliforniaBonds.com, to connect
investors with brokers. The campaign also features high-quality radio and print
media ads. The program has received national attention and has been copied by
other states. And it has succeeded. In 2008, for the first time, retail investors
bought the majority of California bonds and notes. The increased retail demand
has helped contain taxpayers’ debt service costs.
As Treasurer, Lockyer has continued his commitment to environmental
protection. He sponsored “green bond” legislation to make government buildings more
energy efficient and reduce their contribution to climate change. He sponsored another
measure that makes it cheaper for schools and other governmental entities to install
renewable energy generation at their facilities. He revived the California Alternative
Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority, which provides low-cost
financing for renewable energy and alternative fuels projects. Taken together, these
actions help spur California’s green economy, create the good-paying jobs of the
future and fight global warming.
As Treasurer, Lockyer has drawn on leadership, management and
policymaking skills developed over a public service career that has spanned more than
three decades.
From 1999-2006, Lockyer served as California Attorney General and
fashioned one of the most impressive records of accomplishment in the office’s
history. In his eight years, he helped revolutionize crime fighting in California by
creating and maintaining the nation’s most effective and sophisticated DNA forensic
crime laboratory. He also cracked down on Medi-Cal fraud, securing hundreds of
millions of dollars in court-ordered restitution and penalties. He established the
Megan’s Law website to locate and identify registered sex offenders. And he
recovered billions of dollars for defrauded energy ratepayers, consumers and
taxpayers.
Prior to his election as Attorney General in 1998, Lockyer served 25 years in
the California Legislature, culminating his Capitol career with a stint as Senate
President pro Tempore. In that leadership position, Lockyer crafted agreements to
balance the state budget, and reform government programs to make them run more
efficiently and effectively for taxpayers.
A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, Lockyer earned his law
degree from McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento while serving in the State
Senate. He also received a teaching credential from California State University,
Hayward. He is married to Nadia Maria Lockyer and has a daughter, Lisa, and a son,
Diego.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: www.treasurer.ca.gov/bio.asp
! %,)!
CURT PRINGLE
Curt Pringle, a land use, public relations and government affairs consultant,
with over 30 years experience, has a passion for navigating the political process on a
state and local level. With extensive depth and breadth of policy knowledge, Mr.
Pringle provides strategic advice to a variety of both public and private sector clients.
With eyes to see the big picture, Mr. Pringle is a trusted third party who is sought
after for sound counsel and action.
Curt Pringle brings an immense amount of civic knowledge to the Curt Pringle
& Associates’ diverse client base. He currently serves as the Mayor of Anaheim,
having first been elected in 2002. Having served in the California State Assembly
from 1988-1990 and again from 1992-98, the independent California Journal rated
Assemblyman Pringle as the “Best Problem Solver” and as the “Most Influential
Leader” of the California State Assembly. In January 1996, in what was hailed by the
Associated Press as “a victory for stability over chaos,” Assemblyman Pringle was
elected Speaker of the California State Assembly where he presided until November
1996.
During his tenure in the State Assembly, Assemblyman Pringle served as the
Republican Leader, Republican Caucus Chair, chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, chairman of the Rules Committee and vice chairman of the Budget
Committee. He also served on the Insurance, Governmental Organization, Banking,
Local Government and Joint Legislative Budget Review Committees. Additionally, he
served as a budget conferee in 1995, where he authored the 1995-1996 California
State Budget.
Assemblyman Pringle was a key architect of California's historic, bipartisan
welfare reform plan in 1997, and in 1996 he authored successful legislation to provide
California businesses with a five-percent tax cut.
Mr. Pringle has served on the Orange County Republican Central Committee
and the California Republican Central Committee. In 1996, 2004 and 2008 he was a
California Delegate to the Republican National Convention.
He also served as an appointee of the Senate Majority Leader to the National
Conference on Retirement Savings and served a four-year term as a member of the
Orange County Fair Board.
From 2007 to 2008, appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger, Mr. Pringle
served on the Public Employee Post Employment Benefits Commission.
Today, Mr. Pringle serves as a member of the Orange County Transportation
Authority’s Board of Directors as well as a Governor’s appointee to the California
High-Speed Rail Authority Commission. And in December 2008, Governor
Schwarzenegger appointed Mr. Pringle to the Commission on the 21st Century
Economy.
Additionally, Mr. Pringle serves on the Board of Directors of Leadership TraQ,
a leadership development program headquartered at California State University, Long
Beach.
! %,*!
Mr. Pringle also serves as an adjunct faculty member at the University of
California, Irvine, in the Political Science Department, where he teaches California
Government.
In 2006, Mayor Pringle was named one of OC Metro Business Magazine’s
“Hot 25” and one of the “100 Most Powerful People in Southern California” by West
Magazine (formerly Los Angeles Times Magazine). In 2007, Red County Magazine
named Mayor Pringle the “Most Influential Politico in Orange County.” In 2008, the
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) named him the “Local Elected
Official of the Year.” And most recently, Mayor Pringle was named “Top Legislator
of the Year” by the Southern California Chapter of the American Public Works
Association for 2009.
He is a graduate of California State University, Long Beach with a bachelor’s
degree in Business Administration and a Master’s in Public Administration. A 36-year
resident of the Anaheim/Garden Grove area, Pringle and his wife, Alexis, have two
children, a son, Kyle and daughter, Katie.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: www.curtpringle.com/bios.html
DAVID ROBERTI
David Roberti is intimately familiar and knowledgeable with government and
regulatory matters. His 28 years of service in the legislature and 13 years of service as
President Pro Tem of the California State Senate provide superior understanding of the
nature and process of governmental actions. He is well known as one of California's
most prominent legislators.
In addition, David Roberti is an attorney experienced in government and
business transactions, negotiations, and processes. After Loyola University and USC
Law School, David Roberti served as Deputy Attorney General and as a Clerk in the
District Court of Appeals. While in the legislature, Roberti chaired the Senate
Judiciary, Assembly Labor Relations, Northridge Earthquake, and Small Business
Enterprises Committees among others.
David Roberti is also intimately familiar with issues that occur in waste,
recycling, and hazardous waste businesses. David was chief Senate negotiator of AB
939, California’s landmark waste management legislation, and the author of
California’s Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1986, the Hazardous Waste
Reduction Act of 1989, as well as legislation establishing the California Hazardous
Waste Hotline.
! %,+!
In addition to his legislative service, David Roberti was also a member of the
California Integrated Waste Management Board and the California Unemployment
Insurance Appeals Board more recently.
• Managing Partner, Law Offices of David A. Roberti 2008 - Present
• Partner, Roberti Jensen LLP 2002 to 2008
• Member, California Integrated Waste Management Board 1998-2002
• Member, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 1995-
1998
• President Pro Tem of the California State Senate 1980-1994
• State Senator 1971-1994
• Assemblyman 1967-1971
• Deputy Attorney General 1965-1966
• Clerk District Court of Appeals 1964-1965
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: www.robertijensen.com/site/david_roberti.html
JACKIE SPEIER
Congresswoman Jackie Speier, a life-long resident of the San Francisco Bay
Area, represents California’s 12th District which covers the southwest quarter of San
Francisco and most of the adjacent San Mateo County. She was first elected in April,
2008 after serving 18 years in the California State Legislature where she authored over
300 bills signed into law by Republican and Democratic governors. Key laws she
authored include the nation’s strongest measure to protect the privacy of banking and
credit card customers; numerous protections for reproductive health rights and child
support measures that provided for more equitable collection formulas and that
curtailed the rate of delinquent payments. She also led numerous committee
investigations of illegal and wasteful state expenditures.
Jackie serves on three key committees in the House of Representatives: the
Committee on Financial Services; the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform; and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
In the current session of Congress, Jackie has been using her investigative
experience at hearings where she grilled CEOs from Toyota and Goldman Sachs on
the real facts behind vehicle safety recall issues and misleading investment products
that fueled a global financial meltdown. She fought to include language in the
financial reform bill to ensure that investment advisers and brokers will have to look
out for the consumer’s interests—not their own. She championed language that
prohibits credit rating agencies from advising the firms they rate on how to structure
their securities to get higher ratings; that creates an independent and strong consumer
financial protection agency; and that sets a cap on the debt-to-asset ratio of 15:1 for
systemically-risky financial institutions.
! %,,!
She has introduced legislation to require new vehicles to be outfitted with a
“black box” that would record a vehicle’s safety performance in an accident. The bill
also requires black box data to be shared with federal regulators—prior to this bill,
companies like Toyota kept black box data secret.
She provided information to the Consumer Product Safety Commission that
led to the recall of 12 million drinking glasses sold by McDonalds as part of a
promotional scheme. These colorfully painted glasses, touting the movie characters
from “Shrek,” were found to contain levels of cadmium that may present a health risk
to children. Children’s safety has been a career-long issue of great importance to
Jackie who currently is carrying legislation to limit a child’s exposure to cadmium.
Prior to her election to the State Legislature in 1986, she served for six years
on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisor. She graduated with a B.A. in Political
Science from UC Davis and received her JD from UC Hastings College of the Law.
Jackie was the first California state legislator to give birth while in office and
she was the third state lawmaker in history to be nominated by both Democrats and
Republicans in a primary election.
Jackie is married to Barry Dennis and has a son, Jackson, a recent college
graduate; and a daughter, Stephanie, a high school junior.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: speier.house.gov
MERLYN CALDERON
Merlyn Calderon is the youngest of six children and the daughter of farm
worker parents who was born in Salinas, California. She earned a Bachelor of Arts
degree in Global Studies, partially completed in Florence, Italy, from California State
University, Monterey Bay in 2001. Calderon served as an intern in the U.S.
Department of State.
She was selected as an Executive Fellow through the California State
University Center for California Studies where she was placed in the California
Department of Consumer Affairs assisting the statewide Task Force on Culturally and
Linguistically Competent Physicians and Dentists and preparing analysis and
recommendation for legislation pertaining to the department.
Calderon began as a community organizer with the United Farm Workers’
Farm Worker Voter Project, in 2002, where she built and organized precincts of
volunteers and created a base of indigenous leadership in the Central Coast region.
Following the election, Calderon served as a senior legislative staff person for
Assemblymember Judy Chu. She was the lead legislative staffer on Assembly Bill
805, sponsored by the United Farm Workers in 2005 in response to the five farm
workers who died from heat. It helped convinced Gov. Schwarzenegger to agree to the
UFW’s call for a first-in-the-nation state heat regulation protecting outdoor workers.
! %,-!
In 2005, Calderon completed her Master of Public Administration degree at the
University of Southern California and was selected as a Presidential Management
Fellow. She moved to Washington D.C., where was based primarily at the U.S.
Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs budget office, where
she assisted in planning the development of the federal annual budget in support of
international exchange programs administered.
Currently, Calderon is the California political director for the UFW, where she
manages the endorsement process and leads groundbreaking grassroots campaigns to
change the nation’s immigration laws, increase voter participation and build UFW
membership to improve the lives of farm workers.
Retrieved Online July 1, 2010: www.ufw.org
JAMES GALLAGHER
James Gallagher took office as Sutter County Supervisor, District 5, in January
2009. James is the sixth generation of an Irish immigrant family that first settled in
south Sutter County in the late 1800s. His grandfather, Robert Gallagher, served the
5th District as Supervisor from 1984-1988 and James is honored to continue in that
legacy of public service.
After graduating from East Nicolaus High School, James attended the
University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in political
science. While at Berkeley, James served as Editor-in-Chief of The Patriot, a
nationally recognized conservative news magazine and was elected to the student
Senate.
Upon graduation, Gallagher served in the Jesse M. Unruh Assembly
Fellowship Program, where he gained experience in state government working on
legislation for state Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa. After completing his fellowship,
Gallagher studied law at the University of California, Davis School of Law, receiving
his JD in 2007.
Gallagher is currently a practicing attorney with the Yuba City law firm of
Kelleher & Olivera, LLP concentrating in agribusiness law. He has been actively
involved in the community, serving as Vice Chairman of the Citizens’ Advisory
Committee for Flood Control Funding and as a Board Member of the Sutter County
Republican Central Committee. James, his wife, Janna, and their daughters, Katharine
and Maggie, make their home in south Yuba City.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010:
www.co.sutter.ca.us/doc/government/bos/bios/bos_gallagher_bio
! %-.!
STEVE HANSEN
Steve Hansen is a State Government Affairs Regional Manager in the Pacific
Northwest for Genentech, Inc. of South San Francisco. He is responsible for
coordinating and implementing the biotechnology company’s lobbying activities in
eight states in a collaborative approached with the Director of State Government
Affairs and the Senior Director for State and Local Government Affairs, who oversee
legislative and lobbying efforts in all 50 states.
Prior to joining Genentech, Steve served as Legislative Director for Equality
California, a statewide non-profit advocacy group for the LGBT community. In that
capacity, he was responsible for policy development, direct advocacy, community and
grassroots advocacy, strategic planning, media, and budgeting. At Equality California,
Steve was responsible for the passage of 20 pieces of legislation over a three-year
period. Among this legislation, although ultimately vetoed, was the first-ever marriage
equality bill to be passed by a state legislature. Prior to this, Steve served as an
Executive Fellow under the Secretary of the California State and Consumer Services
Agency in the Davis Administration working on issues related to insurance,
contracting, environmental stewardship, economic development, and the rights of
crime victims.
In the community, Steve is involved in a variety of different organizations.
This service includes: Secretary of the board of directors for CARES, a primary care
clinic for people with HIV/AIDS; Secretary of the board of directors for the
Downtown Sacramento Partnership, a public-private partnership focused on improving
Sacramento’s downtown community and business district; and on the Gay & Lesbian
Victory Fund’s Campaign Board, which works to increase the diversity of elected
officials at all levels of government.
Steve was honored in 2010 by the Sacramento Business Journal as one of the
“40 Under 40” for his community service and business work.
Steve has a Bachelor’s Degree in International Relations from Gonzaga
University and is currently a Juris Doctorate candidate in the class of 2011 at Pacific
McGeorge School of Law. He grew up in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Biography courtesy of Steve Hansen
STEVE MCSHANE
Steve McShane is running for Salinas City Council in District 3. Steve is the
candidate that represents the change Salinas needs at this time. He has the training,
experience, and network to win the seat and lead the city in a positive direction.
! %-%!
Steve McShane is a Soil Science Graduate of Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. He
has an MBA from Santa Clara University and has completed leadership programs
sponsored by San Luis Obispo, Sacramento, Morgan Hill, Monterey, Salinas, The
California Farm Bureau Federation, Young Farmers and Ranchers, and the California
Agricultural Leadership Foundation.
Steve has a great depth of community experience. He is the founder of the
Leadership Salinas Valley Alumni Association, and the Central Coast Young Farmers
and Ranchers. He has served in leadership capacities for boards including: Meals on
Wheels, Habitat for Humanity, Rotary, Cal Poly, The Salinas Jaycees, and the
Monterey County Young Professionals Group.
Steve’s service to his community is quite impressive. He was a Governor’s
appointee to the California Postsecondary Education Commission and was elected to
the Hartnell College Board of Trustees where he served as both Vice Chair and Chair.
Steve has served as an appointee to the City of Salinas Police Commission and Traffic
& Transportation Commission where he served as Vice Chair. He currently serves on
the County of Monterey Housing Advisory Commission and the City of Salinas
Planning Commission as Vice Chair. McShane is a graduate of both Salinas and
Monterey Citizens Police Academy and served on the Citizens Advisory Committee to
the Salinas Valley State Prison.
Steve spent three years working in the fresh vegetable business as a
commodity manager for Taylor Farms and Director of Quality, Food Safety and
Product Development for Newstar Fresh Foods. In 2005, Produce Business Magazine
named McShane one of the “Top Forty” young professionals in produce under forty
years old.
In 2005, McShane founded McShane’s Nursery & Landscape Supply.
McShane’s includes a staff of twenty across three departments including landscape
supplies, design services, and nursery products. In 2007, Steve was presented the
“Retail Rising Star” award by the American Nursery and Landscape Association.
Steve McShane is a true business man, he has worked in 2 large companies and
implemented the business knowledge he learned in school and learned in those 2
wonderful companies to create the top nursery and landscape supply on the Central
Coast.
McShane has been honored with the Founders Award by Leadership Monterey
Peninsula. He has also been honored with the California Outstanding Young Farmer
and the Outstanding Young Californian Award by the California Junior Chamber of
Commerce. Other awards include the Outstanding Young Citizen Award by the
Salinas Jaycees.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: www.electmcshane.com/bio
! %-&!
KAREN PANK
Karen Pank provides strategic policy planning, public policy and legislative
advocacy, association management and legal counsel for the firm.
Karen has been a partner of Warner and Pank, LLC since 2007, after joining
the firm in 2006. Prior to her joining private practice, Karen served as the Deputy
Legislative Secretary advising Governor Schwarzenegger on criminal justice, civil
litigation and judiciary issues. Karen has extensive experience in drafting statewide
initiatives and advising campaigns on policy and strategy.
Prior to joining the Administration, Karen served as a policy consultant to the
Assembly and later the Senate, Republican Caucuses on public safety issues. Karen
started her career as a Senate Fellow on Senator Poochigian's Staff.
Karen is also a member of the California State Bar. She is a graduate of the
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law and Saint Mary’s College of
California. She is a visiting law professor at U.C. Davis teaching Legislative Process
and Procedure.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: www.warnerandpank.com/K_Pank.html
CRYSTAL STRAIT
Growing up in a household mixed between life as the daughter of a local union
president and daughter of post-World War II Japanese-American has shaped every
aspect of Crystal Strait’s progressive values and dedication to the Democratic Party. In
fact, before becoming a Democratic Party activist, most of her initial political and
organizing experience was non-partisan, ranging from writing letters to Congress for
East Timor’s self-determination to acting as a peer-to-peer youth minister for her local
Catholic Church. No matter the cause, though, there is one common thread throughout
all of Crystal’s personal and professional activism: a dedication to fighting for others.
After graduating from UC Santa Barbara in 2000, Crystal moved to Japan to
teach English to Japanese middle school students. Upon returning to her hometown of
Azusa, California, Crystal moved north to Sacramento for a fellowship with State
Superintendent Delaine Eastin. After work, Crystal became active in the Sacramento
County Young Democrats; first serving as treasurer and later as president. Crystal
worked to get more young Democrats elected to the local party, city council and
school boards through volunteer voter contact efforts and fundraising for the
candidates.
After working as a local Field Director in the 2002 California Democratic
Party Coordinated Campaign, Crystal began pursuing her Master's Degree in Public
Policy at the University of Southern California, and became a statewide board member
for the California Young Democrats.
! %-'!
In 2003 Crystal began working for Assemblymember Lloyd Levine; first as his
Senior Legislative Aide and later as his Communications Director. During her time in
the Legislature, Crystal began the process of modernizing California Young
Democrats, first as a two-term Vice-President Membership, and later two-terms as
President of the California Young Democrats. She revolutionized the organization,
transforming an uncoordinated, volunteer effort into a professional and effective
organization that valued the grassroots and produced tangible results for the
Democratic Party--in 2006 alone the California Young Democrats made over 100,000
knocks and phone calls for Democratic get out the vote efforts.
In 2006, Crystal realized that her “extracurricular” activities of helping get
Democrats elected was truly her main passion and she left her job in the State
Assembly to work for the California Democratic Party, where she served as the
Political Director until 2009. Her focus and vision was instrumental in organizing the
California Democratic Party’s 2008 coordinated campaign, which saw President
Obama win the largest landslide of any Democrat in California since Lyndon Johnson,
and which also produced gains in the Legislature.
On August 8, 2009 Crystal was elected President of the Young Democrats of
America, making her the first Californian and first minority ever to hold that office in
the 78 year history of the organization.
Retrieved Online June 9, 2010: www.yda.org/about/204/officers-and-board
! %-(!
APPENDIX B
TABLE 1: INTERVIEWEE TIMELINE CHART
! %-)!
APPENDIX C
INDIVIDUAL REFERENCES
Blair, Jordan
Bryant, Jason
Danczyk, Paul
Kersten, Elisabeth
Kiefer, Andrew
Meade, Catherine
Renfro, Dee
Sherfey, Kelly
Steinmann, Frederick
Wheeler, Susan
! %-*!
APPENDIX D
AVAILABLE INTERVIEWEE WEBSITES
Willie Brown; Interviewed April 12, 2010, in San Francisco, CA
Philanthropist, Willie L. Brown, Jr. Institute on Politics & Public
Service
www.wlbinstitute.org
Jim Brulte; Interviewed April 7, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Principal, California Strategies, LLC
www.calstrat.com/OurPeople/JimBrulte.aspx
John Burton; Interviewed April 17, 2010, in Los Angeles, CA
Chairman, California Democratic Party
www.johnburtonfoundation.org
Merlyn Calderon; Interviewed March 8, 2010, in Watsonville, CA
Political Director, United Farm Workers
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1018657728
Jim Costa; Interviewed November 6, 2009, in Washington, DC
Member, U.S. House of Representatives (CA-20)
www.costa.house.gov
James Gallagher; Interviewed July 22, 2009, in Yuba City, CA
Supervisor, County of Sutter (5
th
District)
www.co.sutter.ca.us/doc/government/bos/bios/bos_gallagher
Stephen Hansen; Interviewed October 29, 2009, in Sacramento, CA
State Government Affairs, Genentech
www.facebook.com/StephenHansen
Ross Johnson; Interviewed October 21, 2009, in Sacramento, CA
Chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission
www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=58
Bill Leonard; Interviewed March 3, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Member, State Board of Equalization (2
nd
District)
www.billleonard.org
! %-+!
Bill Lockyer; Interviewed November 9, 2009, in Sacramento, CA
Treasurer, State of California
www.treasurer.ca.gov
Steve McShane; Interviewed March 8, 2010, in Salinas, CA
Owner/General Manager, McShane’s Nursery & Landscape Supply
www.mcshanesnursery.com
www.electmcshane.com
Sara Myers; Interviewed March 9, 2010, in Cupertino, CA
Finance Director, Meg Whitman for Governor 2010
www.facebook.com/sjmyers
Paul Navarro; Interviewed March 2, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Deputy Legislative Secretary, Office of Governor Schwarzenegger
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1241331&ref=ts
Karen Pank; Interviewed February 11, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Partner, Warner & Pank, LLC
www.warnerandpank.com/K_Pank.html
Luis Portillo; Interviewed March 16, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Assistant Deputy Director, California Department of Consumer Affairs
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1314293061
Curt Pringle; Interviewed December 10, 2009, in Anaheim, CA
Mayor, City of Anaheim, CA
www.curtpringle.com
David Roberti; Interviewed November 13, 2009, in Los Angeles, CA
Attorney, Law Offices of David A. Roberti
www.robertijensen.com/site/david_roberti.html
Arnold Schwarzenegger; Interviewed May 26, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
Governor, State of California
www.gov.ca.gov
Jackie Speier; Interviewed November 6, 2009, in Washington, DC
Member, U.S. House of Representatives (CA-12)
www.speier.house.gov
Crystal Strait; Interviewed March 11, 2010, in Sacramento, CA
President, Young Democrats of America
www.facebook.com/hellokittyforever
! %-,!
Pete Wilson; Interviewed April 16, 2010, in Los Angeles, CA
Principal, Bingham Consulting Group, LLC
www.bingham.com/consulting/bio_wilson.html
Christopher Young; Interviewed November 5, 2009, in Washington, DC
Associate Director, U.S. Department of Justice
www.facebook.com/chris.young.j
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Over the preceding forty years, the voters of California have directly enacted many significant public policy initiatives that have changed the face of politics and governance in the Golden State. In the face of the changes enacted, the leaders of contemporary California now struggle to govern the most populous state in the union, many of these struggles being attributed to the passage of these statewide initiatives.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Institutional contestation, network legitimacy and organizational heterogeneity: interactions between government and environmental nonprofits in South Korea
PDF
Urban spatial transformation and job accessibility: spatial mismatch hypothesis revisited
PDF
Walkability as 'freedom': the ecology of school journey in inner city Los Angeles neighborhoods
PDF
Housing farm workers: assessing the significance of the bracero labor camps in Ventura County
PDF
A comparative study of administrative corruption in ancient and modern China
PDF
State variations in linguistic competency policies and the effects on immigrant access to health services
PDF
Recent experience in the utilization of private finance for American toll road development
PDF
The political economy of Brazilian trade policy: domestic determinants, world and regional strategies
PDF
A time of crisis: the Australian experience and what can California learn?
PDF
The resiliency of Arab authoritarianism and the Arab-Israeli conflict: the United States' role in the cases of Egypt and Jordan
PDF
State restructuring and pathways to local democracy: idea and politics of decentralization in Japan and Korea
PDF
Alternative ways, locations, and partners to meet the recreational needs of underserved communities: the case of Florence-Firestone
PDF
Local votes and outside money: campaign contribution geographic origins and their impact on Los Angeles City Council election outcomes
PDF
Testing the entrepreneurial city hypothesis: a study of the Los Angeles region
PDF
Private school choice at the state level: diversity and success
PDF
Patent donations: making use of the gift of technology
PDF
The cavalry is coming: How a small tribe of Oklahoma Indians is saving the region
PDF
A megaproject matrix: ideology, discourse and regulation in the Delhi Metro Rail
PDF
Changing spaces: Machine project, critical pedagogy and reinventing the museum
PDF
Adjusting the bonds of love: parenting, expertise and social change in a Chinese city
Asset Metadata
Creator
Wheeler, Matthew C.
(author)
Core Title
Legislative term limits in California and the faces of change
School
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
Degree
Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
08/10/2010
Defense Date
05/24/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
direct democracy,generational leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,Politics,Proposition 13,Proposition 140,Proposition 98,state legislature,term limits
Place Name
California
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Newland, Chester A. (
committee chair
), Kingsley, Dorathea (
committee member
), Richardson, Harry W. (
committee member
), Starr, Kevin (
committee member
)
Creator Email
matthewwheeler1@hotmail.com,mcw@wheelerco.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3299
Unique identifier
UC1311803
Identifier
etd-Wheeler-3960 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-374906 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3299 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Wheeler-3960.pdf
Dmrecord
374906
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Wheeler, Matthew C.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
direct democracy
generational leadership
Proposition 13
Proposition 140
Proposition 98
state legislature
term limits