PROPOSITION 35 would make it easier for state agencies such as Caltrans to hire non-staff engineers and architects to do state work. It's a good idea.

If you think we've been around and around this issue before, you're right. It has been the subject of a state statute passed in 1993, a California Supreme Court ruling in 1997, and a ballot measure in the last election. That was Prop. 224, virtually the opposite of Prop. 35, and it was defeated.

Despite the convoluted history, the basic issue is straightforward. Caltrans, never noted for speed, has a huge backlog of highway work to design. The work would get done sooner with more people focused on it.

Present law lets the state contract out in exceptional circumstances. Prop. 35 would allow more work to go to private engineers.

Understandably, big private engineering firms are backing the measure. State engineers and some other public employee groups oppose it. Both sides say this is not a union versus non-union battle, but it has some of the earmarks of one -- including vindictive rhetoric from both sides.

The opponents of Prop. 35 argue that it is not needed, for two reasons. First, the new state budget nearly doubles the money to pay for work contracted to private consultants. And second, the state already has the authority to use such consultants when it can demonstrate the need.

Prop. 35 ``invites corruption,'' its critics claim, because it enables the state to turn to private contractors without competitive bidding.

We think the bidding argument is a red herring. Bidding, while customary for construction projects, is not required for engineering work. If voters had wanted to require it they could have done so by passing Prop. 224 in the last election. They chose not to.

Nor is there evidence that Prop. 35 will waste money. The state legislative analyst found that Prop. 35 probably would result in the state contracting for more work, raising costs in the short run. But the report said this could speed up highway work and save money in the long run. Because the financial impact would depend on how the state used its new flexibility, it said, the ultimate financial impact is unknown.

Although Prop. 35 applies to local as well as state government, most cities and counties already enjoy the flexibility Prop. 35 would create. Opponents claim some school construction projects already in the pipeline will be delayed while they are re-worked to conform to the new rules, but flexibility usually speeds things up, rather than slowing them down.

The California League of Cities and California State Association of Counties support the state measure. Local officials know that the bottlenecks occur at the state level, and they believe Prop. 35 will help. So do we. Especially on highways, there's more than enough work to go around. Vote yes on 35.



<--- Back to Articles Home Page