California bill would cut all state public information officers from the payroll p.

By: M.L. Stein

A CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY committee may have borrowed an idea from William Shakespeare.
The bard, in Henry VI, wrote, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
The committee did not go quite that far but it did recommend recently that all state public information officers be cut from the payroll.
Describing the media aides as useless baggage, the Consumer Protection Committee voted 8-1 to shift their duties to other state personnel.
"I think we ought to make a public statement on these public information officers," said Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Stanford). "The bill is not aimed at any individuals but in cutting back state government in these fiscally hard times."
However, the State Information Officers Council protested that the bill would limit the public's right to know and access to government.
Members of the Sacramento press corps interviewed by E&P generally thought the measure was a bad idea.
The bill by Assemblywoman Valerie Brown, (D-Sonoma), would remove 146 information officers, most of them Civil Service workers but including political appointees, beginning July 1.
Losing jobs would be press secretaries and communications and media directors. The bill also would limit the salaries of boards and commissions and reduce non-essential in-state travel. Brown estimates the package would save the state $42 million a year, about $7 million of it from PIO cuts.
The bill has picked up support in Sacramento. Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin (D-Fremont), chair of the Assembly's Education Committee, told the Associated Press that "When we get to education and we have to choose between education and public information, we'll choose education."
Doug Willis, AP political writer and former Sacramento bureau chief, said he had mixed reaction to the vote but deplored what he termed a "meat ax" approach to the issue.
"They [the Assembly] are looking at tough choices in tough times but information officers can't be the most important thing to cut in state government," he said. "There is some fat in those press information departments but to wipe them all out is a simplistic gesture."
Willis, one of Sacramento's most experienced reporters, said that if the bill obtains final approval it would make the media's job harder but not impossible.
"In some cases it's better to talk to the decision maker than a press aide who doesn't know too much about the subject," he observed. "But the good ones make our job easier because they understand deadlines and other problems of our business, and they have quick access to their agencies."
San Jose Mercury News Sacramento correspondent Tom Farragher called Brown's bill "a bunch of baloney."
"It would slow us down but we've got a job to do and we'll get it done with or without press people," he remarked, "but if a professional is not going to deal with the press, who will? The public is still going to demand information."
Asked if he thought the bill might pass both houses of the Legislature, Farragher replied, "Things are so tight here financially, I wouldn't put anything out of reach."
Armando Acuna, Los Angeles Times bureau chief in Sacramento, agreed with Willis that the bill is too sweeping. He said the committee should have addressed the matter on a case-by-case basis.
"Some flacks are better than others," he commented. "If somebody is doing his or her job well, they can be a real help to us. If they're doing a lousy job, it hurts the whole process. The good ones put you in touch with key players and sometimes can save you time and energy by telling you that you're just spinning your wheels because there is no story there. The good ones are invaluable and this also is good for the public."