Q & A : Senate: 19th District

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates in March. Answers have been edited to fit the available space.

Business Environment

Q. Do you believe businesses are leaving California due to a hostile business environment? If yes, how would you make California more attractive to business?

Burns: Yes. Measures include: 1) higher education standards 2) moderation of anti-business environmental laws 3) reform of workers’ compensation, particularly for stress claims 4) a less pro-spending and pro-tax Legislature.

Campbell: Yes. Elimination of needless regulations. Overhaul workers’ compensation insurance. Streamline and centralize reporting process to government agencies. Give tax credits to encourage business expansion and tax credits for new businesses.

La Follette: Yes. A better tax environment. Eliminate those taxes that make California less competitive than its neighboring states. Improve workers’ compensation system. Simplify environmental steps (not environmental standards) so that a business can go to one place to get environmental requirements approved. Stop the frivolous lawsuits that are driving businesses out of California.

Najbergier: No. Business controls California. This widespread slander is very useful in trying to intimidate workers and the people in general into surrendering their rights to have their basic needs met.

Starr: Businesses are both attracted to and disenchanted with California for a variety of factors. On the plus side is our year-round climate, our huge pool of highly skilled workers, our vast manufacturing capabilities, our geographic position as the gateway to Asia, etc. On the negative side is the perception of higher than average taxes, a workers’ compensation system run amok, stringent environmental controls, high cost of living and high labor cost. Should steps be taken to emphasize the advantages and address the problem areas? Definitely. But this is no time to panic with “quick fixes” which sacrifice our environment or the basic protections our workers need.

Wright: Yes. Reform workers’ compensation. Reduce and consolidate regulations so businesses can survive and yet protect the environment. Tax reductions or incentives where appropriate.

Government Contracts

Q. Do you think state government contracts should be awarded on a “Buy American” basis, with winning bidders being those who promise to use specific percentages of American workers to produce goods and services?

Burns: No. Protectionism is bad for the American economy. It may save a few jobs in a favored industry, but raises costs to Americans and the state government.

Campbell: Yes. State monies should always be used in the best possible way to improve our own economy so the job needs of our own citizens are first and foremost.

La Follette: No. With fair competition, California firms can be as competitive as any in the world. We don’t need special favors.

Najbergier: No. This is an invitation to retaliation. Instead, government contracts should require that goods and services providers pay their workers decent wages, provide adequate benefits and safe working conditions.

Starr: I believe that the most important criteria in state governmental purchasing should be quality and value. I also believe, however, that there are other criteria which can and should be considered, such as the effect upon our state’s economy, both present and future, and that this additional criteria should be well known to those who would do business with us.

Wright: No. While I would promote American, I would not mandate because part of our economy and jobs are based on exports so we really cannot just advertise or mandate American only.

Employee Insurance

Q. Do you support requiring California businesses to provide health insurance to employees or contribute to a fund to provide health care for the uninsured?

Burns: No. Terms of employment should not be state-mandated, but bargained for, individually or collectively.

Campbell: No. A system should be created whereby health care would be made affordable so that businesses could afford to provide that benefit to their employees. At the present time, it is too costly for small businesses to be forced to provide health care.

La Follette: No. To require businesses to provide health insurance, the “pay or play” system, will just discourage businesses from employing more people. Because no company can provide health insurance at the 7% rate the government is talking about, it will soon turn into a socialized medicine system.

Najbergier: Yes. This would be a minimal step until health care is recognized as a basic human right.

Starr: Only as a last resort. Universal health care is an absolute essential for this nation. My present leaning is for a hybrid system which would allow for both a national government sponsored health care system and a private, insurance-funded system to coexist. However, the law would require a level playing field--with either all Americans included in both plans, or the exclusions the same.

Wright: No. We have to first reduce the cost. That means tort reform, restrictions on liability and control excessive utilization. Then, with affordability, employers will provide (insurance) in a competitive market.

Health Care

Q. Do you support state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi’s proposed $34-billion plan, financed by a state payroll tax, for health care for California workers, people with pre-existing medical conditions and the unemployed?

Burns: No. This would be an unfair burden on two social groups--employers and employees. It would require a further increase in the bureaucracy to administer it.

Campbell: No. On the surface it sounds OK, but no government agency stops where it starts. It would continue to grow and become so costly that it would end up costing people their jobs.

La Follette: No. California cannot survive if we are the only state that provides comprehensive medical care.

Najbergier: Yes. But where does the $34-billion figure come from? Does Garamendi plan to go along with the 1,000% profits common in the health care business?

Starr: Only as a second-to-last resort.

Wright: No. The cost of the “super” insurance program begins at $34 billion and rises upward and the administration of the program would be astronomical.

Air Quality

Q. Should state and federal air quality rules be eased to reduce the financial burdens on California industry?

Burns: Yes.

Campbell: Yes. All rules should be judged on a cost versus benefit basis.

La Follette: The currently proposed system of pollution credits properly worked out is part of the answer.

Najbergier: No. Life and health come before profits.

Starr: No.

Wright: Yes. I believe we can protect the environment and still provide a cost-effective program.

Oil Exploration

Q. Barring a national emergency, would you ever support opening up more of the California coastline to oil exploration? If so, under what circumstances?

Burns: Yes. Oil is a natural resource, and should be available for use.

Campbell: Yes. Opening up offshore oil drilling would be good for California’s economy and create many jobs. Offshore drilling has been proven safer than transporting oil from Alaska by tanker.

La Follette: Yes. We do not know what the international situation will be in years to come. We must leave the possibility of oil drilling open if the international system changes.

Najbergier: No. Under no circumstances. Dependence on oil must stop. Prior “energy crises” have been phony.

Starr: Yes, but only when the techniques have been perfected to absolutely assure against damage to the environment--and those doing the exploration would have to put their money where their mouths are. At the present time, the environmental impact far outweighs the oil benefits we would reap.

Wright: I believe the time will come when Californians will need to decide if they wish to reduce their demand for oil or risk oil spills from freighters and accidents along the coast as we import more oil to meet demand.

Education Support

Q. Do you support giving state money to parents to allow them to enroll their children in schools of their choice, public or private?

Burns: Yes.

Campbell: Yes. Competition breeds excellence. However, we must put public and private schools on a level playing field by deregulating the public school system. We must return control of our schools to local school boards.

La Follette: Yes.

Najbergier: No. This would lead to the destruction of public schools.

Starr: Certainly not. The presently proposed voucher system which proposes giving $2,500 per child with no requirements on the private schools as to whom they must admit, nor what minimum standards they must meet. If we are to have competition, we must have a level playing field. As proposed, this would simply lay the foundation for the destruction of our public education system as we know it.

Wright: This can never be an easy yes or no reply. The most important issue should be equal education for all children with no barriers to learning.

College Tuition

Q. Should tuition at state universities and colleges be increased to help offset state budget deficits?

Burns: Yes. Tuition should come closer to actual cost, with scholarships and student loans for those who need assistance.

Campbell: No. Higher education is almost out of reach to the middle-American family. There are other ways to reduce the deficits, for example, by stopping welfare fraud.

La Follette: The increase in tuition is not to offset the state budget deficit, but to cover increasing university costs to maintain current programs.

Najbergier: No. Education should be free at all levels. This is a basic right in modern society.

Starr: No. In fact, they should be significantly lowered so that we can assure universal education to all, not only through high school, but through college as well. This is the foundation for our greatest strength as a state and a nation.

Wright: This question is not worded accurately. The increased demand for higher education requires not only increased faculty, but also more infrastructure. Therefore, this leads to added costs of an already stressed general fund.

School Bonds

Q. Do you support reducing the votes needed to pass a school construction bond issue from two-thirds to a simple majority?

Burns: No. Bonded indebtedness should continue to be subject to the two-thirds requirement.

Campbell: Yes. A two-thirds majority vote system allows a minority vote to overrule the majority.

La Follette: No.

Najbergier: Yes. Any requirement above simple majority is undemocratic.

Starr: Yes, definitely.

Wright: No. This would be a violation of Proposition 13.

Death Penalty

Q. Do you support capital punishment for any crimes? If so, which ones?

Burns: Yes. Capital murder as presently defined.

Campbell: Yes. Murder, rape, repeat drug dealers convicted for the third time, arson that results in death and kidnaping with bodily harm.

La Follette: Yes. For murder and drug kingpins.

Najbergier: No. I am unconditionally opposed to capital punishment.

Starr: Yes.

Wright: Yes. Taking a life under any conditions and for heinous crimes.

Gun Control

Q. Do you support any form of limit on the sales of guns to individuals?

Burns: Yes. Sales should be prohibited to convicted felons and mental incompetents. Otherwise, there should not be restrictions on personal weapons.

Campbell: Yes. I support present California law.

La Follette: Fifteen-day waiting period for purchase of a handgun.

Najbergier: Yes. Guns should not be sold to criminals, minors and the mentally ill.

Starr: Yes. The challenge here is to weed out the bad apples without destroying the rights of legitimate citizens to exercise their constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Wright: Such limits as: either take a course to learn more about the firearm, or the individual already demonstrates respect and knowledge about the firearm.

Police Intervention

Q. Do you support making it a crime for a police officer to fail to intervene if he or she witnesses a fellow officer using excessive force against someone?

Burns: Yes. This issue is very complex, but I support the basic concept of criminal liability for failing to intervene.

Campbell: Yes. This would provide a good check and balance system to protect both citizens and officers.

La Follette: No. It is too subjective to make it a law.

Najbergier: Yes. This should go beyond excessive force and include all crimes committed under color of law.

Starr: No. Obviously, such conduct is reprehensible, and should be a factor subjecting the offender to internal discipline affecting his or her advancement or continued employment as a peace officer. But not a crime, with all the pressures that our police officers are under.

Wright: No. I believe each police department has or should have their own regulations and procedures in place. I do not believe that as an outsider who would not be at the scene of a crime, a law should dictate the appropriate action of a trained police officer.

Campaign Funding

Q. Should political campaigns be taxpayer-funded to reduce the importance of special-interest money?

Burns: Absolutely not. This would subsidize the major parties and restrict the free speech of voters.

Campbell: Yes. This will allow for an even contest between candidates. There should be limits set to campaign expenses. This fund would give an equal opportunity to all candidates.

La Follette: No. Even though my major opponent is funded almost exclusively by special-interest money. I still think there are more important things to spend our tax dollars on.

Najbergier: Yes. But this would be meaningful only if no special-interest money were allowed.

Starr: Special-interest money is one of the worst cancers affecting politics in America today. On the other hand, I do not believe in public financing alone. There should be a combination of some public financing to assure at least a minimum exposure to the electorate of all major candidates, combined with limits both on individual and PAC contributions and total expenditures.

Wright: No. Just look at this year’s budget dilemma. Would you want these elections all supported by tax dollars in addition to the overburdened deficit?

Affirmative Action

Q. In general, do you think affirmative action in employment of women and members of minority groups has not gone far enough, or has gone too far, or is about right?

Burns: The laws requiring racial and gender quotas have gone too far. Employment should be on merit. Quota laws patronize the affected groups by implying they are less capable.

Campbell: I believe people should be hired based on merit. Affirmative action when first started was a positive step for women and minorities. All labels should be eliminated and we should look to the qualifications of the employee.

La Follette: We are making positive advances in the recognition and employment of women and minorities, but we must eliminate the “glass ceilings” that keep them from reaching their full employment potential. However, I oppose quotas.

Najbergier: Affirmative action has never happened. It is a hoax that has been used to exacerbate sexism and racism.

Starr: The ultimate goal is color-blind equal opportunity for all. If more is needed to accomplish that goal, then it should be done. On the other hand, quotas and reverse discrimination are not only intrinsically bad, they also inevitably lead to a backlash that injures the very purposes they are purportedly designed to support.

Wright: It has gone too far when one has to reach a numerical goal rather than hire on the basis of the requirements of the job.

Abortion Rights

Q. Do you support a woman’s unrestricted right to an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy?

Burns: Yes.

Campbell: No.

La Follette: No.

Najbergier: Yes.

Starr: Yes.

Wright: As a legislator, I support the law.

Abortion Funding

Q. Do you support state funding of abortions for women who cannot afford them?

Burns: Yes.

Campbell: No.

La Follette: No.

Najbergier: Yes.

Starr: Yes.

Wright: No.

Illegal Immigration

Q. Do you support the adoption of new measures such as increased border patrols and physical barriers to try to stem the flow of illegal immigration from the south?

Burns: Yes.

Campbell: Yes.

La Follette: Yes.

Najbergier: No.

Starr: Yes, but this question unfairly points solely to the south. There are two separate questions. Should we have an immigration policy that assures we accept immigration only to the limit that our nation can integrate the immigrants so that the immigration is helpful rather than harmful? The answer is yes. But should our southern neighbors be singled out due to the color of their skin or the language they speak? Absolutely not--that smacks of racism.

Wright: Yes. But we should also help Mexico to support their population’s economy because it is to our advantage.

Terminal Illness

Q. Do you support the so-called “right-to-die” initiative on the November ballot that would allow doctors to end the lives of people who are terminally ill in a “painless, humane and dignified” manner?

Burns: Yes. But only under a scrupulous system to prevent fraud and murder.

Campbell: Yes. People should be allowed to die with dignity.

La Follette: My husband died recently of cancer. I am not prepared yet to answer the question.

Najbergier: No. I am concerned that it might be done for economic rather than humane reasons.

Starr: I have not seen the wording of this initiative, but as you have worded your question, I do not think that doctors should be allowed, by themselves, to “play God.”

Wright: There are three issues here, the patient, the family and their religious beliefs.

Welfare Benefits

Q. Do you support Gov. Pete Wilson’s proposal to reduce welfare benefits for a family of three by 10% immediately, to $597 a month, and by another 15% for families with able-bodied adults who were not working?

Burns: Yes. There are currently too few incentives for welfare recipients to find employment.

Campbell: No. This is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. The welfare system needs a complete overhaul.

La Follette: Yes. California has become a magnet for welfare recipients and we must encourage people on welfare to become employed to break the vicious cycle.

Najbergier: No. Not only do I oppose reductions in benefits, but I believe that all people should get a meaningful income.

Starr: I agree, in principle, with some of his proposals and disagree with others. Certainly, the welfare system needs a massive overhaul to put an end to its self-perpetuating underclass. However, Wilson’s timing is lousy. You don’t make people pay for an umbrella for years, and then poke holes in it just when it begins to rain.

Wright: Yes. We as a state cannot continue to pay more than any other state with the exception of Alaska. We have many good programs that can help these people to work and restore their dignity and independence.

Child Care

Q. Should businesses be required to subsidize child care for employees?

Burns: No.

Campbell: No. Tax credits should be given to parents.

La Follette: No. I recommend and encourage joint ventures among state, local and private enterprise to develop new child-care facilities. The California Child Care Initiative, which I authored, has provided more than 10,000 new child-care spaces as a result of such a venture. Additionally, I support a tax credit as an incentive for providing child care.

Najbergier: Yes.

Starr: No. Not “required to,” but certainly encouraged to.

Wright: No. That should be a business decision in maintaining a good relationship with their employees.

Proposition 13

Q. Do you support any change in the laws enacted by voters in 1978 as Proposition 13?

Burns: Yes. Several loopholes should be closed which now permit government to circumvent Proposition 13.

Campbell: No. We voted for Proposition 13 to send a clear message that government spending was out of control. I support no new taxes.

La Follette: No.

Najbergier: Yes. Proposition 13 has proven to be an economic disaster, as well as creating gross inequities in taxation.

Starr: Yes. This is another example of a simplistic answer being proposed to cure a problem that needed addressing--run-away property taxes. On the other hand, that solution has become our problem. It shifts the tax burdens from us to our children. A more comprehensive approach to the problem is called for.

Wright: No.

Thomas or Hill?

Q. Who do you think more likely told the truth, Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas?

Burns: Thomas, probably. Personally, I am inclined to think that the Hill business was part of a concerted scheme to discredit an ideologue who thinks the Constitution means what it says.

Campbell: I honestly don’t know. However, I find it rather strange that Anita Hill did not come forward sooner.

La Follette: Clarence Thomas.

Najbergier: Anita Hill.

Starr: I believe that Anita Hill was telling the truth to the best of her ability.

Wright: Clarence Thomas, but we will never know the whole truth.

Literary Influence

Q. What, if any, book have you recently read that influenced your view of public policy?

Burns: “Charles II” by Ronald Hutton.

Campbell: None.

La Follette: “Winning the Brain Race” by David T. Kearns and Dennis P. Doyle.

Najbergier: “The Wretched of the Earth” by Franz Fanon.

Starr: “America: What Went Wrong?”

Wright: With approximately 3,500 bills going through the Legislature and all the correspondence I receive, I don’t have time for just reading. But I have listened to the tape of Jill Ireland’s life through her eyes.

CONTENDERS

Richard N. Burns, 62, of Northridge is a member of the Libertarian Party. An attorney, Burns is for ending government spending and regulations. He has never held a public office before.

Roger Campbell, 41, lives in Fillmore, where he is a member of the City Council. Elected in 1984, he served as mayor of that city in 1986-87. Campbell owns an auto repair business and is a 19-year veteran of the Fillmore Volunteer Fire Department, of which he serves as assistant chief.

Marian W. La Follette, 65, of Newbury Park, retired as the assemblywoman in the San Fernando Valley’s 38th District in 1990, after serving 10 years in that office. A former Northridge resident, she served for six years on the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees.

Charles Najbergier, 58, of Northridge is a member of the Peace and Freedom Party. A registered nurse, Najbergier said he is for “legalization and control of drugs; strict limits on election spending; and quick and easy recall of elected officials who fail to represent.” He said he expects to spend $100 to $200 on his campaign.

Henry Phillip Starr, 60, of Bell Canyon is an attorney and has never run for political office before. As the only Democrat in the race, his first contest will come in the November general election when he faces the winner of the June 2 Republican primary and the nominees of other parties. Starr has lived in Ventura County for 10 years.

Cathie Wright, 62, of Simi Valley, has represented the 37th Assembly District in Sacramento since 1980. Among others, she is a member of the Assembly Rules and Ways and Means committees. In 1979, Wright served as mayor of Simi Valley, where she also was a city councilwoman.