Gut and amend is a catchall phrase thrown around Sacramento. In general, it means removing all or a substantial part of a bill and replacing it with new provisions that have little or nothing to do with the bill’s original intent, especially after the bill’s shell has passed through a part of the process, like a committee hearing or a vote in one chamber.

Proponents say there are instances when it’s necessary, but detractors say it leads to bad legislation and limits the power of those with an opposing view. The times that irk opponents the most are when a bill is gutted and amended sometimes just hours before a vote.

Members of Rendon’s staff said the Paramount Democrat, who has taken a more soft-handed approach to leadership than some of his predecessors, does not encourage the practice, but leaves legislators to decide how to best handle their legislation.

“There are many situations where a gut and amend may be actually be needed,” said Rendon spokesman John Casey. “Regarding the Speaker’s involvement on the issue, he does not tell members to do anything. They are the masters of their own legislation and are entitled to amend their bills in any way they see fit.”

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon’s office did not respond to requests for comment, but the Los Angeles Democrat has not opposed gut and amends in the past. 

Examples

Proponents of a bill generally care little for how it gets passed as long as it becomes, and remains, law. So the murky gut and amend process is a means to an end for advocates.

For example, last year, the Legislature officially amended a shell with 104 pages of language changes that dissolved 400 redevelopment agencies statewide, which subsidized local development, which advocates of the move said eliminated wasteful and corrupt agencies.

However, right or wrong, the gut and amend circumvented the normal vetting process, critics said.

“SB 107, redevelopment rewrite, may (or not) be a great bill but springing it on final day of session as a budget trailer bill is shabby,” Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters tweeted at the time.

A year prior, the Legislature pushed through a 112-page bill limiting school districts’ ability to fund reserves, without even a committee hearing, which Walters called one of the “most pointlessly cynical legislative act(s) of this still-young century.”

And years before that, the Legislature jammed through a bill streamlining the strict environmental review process for local development to pave way for a proposed football stadium in Los Angeles — the shell of the bill required recycling and compost bins in schools — only to have a court later rule part of the measure “unconstitutional.”

And so on.

Rules

Legislative rules in both chambers already prohibit “non-germane” amendments, meaning those amendments that have nothing or little to do with the shell. A prime example waiting in the wings is Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez’s bill to even out when farmworkers are given overtime pay — a measure that died earlier this year but has since been added to a bill originally focused on teachers.

However, the rules can be, and are routinely, waived. Leaders generally like having as many legislative tools as possible at their disposal, and anything that speeds up the process or lacks scrutiny limits the power of the minority to impact in the debate.

Proposition 54, which is to be decided by the voters this November, would, among other things, require the final version of a bill to be in print and made available online for 72 hours prior to a vote.

“The only way to actually fix this problem is by changing the California Constitution,” said Sam Blakeslee, a former Republican legislative leader and proponent of Prop. 54. 

But do some deals need to be passed in the eleventh hour?

Prop. 54 would prevent the last-minute gut and amends, but it would also thwart other quickly-passed and negotiated bills that may not qualify as gut and amends, like the 2008 budget deal advocates say staved off bankruptcy. 

Democratic political consultant Steven Maviglio argues that Prop. 54 is just another “tool” for special interests to unravel legislative deals at the last second, pointing to the 2008 budget agreement, the 1959 Fair Housing Act, the 2006 climate change bill (AB32) and the 2014 water bond — all voted on without 72 hours notice. 

“Let’s not give special interests any more tools to prevent lawmakers from doing the right thing, whether it be unnecessary delays in enacting legislation or ways to demonize the Legislature,” wrote in The Sacramento Bee. 

The initiative is a constitutional amendment requiring the Legislature to make available online the final version of a bill at least 72 hours prior to a vote on either the Assembly or Senate floor.

The measure would also require all open legislative meetings to be recorded, with the videos posted online with 24 hours. It also allows individuals to record and share their own videos of open meetings.  

“Voters are making it clear that they are fed up with special interest legislation being passed in the middle of the night, without time for input or careful consideration of how new laws impact them,” Sam Blakeslee, a former state senator and one of the measure’s proponents, said in a statement on Thursday. “We look forward to seeing these common sense reforms become a reality when all Californians have the opportunity to vote for this measure at the polls this November.”

The measure is backed by Republican donor Charles T. Munger Jr. and is supported by right-leaning groups like the California Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business and the left-leaning California Common Cause.

The most outspoken and public opponent of the measure is Democratic political strategist Steven Maviglio, who argues it’s just another “tool” for special interests to unravel legislative deals at the last second. 

Maviglio points to the 2008 budget agreement, the 1959 Fair Housing Act, the 2006 climate change bill (AB32) and the 2014 water bond were all tough votes taken without 72 hours notice. This measure, he argues, would subject iffy legislators to attacks from special interest groups.

“Let’s not give special interests any more tools to prevent lawmakers from doing the right thing, whether it be unnecessary delays in enacting legislation or ways to demonize the Legislature,” wrote in The Sacramento Bee. 

Under SB 492, optometrists would diagnose and treat any disease relating to the eye or any medical condition with and ocular manifestation, essentially allowing optometrists to practice ophthalmology. The California Medical Association opposes SB 492.

Naturally, the California Optometric Association is thrilled with the bill and has commensurately made significant contributions to legislative committee members of the committees responsible for hearing and passing the bill.

And now, with SB 492 in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection committee Tuesday, the campaign is plastering the airways with new radio spots, paid for by the  California Optometric Association.

As the ad opens, a woman says “it’s time for other health care specialists to step forward and be allowed to deliver… so your neighbors have access to the health care they have been promised.” She says go to www.bridgingtheprovidergap.com, and says the ad is paid for by the California Optometric Association.

So I went online to find out who Bridging the Provider Gap was. The website says, “Californians for Accessible Healthcare is a coalition dedicated to filling the ‘provider gap’ in California’s health care system. It includes the California Association for Nurse Practitioners www.canpweb.org, California Society of Health-System Pharmacists www.chsp.org,California Optometric Association www.coavision.org and California Pharmacists Association www.cpha.com.

But the real shocker was when I saw the News / Press Contact for Bridging the Provider Gap:

“Steven Maviglio, Forza Communications, 916.607.8340.”

Yup, the same Steven Maviglio who works as a Political consultant, and is currently serving as spokesman for Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, for $9,500 a month, paid by the Legislature and taxpayers.

In March when he announced the job with Perez, Maviglio said he didn’t have any clients involved in Assembly matters.

“It seems like he’s serving two masters,” said Jessica Levinson, an expert in political ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, in a recent story about Maviglio, by the Sacramento Bee.

“He may be doing a great job serving both of them, and he may not be doing anything improper,” Levinson said. “But at the very least it feels uncomfortable and improper because he is serving a legislator and serving clients who seek to influence that legislator.”

Campaign contributions

Hernandez has also accepted more than $140,000 in campaign contributions from optometrists, optometry businesses and the California Optometric Association, according to the California Secretary of State, and reported by CalWatchdog contributor John Hrabe.

This is how politics works in the world of special interests. And according to  Hrabe, “Maplight, a nonprofit research organization that reveals money’s influence on politics, reports Hernandez’s single largest contributor over the last four years has been the American Optometric Association, which has donated $33,700 to his campaign committees.”