To understand the present controversy around California’s so-called First Five Commission and its now mostly-departed chairman, it’s important to understand how he became chairman in the first place. Former Governor Gray Davis appointed movie director/initiative promoter Rob Reiner to his controversial chairmanship of the California Children and Families Commission. But he could not have done it without the help of former Republican Governor Pete Wilson.
By several accounts, Reiner badly wanted to be the chairman of the new state agency created by the narrow passage of his Prop 10 tobacco tax initiative for early childhood development in 1998. The initiative, after all, had been his baby, the bringing to fruition of his dream of helping children. And the role of chairman was an important validation for him in public affairs, both in terms of the impressive-sounding title and in terms of the clout this small agency with a big budget could wield. Even then Reiner — who finally demurred a few months ago with regard to the 2006 race — was thinking of running for governor of California down the line.
But there was a problem. The initiative passed in June 1998. The general election for governor, in which Democrat Davis had a healthy lead over Republican Dan Lungren — Davis would go on to bury Lungren, 58 percent to 38 percent — was not until November. And the law went into effect before the next governor would take office. Which meant that outgoing Republican Governor Wilson could make the appointment.
Wilson signaled to Davis that he intended to do just that. This caused, according to inside sources, dismay for Gray. Because he badly wanted to appoint Reiner as First Five chairman. In part, because he felt he deserved it. In part, because he wanted to strengthen his ties with Hollywood’s fundraising and cultural power base. Reiner was second generation Hollywood aristocracy, son of the legendary Carl Reiner, a commercially and critically successful director who worked with many A-list stars. Davis would also appoint Paramount Pictures studio chief Sherry Lansing to the University of California Board of Regents.
The Board of Regents, as it happens, figures very prominently in this story. One of the most prestigious appointments a governor has to offer, it is frequently a goal of major fundraisers and donors. Outgoing Governor Wilson attempted to make appointments to the Board of Regents, but they were blocked by the Democratic-controlled state Senate. Then Senate President Pro Tem John Burton reasoned that his party had not had access to Regent appointments through 16 long years of Republican governorship, and he was damned if he was going to let Wilson make lame duck appointments.
But the shrewd Wilson knew the bind Davis was in. Negotiations commenced between the two men over the Reiner situation. In the end, Davis agreed to one Wilson choice going onto the Board of Regents in exchange for Wilson not appointing someone instead of Reiner to the First Five chairmanship.
Since Davis had, of course, been approached by many Democratic money folk about being appointed to the Board of Regents, this reportedly caused some significant internal consternation. Yet Wilson’s Republican choice accepted by Davis was no flaming right winger.
Joanne Kozberg had been a member of Wilson’s cabinet, as secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency. She is the partner of super-lobbyist, excuse me, leading public affairs consultant, Bob White in the California Strategies firm, which has many bipartisan ties. White was Wilson’s very able longtime chief of staff, a polished and affable maestro of politics once referred to by Arnold Schwarzenegger as “Mr. California.” Indeed, he was Arnold’s first political consultant and served as his de facto campaign manager in the 2003 recall campaign, where he managed the not insubstantial egos of Team Arnold, before managing his transition to the governorship. His partner Kozberg, who would also become president of the Music Center of Los Angeles, a key institution in the social world of L.A., was a similarly presentable Republican.
After his appointment, Reiner frequently appeared at Democratic Party functions, looking for all the world up on the stage very much like another Democratic politician. He blended in well, perhaps too well for a figure from Hollywood who would need to draw upon something of an outsized image in a bid for the governorship. But his plan had worked and he was in the driver’s seat as California’s highest profile advocate for children.
Read 
| Comments (25) |
Fascinating. Good work, Bill.
If you want to understand the problems in our higher ed, look no further than this patronage process for the Regents and the Trustees. It’s not a coincidence that there has been a huge growth of administrators with huge salaries at a time when there are less teachers and very few pay raises.
Very good reporting, Bill.
Sigh. California politics more closely resembles that of the PRI in Mexico. One party rule. It is a bad idea no matter who the “party” is.
You Wrote: “Of the sixtysome million dollars spent on public relations by the Reiner commission, about half seems to have been funneled through the private public relations firm retained by the commission to over 150 “community-based organizations.” The firm in question, incidentally, is a spin-off of a major entertainment PR firm.”
So he was in the “driver’s seat”, who is the private public relations firm he drove all those public funds to?
I’m getting to that, Barbara. You know, one of the advantages of cyberjournalism is immediacy. One of the disadvantages is people start demanding information in piecemeal form.
Meanwhile, I’m also covering the commencement of major media advertising in the governor’s race.
Me demanding???? Oh come now ….you clearly somehow have confused me with someone else…even my enemies agree…I am a very patient.
Thanks, Adam and John. Patronage is not necessarily bad so long as there is effective oversight. Clearly with a number of matters such as the university contracting situation oversight has fallen down badly.
It would be nice to have people on these important boards who know something about the issues of higher education, to know what the concerns of faculty are, to understand how student fees go up and up and help to pay for lavish administrative salaries and perks.
I’d love to see some reporter do an investigation of the Regents & Trustees to see how much they *really* know about the most important higher ed issues.
Being a Regent was once described to me by a top aide to then Governor Jerry Brown as California’s equivalent of granting honors of nobility.
When Davis, who I’ve known a long time, asked me if I had any interest in a position in his new administration, I told him I wanted to be on the Board of Regents. To which he quickly replied: “Then, Bill, I take it you don’t want anything!”
That is actually very cute….So who’s going to write the Davis book? He merits a serious book …from Brown days till Recall ..interesting and bizarre political story…
Gray Davis has a very dry sense of humor. “Saharan,” as one of his top aides once put it. Davis tells me he is going to write the Gray Davis book.
Pity. I think that is a mistake. But someone will because the whole story has a “Match Point” quality to it…which means it is an interesting story to write and tell…
Why is being a Regent so prestigious? Is it because it’s the closest thing a Guv has to ambassadorial appointments? What are the actual perks?
And I guess being a CSU Trustee is less prestigious, huh.
When you look who makes up both boards, it’s no surprise that corporatization of the universities continues.
It’s a good question, Adam. I think it has to do with the title. Regent is much more aristocratic-sounding than Trustee. And the institution. The University of California system, replete with a raft of Nobel laureates, nationally ranked departments, tough admission standards, big-time sports programs, etc., is viewed as the best public university in the world.
Aside from the prestige of being addressed as “Regent [insert last name]” and getting a free lunch at UC Regents meetings, it’s a rather mundane job. It is an unpaid position, you have to sit through some really boring meetings, and you’re essentially casting pro-forma votes. Meanwhile, the real power is with the Office of the President. In other words, it’s pretty much like serving on the Board of Directors of a corporation.
As for the claims that “it’s not a coincidence that there has been a huge growth of administrators with huge salaries at a time when there are less teachers and very few pay raises,” that has more to do with the State Legislature than the Regents. The UC budget is determined by Sacramento and UCOP moves the money around. The Regents simply rubber stamp it.
… And yet, it is HIGHLY sought after.
With regard to mnagement, I think his point is that the board is to oversee what happens at the university. Like a corporate board of directors. I don’t the Legislature knows what is done with such discretion by the university bureaucracy. But there is a failure of oversight there, too. As there is with the administration.
This is so revealing how things work with the parties and the pols and their backers/handlers.
It can be a very incestuous world.
Both the UC & the CSU administrations like to keep the boards and the legislature in the dark. I understand the desire to prevent ‘meddling’ but what they prevent is any oversight whatsover. (see today’s SFChron article) I doubt the Regents, Trustees, or legislature are fully aware of the rise in the number of adminstrators and the sorts of salaries and perks they get. And then of course, the faculty union gets strong-armed into accepting raises below the cost of living.
The problem with the notion of “meddling” is that this is public money. Even a famous movie director and former television actor is not immune.
Hey, meddle away. I’m no fan of the priorities of a Chancellor and his fellow administrators. Might be good if the ‘meddlers’ actually took the time to understand the concerns of faculty and students too.
The thing with the Reiner issue is that I suspect its been going on all along. I know some staffers who were in on the ground floor of the First 5 Commission during late 90′s early 00′s, and he attempted to throw some very lucrative contracts to his personal assistant in Hollywood and others affiliated with him. Maybe these types of contracts are “normal” for Hollywood–self-dealing and with little oversight or attention to efficacy or effectiveness–but in government it doesn’t fly.
Every expenditure ought to be audited from the beginning.
Thank goodness government control agnecies did their job and blocked the contract. I believe the terms were in the high 100K range.
I agree with you. Audit all the Reiner books.
portland hotels…
Golda isomorphism Orono?Pullmanize sugarings!ceramic!vegas hotels http://vegas-hotels.hotels-fun.com/ environ patrol days inn http://days-inn.hotels-fun.com/ …
I’ve never felt like I used to be inside cookie business. I’ve been in a happy feeling business. My job is usually to sell joy. My job is usually to sell happiness. My job is usually to sell an event.
Government in the U.S. today is really a senior partner in each and every business in the united kingdom.