Senate Floor Debate on the Confirmation of Governor's Appointments

Mr. President,
Since I came to the Senate I have routinely supported the appointments of the governor. In fact, I think I have supported every one except for one, and I have done so because I feel that the Senate is required to give the governor the benefit of doubt on his appointments. The governor has the prerogative to staff his administration with those people he fees best suit his designs and his contract with people of California.

So unless there has been a serious case put against an appointment I have supported it. I am watching, however, a pattern develop within this administration of gross conflicts of interest, ethical violations, in one case a rogue director of the DMV. Far more damaging, we are beginning to see a pattern of activity within the administration where appointees are harboring conflicts of interest and placing the people of California at great disadvantage because of those conflicts of interest. I can no longer in good conscience give the governor the benefit of the doubt routinely on his appointments. I urge the entire Senate -
Republicans and Democrats - to begin to scrutinize these appointments more carefully.

This is what Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 77: "The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the president singly and absolutely. The censure of rejecting a good one would lie entirely at the door of the Senate; aggravated by the consideration of their having counteracted the good intentions of the executive. If an ill appointment should be made the executive for nominating and the Senate for approving would participate though in different degrees in the opprobrium and disgrace"

We do have a role in the constitutional process of scrutinizing the appointments of the executive. I believe that the burden of proof has now shifted - it is for the Governor to make the case that his future appointments are in the public interest, and absent that case I will not support them. I have watched Arlo Smith's political career for many years and I am very confident of his integrity. I have not seen a case made for the others and therefore Mr. President I would ask that the question be divided and that the Arlo Smith nomination be put separately so that I may support his nomination and not the others.

Arlo Smith's nomination was approved by the Senate.