Experts Expound: To elect or appoint the insurance commissioner

Should California return to having the Insurance Commissioner be an appointed position rather than being chosen by voters?  

“Yes. Absolutely. The Insurance Commissioner, SPI, and the Board of Equalization should not be elected positions.”

“Yes.  Along with State Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Seems these single-issue statewide officeholders tend to be lapdogs to special interests, losing their objectivity.”

“Proposition 103 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It has led to the current insurance crisis, with an insurance commissioner who is unable to work with industry and can’t tap the powers of the Governorship to get things done. An elected insurance consumer is forced to act in a way that’s politically popular rather than what’s in the best interest of the insurance marketplace. That said, it will never happen!”

“I think it should revert to being an appointed position. Contrary to the misperception by voters, the insurance commissioner has no authority over health insurance. It is more of a bureaucratic position than one in which actual power can be exercised.”

“At a minimum, the Insurance Commissioner should be treated like other regulatory appointees for qualifications, like the real estate commissioner that must either 1) been a real estate broker actively engaged in business as such in California for five years, or 2) possess related experience associated with real estate activity in California for five years within the last 10 years. Getting a string of former legislators as elected Insurance Commissioners with little or no connection to the business of insurance has had its consequences, which we’re seeing now.”

“Yes. The position has become a dumping ground for termed-out politicians with no expertise in the subject matter.”

“The problem with appointing someone with industry expertise is, by definition they will have an industry-centric point of view. Ideally, we have an Insurance Commissioner who has knowledge of the industry from both sides of the equation – as a broker or insurer, AND from the regulatory side of things so they know what can be done, and hopefully, how to get it done. It should be incumbent on that person to ‘build the bench’ of people with a similar set of knowledge, experience and skills so every Governor has a pool of qualified people to choose from.”

“Let’s go further shall we?  It is nuts that we elect an insurance commissioner. It is also insane that we elect twelve separate constitutional officers including the members of the board of equalization, all of whom imagine themselves to be the next governor and act accordingly instead of doing their actual jobs. The organizational chart of California looks like a child threw up on the floor. This incoherent complexity (leaving aside our abominable initiative and intergovernmental systems) means it’s almost impossible to do anything coherent for which anyone can be held legitimately accountable.”

“I agree that the Insurance Commissioner should be an appointed position. I also believe the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) should be appointed as well. Years ago, when there was also an appointed Superintendent of Education, the dual structure didn’t make much sense. However, given that so much of what the insurance and education agencies do requires both budget and Governor’s input on policy legislation, transitioning these to appointed positions is more logical and would improve coordination.”

“No responsible person should want an industry shill regulating an industry, but the downside of our current situation is that we’ve had elected Insurance Commissioners who use the office as a stepping stone to seek the next office and refuse to make the hard decisions that involve actual tradeoffs. We had John Garamendi who wanted to run for Congress and did nothing but posture for four years. Then we had Steve Poizner who absolutely sacrificed sound decision making because he wanted to run for Governor. We had Dave Jones who wanted to run for AG (and is singularly the most responsible for the current market woes) and he spent eight years talking about climate change but refusing to allow insurance rates that factored climate change into the picture. Now, we have Ricardo Lara who was hesitant to make tough decisions before his re-election in 2022, but, to his credit, finally decided to confront the difficult trade-offs involved with turning things but, by then, the market was in a spiral. With his reforms, we’re starting to see a better market, but we’re not out of the woods yet.”

“Yes.”

“The problem isn’t whether the Insurance Commissioner is elected or appointed. The problem is that California allows virtually anyone to run one of the state’s most important consumer protection agencies without requiring relevant experience or expertise. Before we debate how the position is filled, we should first agree that whoever holds the office should be qualified to do the job.”

“This is a post that requires deep understanding of the business; it has instead become a “holding place” for legislators who want to continue their political lives after term limits have knocked them out of the Legislature. If the AG spot isn’t open, run for Insurance Commissioner. If there isn’t another Constitutional Office, run for Insurance Commissioner and buy four or eight years on the public payroll. Better options could one day open up!  Dream on!”

Our panel of experts: Elizabeth Ashford, Hector Barajas, A.G. Block, Barry Brokaw, Samantha Corbin, Jon Costantino, Richard Costigan, Gregg Fishman, Tim Foster, Rex Frazier, John Howard, Fiona Hutton, Gale Kaufman, Steven Maviglio, Mike MeCey, Paul Mitchell, Jack Ohman, Kassy Perry, Matt Rexroad, Garry South, Paula Treat, Micah Weinberg, Bill Wong, Daniel Zingale