CALIFORNIA'S DYSFUNCTIONAL government is more than just a national embarrassment. It is threatening the state's future by undermining education and social services; placing heavy tax and regulatory burdens on business and individuals; failing to make necessary investments in transportation, water projects and prisons; and delaying maintenance on highways, parks and other sate assets.

Although California has one of the highest sales and income taxes in the nation and the steepest corporation taxes in the West, our lawmakers in Sacramento cannot properly balance the budget and are facing multibillion-dollar deficits well into the future.

With such a record of failure by state government it is no wonder there is a growing movement to call California's first constitutional convention in 130 years.

Repair California, a coalition of reformers and business groups submitted two ballot proposals to the attorney general's office on Wednesday. One would allow voters to authorize a constitutional convention, a power now held only by the Legislature. The other would create the convention and its structure.

There would by 465 people attending the constitutional convention; 240 delegates (three per Assembly district) would be selected by the state auditor from volunteers and invitees. Local elected officials would select another 221 delegates, and four would serve as representatives of California Indian

Jim Wunderman, president of the Bay Area Council, a business group that is a key part of the coalition calling for a convention believes that Californians have a duty to reform state government and that the only way to do it is through a constitutional convention.

We sympathize with Wunderman's frustration about state government and his commitment to improving it. However, we have considerable doubts about calling for a constitutional convention at this time.

One has to wonder how a convention of 465 delegates, many with little or no experience in governance, can devise a way to substantially reform California's government in a few months.

To their credit, proponents of the convention are trying to limit it to four general topics: making state government more efficient and effective; reforming election and initiative processes and reducing special interest influence; revamping the state budget system; and improving the relationships between state and local governments.

But once the convention begins, it very well could expand its agenda by linking any number of issues to one of the four general topics. That is especially true of tax policy, which Wunderman says would be excluded from discussion.

How can state-local government relations or the state budget process be meaningfully reformed without mentioning taxes?

Also, we are skeptical that Wunderman will be able to achieve the convention's goal of keeping special-interest groups shut out. After all, his Bay Area Council could be viewed as a special interest for business.

It seems the only way to keep special interests out of any political activity as critical as a constitutional convention is not to hold one.

Then there is a question about giving the state auditor the power to appoint more than half of the delegates.

The last time California held a constitutional convention was in 1878-79. It produced a massive document that failed in one of its chief tasks, to limit the dominant influence of the railroads. It also approved an ugly amendment that stripped Chinese residents of their civil rights and was later eliminated by the courts.

There is little reason to believe that a large constitutional convention held in or just following a protracted recession will fare any better than the last one.