The office of lieutenant governor suddenly is vacant due to its previous occupier having flown the coop to Washington as a newly elected member of Congress. So I've begun my own informal poll asking friends and associates, "What exactly does the lieutenant governor do?" Amazingly, I have not found a single person, even among so-called policy wonks, who knows. Most mumble something about "When the governor is out of the state, he or she acts as governor, don't they?"

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed state Sen. Abel Maldonado to fill the vacant position, and now the Legislature must decide whether to confirm that appointment within 90 days. With Maldonado a Republican replacing Democrat John Garamendi, and with the Legislature controlled by the Democrats, you can expect much partisan bickering and back-room logrolling over the next couple months.

But maybe it's a good time to ask a hard question: How well does the office of lieutenant governor serve the people of California? The lieutenant governor gets paid approximately $160,000 annually and is served by a host of staff also pulling down salaries. All that for an office that largely is ceremonial. It's not cheap, and the state is facing a budgetary abyss as deep as the eye can see.

In the name of government efficiency, is it possible we can simply eliminate this office?

While we are on the subject, I also have been asking people, "What does the Board of Equalization do?" Again, virtually nobody knows. There are four members on this board, all good people but elected from massive districts each with a quarter of the state's population in it. Each BOE member also earns an annual salary of about $160,000. Its Web site says its mission is to "serve the public through fair, effective and efficient tax administration." Whatever that means.

But that office is not to be confused with the state controller, which acts as the state's chief fiscal officer, accountant and bookkeeper, pulling down a salary of $170,000 a year; or the state treasurer, who is paid another $170,000 a year, with both of these offices also served by a huge coterie of staff.

Believe me, I'm not a knee-jerk, anti-tax "cut-government-to-the-bone" type of guy. Government performs essential duties that produce something called "civilization," which I am quite fond of. And in my view, too many anti-tax zealots are the ultimate "free lunchers" who want everything government does for them but don't want to pay for it. But sometimes it does seem there is a great deal of overlap in some of these offices.

For example, in addition to electing a superintendent of public instruction -- annual salary, $185,000 -- we also have a secretary of education, as well as a California Department of Education, and a state Board of Education. All of these offices have staff that costs a lot of money. Does anyone know who the secretary of education is? That office's Web site has a photo of Schwarzenegger on its home page, not the secretary of education.

During this time of extreme budgetary duress, we should take a hard look at government to see if there isn't some way to consolidate some of these offices and make government more efficient and less costly. I would also include in this review the offices of the secretary of state, attorney general and insurance commissioner. Are we Californians getting our money's worth?

Allow me to propose an idea that at first glance might seem radical but at second glance is quite familiar. Besides thinking about consolidating these offices, why do we elect them? Why not have the governor appoint most if not all of these offices and in so doing truly create a governor's Cabinet, much like the president of the United States appoints his or her Cabinet?

The current setup not only is expensive but results in electing a host of competing personalities who have no incentive to act as a team serving the state's chief executive, i.e. the governor. Each elected official rules over her or his private fiefdom, sometimes as a springboard to their own ambitions that may conflict with the goals of the governor. They may even be elected from different political parties. The flowing Beethoven symphony that should be state government instead sounds like a dissonant John Cage counterpoint.

By having the governor appoint her or his own Cabinet, the implementation of state business would gain in coordination and effectiveness. We also would save a ton of money by not having to elect all these offices every four years. If it works at the federal level, why not at the state level?

At the very least, California should have the governor and lieutenant governor run together on a single ticket, the way the president and vice president do. With the office of lieutenant governor vacant and with the state's fiscal crisis seeing little relief in sight, now is a good time to rethink these matters. The proposal from Repair California for a state constitutional convention may be the best vehicle for wrestling with such a badly needed redesign of government.