By John Bebow - February 8, 2008
Watch for ballot petitions galore in coming months as you walk out of the grocery store or answer your front door. Legalized marijuana... Health care for all... A new way to elect state Senators... The state has approved petition language for all these things.
Perhaps the most active reform effort -- the call for a part-time legislature -- grows out of the budget debacle last fall. Three separate groups want part-time legislature questions on the ballot next November...
1. Reform Michigan Government.
2. The Committee to Turn Michigan Around (Kalamazoo Chamber of Commerce)
3. Part Time Legislature Ballot Question Committee.
Groups One and Two are working together, but Group 3 is separate. Confused yet?
We continue to politely question the petitioners on their reasoning that a part-time legislature will turn Michigan around. Our instincts -- as well as the instincts of some business groups we've talked to -- are that a part-time legislature will most likely lead to even more inexperience in the state capitol. Worse yet is the danger that low legislative pay will result in lawmakers who have to work two jobs. That, we fear, means the legislature would contain far too many one-issue mercenaries bought and paid for by their main employers (individual companies, labor unions, or other narrowly focused interest groups).
Michigan needs thoughtful, open-minded, experienced leaders to navigate a plethora of public policy and public finance challenges in the next decade. Can a part-time legislature provide that leadership?
Meantime, last Tuesday's election in California shows the difficulty in trying to alter term limits law -- as many Lansing insiders and Michigan business groups would very much like to find a way to do. The purpose: breed more experience and longer-term decision-making in the Legislature.
The California measure failed, despite backing by the LA Times editorial page, among others. Supporters argued the measure would've brought much needed experience to Sacramento. But voters smelled a self-supporting legislative scam, as the Times' George Skelton explained...
"The pro-93 campaign played it relatively straight, trying to sell the merits of term limits flexibility. But the electorate apparently was bent on punishing the politicians and shaking up the Legislature. The "no" vote, I suspect, was aimed more at the legislative leaders than the term limits proposal."
3 Comments
I think that Michigan requires experienced and well educated elected officials at all levels of government, especially in the state legislature. This requires that, at the minimum, we pay competitive wages to attract qualified candidates. For example, a student graduating from the University of Michigan with dual masters degrees and a goal of becoming a member of the state legislature might own as much as ninety thousand dollars in loans which she or he isn't going to be able to pay working part-time in the most important elected governing body in the state.
Additionally, as has been pointed out on this site before, getting up to speed in any elected office requires time. Rapid, forced turnover of legislators leaves the "institutional knowledge" in the hand of the unelected individuals who persist from election to election as bureaucrats.
Given the seriousness of the economic and environmental issues facing this state we need to bite the bullet and pay for quality while extending term limits.
Respectfully,
R. Gothie
Allow me to respond on behalf of Reform Michigan Government, one of the two groups supportiong the part-time legislature petition drafted by the Kalamazoo Chamber of Comerce. You ask how a part-time legislature will "turn Michigan around?" Look at the 42 states which have a part-time legislature (Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, etc.) and compare their growth rates to the eight states that are classified as being full-time (Michigan, New York, Pennsyvania, etc.). Our proposal limits the number of days the Legislature can be in reqular sessions to 100 days per year and requires that the regular sessions be concluded by May 31. Limits are the norm in 84 percent of the states. Why not here? Only one other state faced a government shutdown like Michigan and that was Pennsyvania, one of the other eight states with no restrictions on time in session.
Concerning inexperience, our proposal eliminates term limits for legislators. With voter approval, a 21 year old can get elected and remain in office as long as Senator Byrd of West Virgina who is 90. How is that going to result in inexperience? Becuase we limit the number of regular session days to 100? In three of the last four years, the Legislature was in session less than 100 days already. In one year, the House was under 80 days.
You talk about "low legislative pay." M0ichigan currently has the second highest paid legislators in the nation, second only to California. But California with 36 million people has 23 percent FEWER lawmakers (120 vs 148) than Michigan with a population of 10 million. Our proposal pays the legislators approximately $40,000 per year plus benefits. This is approximately the average compensation paid to legislators in the 10 states closest to Michigan in population. How is that average "low?" Texas, the second most populated state in the country pays their legislators $7,200 per year. New Hampshire pays their legislators $100 per year and according to one of their lawmakers who met with me, many of the 400 positions are contested by people anxious to serve. Has paying our Legislators the second highest salaries in the country plus $12,000 for expenses without requiring vouchers like most states, produced "thoughtful, open-minded, experienced leaders" like you refer to? A part-time legislature will attract MORE qualified people than now. What is wrong with having recently retired individuals with management backgrounds run for office? Are they not far better prepared "to navigate a plethora of public policy and public finance challenges" you describe?
You failed to mention the lack of credibility our Legislature has so justly earned due to their inability to produce a budget until well into the next fiscal year. This is what you are defending? How can the Legislature ask state employees, teachers, the medical community paid less for medicaid services, etc. when our lawmakers have done NOTHING to eliminate their excessive (compared to other states) compensation and the lifetime heathcare they receive after only six years of service?
Hopefully, I have responded to your "polite" questions. Michigan taxpayers are entitled to have this issue on a ballot to evaluate and vote on, something which our experienced, full-time, overpaid Legislators have failed to allow.
I admire Mr. Woloson's efforts, but to remove term limits without other reform just begs more of the same. While virtually impossible to eliminate, lobbyist influence must at least be diminished. A moratorium on lobbying by elected officials leaving office would help break the cycle of outside influence on legislation. Further, all elected state officials, not just the legislative branch, should be required to file annual financial disclosures. Let's require a recorded roll call vote on all committee and full floor votes and then have those vote records available to the public. There is so much more that could be done to hold our officials accountable. Supporting what Woloson's says about the greater number of legislators Michigan has compared to other states like California, I suggest we downsize the legislative branch. With our state legislators, executives, and judges being nearly the highest paid in the nation, I'm not worried about the jobs not attracting talent. Maybe a one-time reduction in pay to bring them all in line with comparable states would be in order. And, if the legislature really thinks term limits should be abolished, let them draft the constitutional changes and present it to the people to approve or disapprove. But let's face it, that would be political suicide. So their alternative is to have their proxy, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce through their Kalamazoo Chamber, exploit Woloson's genuine desire to reform Michigan's government. Using Woloson, the Chamber found a way to get term limits before the voters with no legislative fingerprints and sweetened with the notion of a lower paid part time legislature.
Post a Comment