By John Bebow - December 21, 2007
Michigan legislators, whose approval ratings stand at under 20 percent after the 2007 budget debacle, are in danger of working themselves right out of full-time employment.
A petition drive is underway for a November 2008 ballot proposal to:
"Michigan needs citizen legislators who live and work in their home communities -- not Lansign politicians!" says the web site for the petition campaign led by Saginaw attorney Gregory Schmid.
On the other side of the state, the Kalamazoo Chamber of Commerce has entered the fray with a proposal to end term limits while adopting a part-time legislature.
"The action – or inaction – of the Legislature during this session had made it painfully obvious that structural reform is desperately needed," said Peter Tanz, the Chamber’s Public Policy Chairman. "In addition to causing havoc on the budgets of local school districts and municipalities across the state, the inability of the Legislature to pass a budget and agree upon the state’s taxing structure caused a state shutdown, adoption of a universally hated tax on services, and implementation of that tax because repeal could not be accomplished by its implementation deadline. In addition, who knows how many businesses did not expand, move here or perhaps even left the state as a result of the instability of our state’s budget and taxing structure? We believe fundamental change is required to make our elected leaders more effective, more productive and more responsive to the citizens and businesses of Michigan. We need legislators to complete their work in a professional and timely manner each year, and we believe this proposal will be a solid step in that direction."
The Saginaw effort notes that only three other states have full-time legislatures -- California, New York and Pennsylvania. The Kalamazoo effort favors part-time models of states with "vibrant economic climates" like Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, and Texas.
No doubt, Michigan needs a more effective, efficient and accountable Legislature. But legislative reform is a difficult and murky business that can easily lead to unintended consequences.
Remember, in the early 1990s it was a "throw-the-bums-out" attitude that brought us the term limits that are now almost universally reviled by government agencies, business groups, business, non-profit groups, lobbying firms, and just about anyone else who does regular business with Lansing.
As these petition drives and other legislative reform ideas move forward in 2008, much can be learned, and put into context, by keen examination of what goes on in the other 49 state capitols.
Consider these details...
LEGISLATIVE PAY: Cutting legislators' pay in half saves a grand total of about $6 million. That's enough to cover about five days worth of the projected $500 million Michigan state budget deficit projected for 2009. Part of the reasoning for moving to part-time is to assure that legislators stay tied to the economic fortunes of their districts. A part-time legislative salary would require that legislators also have other sources of income. The possible results range from a more pragmatic, business-minded, efficient Legislature to a more elitist one over-represented by retirees, the wealthy, and others with the time and means to handle the travel and time pressures of what would surely be a pretty demanding part-time job.
IS PART-TIME REALLY PART-TIME? The National Conference of State Legislatures regularly surveys every aspect of legislative operations nationwide. The NCSL says that only 17 states have truly part-time legislators who spend one-half or less of their professional time on legislative work. Legislators in all other states spend at least two-thirds of their professional time on their political jobs. And supposedly "part-time" legislators in neighboring states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois really spend three-quarters or more of their professional time on the legislative work.
DON'T FORGET THE STAFFS: Full-time staffers handle much of the heavy lifting in state capitols. And a "part-time" legislature still has a full-time staff. Nationwide, state legislative staff grew by 30 percent from 1979-2003, according to the NCSL! Michigan's grew by 10 percent over the same time period. Michigan's full-time legislature had 1,150 full-time staffers as of 2003. Florida's part-time legislature had 1,800 full-time staffers in 2003. Texas' part-time legislature had 2,268 full-time staffers. New Jersey's part-time legislature had 1,265 full-time staffers.
9 Comments
The state knew in 2002 it had a revenue-services imbalance and that it was going to worsen. It took the Legislature five years to do the right thing and finally raise taxes ot a level that supports a minimal level of state services. Still, legislators could not agree on this necessity in time to begin the 2007-08 budget and there was a brief government shutdown. The political parties run the legislture and lobbyists like the Mackinac Center tell the parties what to think, leading to endless deadlock on important issues. If a full time legislature cannot resolve these important issues in five years, how is a part-time legislature going to do it in a few months? What happens when there is a compelling issue affecting citizens during the time the legislature is not in session that requires immediate attention, such as the unemployment fiasco a few years back where no one could get their payments processed through the new computer system? Does this wait until the legislature returns? Furthermore, who is my elected official I speak with when there in no legislative session? Finally, doesn't this simply give more power to lobbyists, legislative aids (that no one elected) and the governor?
Respect, not limits or part timers. I share with you a note from Jim Womack of the Lean Enterprise Institute.
Translate "distribution facility" as "State Government" and "manager" as "Elected Representative."
"Dear Chuck,
For years I've visited companies where "respect for people" is a core element of the corporate philosophy. So I've asked managers in many companies a simple question. "How do you show respect?" I have usually heard that employees should be treated fairly, given clear goals, trusted to achieve them in the best way, and held to account for results. For example, "We hire smart people, we give them great latitude in how they do their work because we trust them, and we hold them to objective measures of performance. That’s respect for people."
When in recent years Toyota made respect for people one of the pillars of the Toyota Way I decided I should ask the best Toyota managers how they show respect for people. The answer I have heard is a good bit different from what I’ve heard at many other companies and goes as follows:
Managers begin by asking employees what the problem is with the way their work is currently being done. Next they challenge the employees' answer and enter into a dialogue about what the real problem is. (It's rarely the problem showing on the surface.)
Then they ask what is causing this problem and enter into another dialogue about its root causes. (True dialogue requires the employees to gather evidence on the gemba – the place where value is being created -- for joint evaluation.)
Then they ask what should be done about the problem and ask employees why they have proposed one solution instead of another. (This generally requires considering a range of solutions and collecting more evidence.)
Then they ask how they – manager and employees – will know when the problem has been solved, and engage one more time in dialogue on the best indicator.
Finally, after agreement is reached on the most appropriate measure of success, the employees set out to implement the solution.
For many of us that doesn't sound much like respect for people. The manager after all doesn’t just say "I trust you to solve the problem because I respect you. Do it your way and get on with it." And the manager isn’t a morale booster, always saying, "Great job!" Instead the manager challenges the employees every step of the way, asking for more thought, more facts, and more discussion, when the employees just want to implement their favored solution.
Over time I've come to realize that this problem solving process is actually the highest form of respect. The manager is saying to the employees that the manager can't solve the problem alone, because the manager isn't close enough to the problem to know the facts. He or she truly respects the employees' knowledge and their dedication to finding the best answer. But the employees can't solve the problem alone either because they are often too close to the problem to see its context and they may refrain from asking tough questions about their own work. Only by showing mutual respect – each for the other and for each other's role – is it possible to solve problems, make work more satisfying, and move organizational performance to an ever higher level.
Recently I walked through two distribution centers in the same city providing the same type of service for their customers. As I walked I found a wonderfully clear example of the difference that mutual respect for people makes.
In the first facility management was focused on controlling the workforce through individual metrics. Employees were told to get a given amount of work done but given considerable latitude on just how to do it. They were judged at the end of the day, week, month, and quarter on whether they achieved the desired results, using data collected by a computerized tracking system. Front-line managers were busily engaged in working around current problems but none was systematically engaged in actually solving these problems at the root cause in collaboration with the employees. This was a task for higher-level managers and staff experts as time permitted, usually without the involvement of the production associates.
In the second facility, the management had worked with employees to create standard work for every task and had introduced visual control with status boards so everyone could see how everyone else was proceeding with their work. Because the condition of the entire process was instantly visible to everyone, employees could help each other with any problems which emerged. And because the work process was very stable due to strict adherence to standardized work, line managers could devote most of their energy to problem solving by engaging production associates in dialogues to get to root causes and implement sustainable solutions. Indeed, every associate spent four hours every week on improvement activities.
What is the result? Both facilities are in the same city, have employees with the same educational level, and pay roughly the same wage. Yet annual turnover of associates in the first facility is 70 percent (which seems to be typical in distribution centers) and there is significant management turnover as well. Meanwhile, in the second facility, associate turnover is 1 percent and practically no managers leave. When I asked managers and associates in the second center why this should be, the answer was simple: "The work here is always challenging because we are always solving problems using a method we all understand. And we all respect each other’s contribution."
The differences continue: In my rough estimate labor productivity in the second facility is about twice that of the first even with less automation. This is partly because the first facility is constantly hiring and training new employees while the second distribution center spends practically no time on this task. In addition, all employees in the second facility are experienced and working at the top of their learning curve. Large amounts of confusion about what to do next and larger amounts of rework are eliminated.
Finally, in the second facility, quality as experienced by customers is higher as well even though there is less internal rework. And the total amount of inventory on hand to provide the next-day service that both facilities promise their customers is also much lower in the second distribution center.
I trust you can guess which facility is a Toyota parts distribution center and which facility belongs to a distribution firm stuck (like most) in the age of mass production with command-and-control management methods but little discussion of how employees can best do their jobs.
I also trust that all of us want to show respect for people. The challenge for those of us in the Lean Community is to embrace and explain the true nature of mutual respect for people – managers and associates – so all organizations can move toward a new and better way of solving their problems.
Best regards,
Jim
Jim Womack
Founder and Chairman
Lean Enterprise Institute"
A couple of years ago there was a petition drive to eliminate the Senate, now there attempts for a part time legislature and elimi-
nating term limits. The problem with each of these is that there would be a very minimum benift
Instead of a part time legislature, why don't we make them FULL TIME?
Our politicians work less than 180 days a year, and from the debacle this year it is apparent that they aren't working even while there.
I am sick of being asked to "give more", yet the Governor, legislature, their staff and all government employees have gotten raises. I ask you, have you received a raise large enough to cover the increase in your portion of medical? I think not.
We need to "vote the bums" out, once again. Our representation in Lansing, and in Washington is working for everyone except the taxpaying, shrinking, middle class.
A couple of years ago there was a petition drive to eliminate the Senate, now there are attempts for a part time legislature and elimi-
nating term limits. The problem with each of these is that there would be a very minimum benefit and as your caveats indicate we could end up compounding the problem. It is time to rexamine Zoltan Ferency's proposal made back in the 1970s.
He proposed a part time, unicameral legilature
without term limits, voting districts coinci-
dental with federal house districts, and pro-
portional voting. The latter is the key element because it goes to the heart of the problem - where the power lies. Currently the power lies with the two major parties and the 'winner take all' aspect of our election process determines which party with get the biggest share of that power. Proportional voting would give that power back to the voters, every voters vote would have the same weight and there be no wasted votes.
This is not the forum for making the case for Zoltan's proposal. It should be part of a fuller discussion on the problems facing the state.
You call this a reason for not having a part time legislature... "A part-time legislative salary would require that legislators also have other sources of income. The possible results range from a more pragmatic, business-minded, efficient Legislature to a more elitist one over-represented by retirees, the wealthy, and others with the time and means to handle the travel and time pressures of what would surely be a pretty demanding part-time job". My God people, $40,000 is a lot of money to a lot of people in Michigan. Who ever came up with this reasoning has no clue about whats happening in Michigan. As far as staff goes, who says they stay, get rid of all this dead meat and go for a leaner government.
Everybody likes to pick on the legislature, and some of the characters in the legislature are quite offensive. However, from working with some of them and interviewing others, I have come to believe that most are decent, talented people wanting to do good for the people of the state.
The problem I see is that because of term limits, we have an inexperienced, ignorant (of how government works) legislature. Additionally, Governor Engler created a structural deficit. It was a great short term policy leading to his reelection, but eventually it caught up with the State. Our present legislature and the Governor lack experience in governance and because of the structural deficit, they have been left with out the resources to respond to our current economic crisis.
Governments are created by people to provide justice, defense and mutually beneficial services. They have an important role, especially when their citizens are faced with a collective crisis. Because of short term politics and blind ideology, our "leaders" are lost for direction and lack the necessary resources to respond.
Expand term limits to 16 or 20 years so we can develop some competent leaders. Quit blaming everyone and figure out why we have failed to attract the "new economy" (one hint, it is not too much government and too high of taxes.)
I disagree strenuously with Paul Andrews' posting of Dec. 21,2007, that "this is not the forum for making the case for Zolton's proposal." This is EXACTLY the forum for pointing out that the present manner in which Michigan formulates its legislature results in bodies that are not REPRESENTATIVE.
Consider the fact that, overall, more than one-third of those voting end up being not represented in the House and Senate.
On top of this, if you consider the gerrymandering that exists, we have what is, in effect, minority government. In the 2006 election, 45 per cent of those voting in the Senate race elected 55 per cent of the senators in the Michigan senate.
Redistricting is not the answer. Until Michigan adopts a system in which we come closer to making every vote count, we're fooling ourselves. Even then, we will need sanctions built into the Michigan Constitution that will impose penalties on the Governor and Legislature if certain deadline are not met. Merely docking their pay won't be sufficient. Provisions for dissolving the legislature and/or dismissing the governor should get their attention.
I would like to know where I could get the "part time legislators petition" for the Nov 2008 election Thanks Shirley
Post a Comment