The "Part-Time" Debate

The Michigan Legislature’s recent two-week spring vacation seemed like the perfect time to discuss legislative reform. So we engaged the thinking of Oakland County attorney Henry Woloson, who deserves wide praise for democracy in action. He’s one citizen who’s spent countless hours pushing for change in Lansing.

Henry is one of the leading advocates of a proposal to move from our current full-time legislature. While I admire and respect Henry’s civic engagement, I worry the move to a part-time legislature could very likely make things worse, not better, in Lansing.

Here’s our running dialogue:

FRESH THOUGHTS: Henry, if Michigan voters passed the proposal to create a part-time legislature, how would that proposal result in higher-quality representatives?

HENRY WOLOSON: I think we all share a genuine desire to try and improve the economic climate and quality of life here in Michigan. The part-time legislature proposal being advanced by Turn Michigan Around requires that a maximum of 100 regular legislative session days must be completed by May 31 each year. Special sessions can be up to an additional 15 days per year. Forty-two states have variations of this formula so that their regular sessions end on different dates but the concept is the same, hence the name “part-time” legislatures.

But our proposal does substantially more than just limit the number of regular session days and by when they must be concluded. Turn Michigan Around also proposes to eliminate term limits for our legislators. As you may know, Michigan currently is one of only 15 states with term limits. State Representatives can only serve three terms of two years each and State Senators can only serve two terms of four years each.

Taken together, our part-time legislature proposal should result in legislative service being more attractive to a wider group of qualified individuals. You mention “higher quality” which is difficult to define. Just because someone may have multiple graduate degrees, they may be less qualified for certain tasks than someone without a college degree with extensive manufacturing experience. Multiple types of skills will be needed by our legislators to design programs to enable Michigan to reinvent itself to be competitive when seeking businesses interested in locating and/or expanding in the United States.

The elimination of term limits should also improve overall legislative expertise. While term limits were passed on the premise that frequent turnover in our Legislature would be positive, most observers would have to conclude that inexperience has caused not only worse legislation but an increase in the influence of special interest lobbyists who frequently have a far better understanding of proposed laws simply because the lobbyists, unlike the members of the legislature, are not term-limited.

Even with legislative support staffs, understanding the ramifications of proposed laws is not an easy task and is made infinitely more difficult when being attempted without adequate experience. To the best of my knowledge, there is no training school for preparation and analysis of legislation. Eliminating term limits will improve the opportunity for people to acquire greater expertise through greater experience.

Plus, with term-limits, legislators are not always focused on lawmaking. For example, one current State Representative in his second term, said that his first term, he was learning on the job. Now in his second term, he feels that he is making major contributions. But he sees other State Representatives in their third and final term who are spending an inordinate amount of time seeking their next “job” since they are term-limited. Would not the elimination of term limits improve the focus of our lawmakers and hence improve the quality of their representation?

FRESH THOUGHTS: Beyond the need to press legislators to pass budgets in a timely manor, why would we need the mid-year session deadline? I can see the motivation for forcing legislators to pass all budget measures by May 31. Such a rule could have prevented last fall’s budget debacle. But it’s a complex time and complex issues tend to move through the legislature quite slowly. Examples: rewriting the business tax code, creating the new education standards, and compromise legislation on water withdrawals and the Great Lakes Compact (not yet done after months of discussion). Beyond the timeliness of the budget, what’s the motivation for limiting legislators’ time on the job?

HENRY WOLOSON: The motivation for limiting legislators’ time on the job is to improve productivity. Human nature causes us to work better with deadlines. Two former legislators once told me that the vast majority of legislative work is conducted “… in the last two weeks of the session.” Not May 31, not September 30 but the last two weeks of the session, whenever that might be.

You mentioned how complex issues tend to move slowly. Good. Current State Representative Sheen recently spoke at a meeting I attended and he said that he has frequently been asked to vote on bills that were presented to him ten minutes before they called for a vote. This is under the present “full-time” legislature.

Also, by limiting the time of regular sessions, this enables the legislators to return to their home districts where they can spend more time learning the problems facing their constituents rather than associating with special interest group lobbyists.

FRESH THOUGHTS: Repealing term limits has discussed as a key need in many of the Center for Michigan’s more than 100 Community Conversations involving more than 1,500 citizens and community leaders across the state in recent months. The same sentiment is on the tips of tongues of many Lansing insiders who must deal with the Legislature on a regular basis. The lack of experience and trust in the Legislature is also decried by those who hold the seats! I worry, though, that the gains of ridding us of term limits could be wiped out by the unintended consequences of a part-time legislature. Back in the early 90s, term limits were widely seen as “the fix.” Is part-time just the reform fad du jour?

HENRY WOLOSON: By repealing term limits, we will increase the overall institutional experience of the legislators. They will be able to operate more efficiently and effectively since they will have seen similar problems in previous sessions. Until recently, our legislators worked part-time are were able to complete their work in a timely manner even though the issues confronting them were “complex” by the standards of the day.

You ask, “Is part-time just the reform fad du jour?” If that were true, then why have 42 states ( a whopping 84 percent ) limited the time their legislatures can be in session and therefore can be classified as “part-time?” Unlike the minority of states with term limits ( 30 percent ), the states with part-time legislatures are the vast majority. And when was the last time a state moved from part-time to full-time status? It is not a trend being reported anywhere that I can find.

You mention that repealing term limits was frequently cited as a “key need” during your Community Conversations. How important is it to your organization and to Michigan? Given the low regard the general public has (justifiably after the budget fiasco of 2007) for the Legislature, what are the legislators willing to give up in order to eliminate term limits? Surveys have shown that the voters will not repeal term limits without receiving some type of concessions.

FRESH THOUGHTS: Wouldn’t the part-time restriction result in unnatural limitations on the candidate pool and cause inherent conflicts of interest? Every person must act in self interest for his/her own family. Can we really expect a broad cross-section of experienced, highly talented, community-oriented leaders to be attracted to a part-time job with a $40,000 salary? I can see where such a job might attract attorneys and doctors who could split time spent in practice with time spent in Lansing. And such a setup would surely be attractive to retirees. But what about working professionals? What about young professionals? Example… I have a college buddy who lives in Grand Rapids. Let’s call him Shelby. He’s the vice president of a bank. He went to undergrad on an academic scholarship. He’s in grad school getting a master’s in public administration with a specialty in health care policy. He’s the leader of his block club. He has three school-aged children. Shelby would like to run for the legislature. And, because he’s so grounded in so many ways, he has an amazing skillset with which to serve. But how could he do so on a $40,000 salary? Could he really expect his employer to let him disappear for five months a year? How would your proposal make room for people like Shelby in Lansing? If the bank did grant Shelby the time off, doesn’t Shelby have a serious conflict of interest? What does Shelby owe the bank while he’s in the capitol? Conflict of interest is one of the biggest concerns I’ve heard expressed about the part-time proposal. The worry is that many seats will be tools of special interest – subsidized by specific interest groups, businesses, and the like who want a hired gun with a vote on the floor. How would the part-time proposal guard against this kind of abuse?

HENRY WOLOSON: I can provide some real examples. In my legislature district, a candidate for State Representative is running for office and is supportive of our part-time legislature petition even though the proposed compensation would be approximately one-half what is currently paid. This person is an attorney with extensive experience in municipal law and is presently a Trustee of Independence Township. How is that for “higher quality?” The part-time format enables him to bring his expertise to Lansing and return to his legal practice after May 31.

Another individual is also running for State Representative, supports our proposal and has extensive experience as a senior staff member for a member of Congress. Again, would this not be a high quality candidate?

We have people expressing interest in running who were previously in management positions at one of The Big Three auto makers. They have taken early retirement and want to use their experience and skills to try and improve the economic environment for their children. In many cases, these people have expressed regret that their children who were educated at Michigan schools had no choice but to leave our state to secure employment.

I can certainly appreciate the concern that by moving to a part-time format we could be losing people who cannot afford to serve at the reduced compensation level. But if higher compensation automatically results in better quality, why in 2007 did Michigan’s second highest paid in the country legislators have so much trouble producing a state budget in a timely manner? Forty-nine other states, all but one with lesser paid legislators, managed to produce their state budgets on time.

According to the National Conference of State Legislators, Michigan is one of only eight states whose legislature meets throughout the year. All of the 42 states with part-time state legislatures are experiencing better job growth than Michigan. If a part-time legislature automatically attracts lesser quality (and qualified) individuals, would not at least one of these
42 states have worse economic conditions than Michigan? Are not the legislatures responsible for passing laws concerning taxation, education, worksite rules, etc. which have a direct impact on economic conditions?

We have no intention or desire to punish our legislators by requiring that they work the same number of hours for substantially less pay. If that were the case, we could have selected the compensation formula used by New Hampshire which pays their legislators $ 100 per year and no benefits. A current member of the New Hampshire Legislature told me that they frequently have to run against someone to win these high paying positions.

And how does the current full-time Legislature prevent conflicts of interest? You are concerned that a part-time legislator might favor his or her “other” employer. But what is to keep a current legislator from favoring the employer of his or her spouse, or child, or parent, or friend? Or the well-documented cases where elected officials support legislation that favor a particular industry and then are immediately employed in that industry after leaving “full-time” elected offices. The solution is better ethics and disclosure laws for all elected officials, full or part-time. This has already been stated as a future project for Reform Michigan Government. When drafting our part-time legislator petition, I personally contacted Common Cause of Michigan, the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson and others about including provisions in our petition that would address campaign financing and disclosure provisions to expose conflicts of interest. Ultimately we had to abandon these provisions due to making the petition too complex and therefore increasing the likelihood that the general public would not understand the multiple provisions and subsequently not support the petition drive.

Members of Congress are considered full-time and receive compensation far above our legislators. But several have gone to jail recently due to being proven guilty of corruption. A past governor of Illinois, a well-paid, full-time position, is currently serving a six year prison term for corruption. Disclosure is the key. New Hampshire pays their lawmakers only $ 100 per year and no benefits and I do not recall any of their legislators recently being accused of conflicts of interest or corruption. They obviously have other jobs and are managing to conduct state business better than Michigan’s second highest paid in the nation legislators.

FRESH THOUGHTS: Why does pay even matter? Why not pay them more? How will lower pay result in higher legislator quality? Maybe we need executive-level legislators to deal with the executive-level decisions needed to help transform our state? If so, why not higher legislative pay? Either way, it’s not much of a financial impact, is it? Cutting legislator pay in half saves about $6 million. Raising pay by 50 percent costs $6 million. That’s less than one-tenth of one percent of the state general fund budget, or about six dollars for every $10,000 in the general fund.

HENRY WOLOSON: Michigan already has the second highest paid legislators in the nation and what has it gotten us? The highest unemployment rate in the country and the budget circus of 2007. I know of no supporter of the part-time legislature who has argued that lower pay will result in higher legislator quality. Certainly higher pay has not improved legislator quality. The issue is comparable pay to other states. California is the only state which pays their legislators more than Michigan but they have more than three times the population we have and they have 23 percent FEWER lawmakers. Our ratio of compensation per resident is far above the norm and what results have we received for this higher pay scale?

Why should we pay more than we can afford or need to pay? Michigan pays their legislators $ 79,650 per year plus $12,000 per year for expenses. The average salary paid to the legislators of the five states whose population is just larger than Michigan’s and the five states whose population is just smaller than ours is $ 45,700. Our legislators are already compensated well above the states closest to us in population. As I previously mention, New Hampshire pays their legislators $ 100 per year with no benefits. Texas, the second most populated state in the nation pays their lawmakers only $ 7,200 per year and that state had four of the fastest growing counties in the country last year. Clearly compensation was not an issue there.

The goal of a part-time legislature is not just to save money. It is to improve efficiency. Additional cost savings can be gained from reductions of staff that are no longer needed if the legislature is part-time. For example, Michigan is the eighth most populated state with approximately 10 million people. Our legislative budget is currently $115 million per year. Ohio, ranks seventh in population with 1.5 million more people but has a legislative budget less than half that of Michigan. Why? One reason is shared staffs rather than partisan individual staffs. By adopting similar staffing, we could possibility cut our legislative budget by $ 50 million per year. Even growing states are better managed. Georgia is number nine in population and experienced a 14 percent growth rate in residents between 2000 and 7/1/2006 and yet has a legislative budget that is less than 60 percent of Michigan’s. Cost savings can be achieved once the regular sessions are limited.