Thursday, July 19, 2007

Part-Time Legislature Buzz Focusing on Wrong Issue

The current buzz about transforming the Michigan Legislature from a full-time, year-round institution to a part-time one seems to be focusing on issues of saving money. Such a switch probably would save money, but it also would have other effects --good and bad -- that probably would be more important for the state.

A part-time legislature with a limited number of session days would greatly impact the way laws are made in this state because it would create a deadline for completing work. Important measures, such as the annual budget, would get passed sooner in the year, making it possible for state agencies and universities to know their financial situations well in advance. That's because in states with part-time legislatures, lawmakers have to pass a budget before they adjourn for the year, and that typically happens in the first six months of the year.

In a state such as Iowa, for example, the legislative session begins in January and ends in April or early May. No law requires this. The Legislature did it by itself by adopting a set of rules that make it happen.

One rule (referred to as the "funnel" because of the way it funnels activity) says that non-budget bills that will be voted on during the year must be passed out of committee within a certain number of days at the start of the session. Committees do their work early in the year in order to meet that deadline, instead of stringing it out over months.

Another rule says that the per diem expense money for lawmakers runs out after 100 session days. Once senators and representatives have to start paying for their meals and lodging out of their own pockets, they suddenly feel a sense of urgency about finishing their work and getting home.

The per diem rule capitalizes on a fundamental aspect of the legislative process. Deals are always made at the last minute. No one puts his or her final offer on the table at the start of negotiations, any more than lawyers negotiating a settlement or parties in a real estate transaction do. But when time is running out and the last train is leaving the station, lawmakers know they have to stop posturing and do hard bargaining. All the cajoling in the world by a governor who wants the budget done early will not move people to negotiate before that moment.

In Michigan, that moment can be put off for months. In Iowa, it comes in the spring when the money runs out. People get their work done because they have to.

I watched this process work during my nine years covering the Iowa Legislature. Did it ever fail? Only during a year when the Legislature was involved in reapportioning itself after a census. Then lawmakers had to come back for three-day special sessions limited to that topic, three times, to get that job done. But the budget was completed on time.

The creation of a deadline has other effects. It tends to create more press coverage of the Legislature. The Legislature is only in town for a few months. Reporters know there is a short window of opportunity for things to happen. The atmosphere is more of a pressure-cooker because of that. Things happen faster. Bad ideas die sooner in the year and lawmakers cannot milk a full year of publicity about a bill that's going nowhere. Reporters don't have time to focus on every single stupid bill that lawmakers float out to try to appeal to their base, as we did during the nine years I covered the Michigan Legislature.

Once the session was over and lawmakers were out of town, reporters tended to cover state agencies, figuring out how the laws that were passed were working out. The result was press coverage of all of government, not just the legislative process.

Are there other impacts? Yes. Salaries tend to be lower so some people probably can't afford to run for office. On the other hand, the part-time schedule works well for some professions, such as teaching, where people can take one semester off and still teach in the fall.

What if issues arise during the off-session months that need immediate attention? Part-time legislatures tend to result in increased power for the governor to handle such crises. Usually, these are budget problems, which governors handle with across-the-board budget cuts. Of course, governors could call the Legislature back into session, but they generally view that as a can of worms they don't want to open.

On balance, a part-time legislature probably would be good for Michigan. It would force lawmakers to get their work done earlier, providing more certainty for state agencies and universities worried about their budget. It would concentrate publicity within a few months.

And yeah, it might save a few bucks.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think the main problem with the Michigan Legislature is term limits. Term limits force elected officials to leave office just as they have gotten the hang of the job, and a new elected official has to come in and start over from square one. On top of that, term limits are undemocratic as they often bar citizens from electing the person they wish.

A solution that may be palatable to voters is introducing a part-time legislature without term limits.