May 18, 2013 rss
header twitter link facebook link home link
Sign Up For Weekly E-BulletinsView Resource Guide and Job Postings

Columns
Maxine Berman

Maxine Berman

Part-Time Legislatures


February 01, 2013

A lot of people hate legislators. And I’m not just talking about Congress here, whose popularity falls someplace beneath pond scum. I’m talking about state legislators too. There are probably a lot of reasons for this animosity, some based in fact, others purely psychological.

But one thing I have never been able to understand is self-loathing legislators.

I’m speaking now of the newly resurrected attempt to make the Michigan legislature part-time. I wonder if the sponsors of these resolutions realize that it won’t make their constituents love them more, but in fact love them less for agreeing with the already low esteem in which they are held.

The issue also reared its head sometime in the ‘80s. The arguments were always the same: it will save money, we don’t want professional politicians, legislators should spend more time with “the people,” we don’t need all of those needless bills, etc.

I actually did a rather in-depth study of it. First, with the exception of Texas, almost every large state is full time. (Indeed, in the ‘80s, the full time states represented approximately half of the country’s population.) Many states that aren’t full time constitutionally also aren’t limited to a certain amount of session days and may meet close to year-round.

Legislators in part-time states represent far fewer people each. For example, New Hampshire’s 400 legislators (Michigan has 148) represented a little over 2000 people each, close to two precincts in my fifty precinct district. In terms of base salary per capita, nine of the top ten states were part-time. And many part-time states also pay legislators a per diem rate every time they set foot in their capitols for a meeting outside of session time or any legislative business they do anywhere. This adds up. Michigan’s current legislative salaries are a miniscule fraction of the state’s $7.5 billion general fund budget.

The amount of bills sponsored in part-time legislatures is pretty much the same as full time. Granted, Michigan doesn’t take up every bill introduced, but bills that are taken up generally are given far more thought and have far more input from legislators and the public at large (well, not counting Right to Work). When you’re only in session a brief time, it’s impossible to keep up and this is where lobbyists really thrive. They happily fill that void.

And then there’s the actual job of a legislator, never really defined anywhere. The criticism in Michigan always revolves around the number of days in session. But anyone who understands the legislative process knows that the legislature in session is the legislature on display. The legislature in committee is the legislature at work. There may only be three sessions a week and they may not be long, but legislators during that week may have also attended five or ten lengthy committee or subcommittee meetings, which the press apparently doesn’t count because they almost never go to them.

Part-time proponents see a need for legislators to interface with their constituents. I have never known a legislator who did not meet regularly with individuals or groups of constituents, both in Lansing and in their districts. And weekends? Forget it. How many events are they expected to attend? Indeed, the “people interface” issue is one of the reasons so many legislators run into problems in their marriages. They’re just never home.

Another interface with constituents is the stream of individual problems, some quite serious, legislators handle. Who will these people turn to now?

And who will be minding the store in the nine months the legislature is not in session? One of the most important jobs of a legislature is oversight of the administrative branch and while this has been seriously weakened by term limits (many of our legislators have probably never heard of oversight), it will effectively be gone in a part-time world.

Perhaps most important, who would serve under such circumstances? Some say only millionaires could afford to do it. Others say it would only be retirees. After all, who can afford to work for a salary which in the Michigan proposal would be less than $20,000 per year? How could they possibly hold another job?

Easy. You see, many part-time legislators in other states are hired by businesses and organizations that have direct interest in legislative actions. They pay them full time salaries and some of those entities don’t even care if the legislator shows up at work the other nine months of the year. They own them. And it’s not just their votes that are important, it’s their presence in committees, on the floor, with constituents that means as much.

There is a big difference between a professional politician and a politician who acts professionally. Term limits has already weakened a once strong institution. Let’s not decimate it any further.

Maxine Berman is the Griffin Endowed Chair in American Government at Central Michigan University, the first woman named to the post. She served seven terms in the Michigan House and most recently was director of special projects for Governor Jennifer Granholm. She is the author of the 1994 book The Only Boobs in the House Are Men.

January 31, 2013 · Filed under Berman

8 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Matt // Feb 1, 2013 at 8:40 am

    BINGO! You hit it right on the head, again!

  • 2 Paul Massaron // Feb 1, 2013 at 9:20 am

    Maxine,

    Well done article. Your points are well reasoned and you demonstrate continual wisdom that made you one of the best legislators I had the privilege of knowing.

  • 3 Frank Walshingham // Feb 1, 2013 at 9:31 am

    When multiple time repeat felony convicts like Brain Banks get seated in the state legislature, what better case can you make for making this a part time job with little remuneration?

    Banks pulled off his biggest scam ever now that he is getting full time pay from the taxpayers. The travesty of the situation is that everyone in the legislature sat back and let this crook be seated.

  • 4 Peter Eckstein // Feb 1, 2013 at 9:46 am

    Good analysis. If the legislature is seldom in session, who will watch over the executive branch. And if legislators can’t make a living at it, what other part-time jobs will they take? And what conflicts of interest will that create?

  • 5 fred akers // Feb 1, 2013 at 10:43 am

    Having worked in a part time legislature I can tell you there are real advantages.

    Legislators who work in the real world have an opportunity to see and understand the impacts of legislation they are considering. Maybe just as important they go home and can see the folly of bad legislation they pass and can react more quickly to apply needed fixes.

    Also part time legislators are not just hired by corporations. Teachers built into their contracts the right to take annual leave to participate in the legislature. They made up a very large block of the legislature. Some were even local union officials. Democratic majorities were not uncommon in this state.

    You say about corporations’ and their employee legislators, “They pay them full time salaries and some of those entities don’t even care if the legislator shows up at work the other nine months of the year. They own them.”

    I’d love to know what “Study” you are pulling this from. Or maybe you just are representing the special interests you favor and are pushing your argument past verifiable facts and into convenient territory.

    One might think you actually believe members of Teachers Unions and Labor Union members were arbitors of what’s fair not what their unions preach.

  • 6 Rob van Ravenswaay // Feb 1, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    I haven’t seen the proposed legislative/Constitutional language as yet, but I’d look at it carefully to see how it gets rid of, evades, or otherwise negates the current Ethics and conflict of interest laws that bind full-time legislators.

    That’s the area to question. Keep the focus there.

    New Hampshire is not a useful example; it is unique in many ways. The committee chairs and leadership have plenty of power because they get meeting fees. It’s a small state; little stays hidden for long. And people can actually get elected by walking their tiny districts and knocking on doors – many of my law school classmates did so.

    Texas will give you many examples of the problems of a parttime legislature.

  • 7 Bill Douglas // Feb 1, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    I remember when the legislature , part time, consisted mostly of farmers who did little crop work in January and February and lawyers who had a flexible work program and who were also looking for business. Hardly the kind of balance one would hope for in a democracy.

  • 8 Monday briefing and open thread // Feb 4, 2013 at 11:47 am

    [...] Maxine Berman has a great article in Dome about part time legislatures. Her conclusion: There is a big difference between a professional politician and a politician who acts professionally. Term limits has already weakened a once strong institution. Let’s not decimate it any further. [...]

Leave a Comment:

Be sure to put in the security words and hit SUBMIT

*Required

(does not appear on post) * Required


Advertisment

Advertisment

Advertisment

Advertisment




© 2007-2011 DomeMagazine.com. All rights reserved. Site design by Kimberly Hopkins, khopdesign, llc.