Legislative Effevctiveness Committee
Meeting Summary
August 2007
| Meeting Session: |
The Rise of the Task Force |
| Overview & Presenters: |
Legislatures are creating more and more task forces and advisory groups, particularly to deal with technical or complex issues. Some of these options involve “sharing control” with the regulated private sector and the public. What are the pros and cons of these various options?
Moderator: Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Nevada
Presenters: Representative Rick Berg, House Majority Leader, North Dakota
Senator Les Ihara, Jr., Majority Policy Leader, Hawaii
Representative Cory Mason, Wisconsin |
| Summary: |
Lorne Malkiewich mentioned the changing use of task forces, select committees and commissions by legislatures and the value of exchanging ideas, especially when we can get a variety of state perspectives. A legislature’s full-time or part-time status can be an important factor in how a state approaches the use of task forces. Lorne also posed the initial question of whether the increased use of task forces has in some way undercut the authority of the traditional standing committees.
Representative Rick Berg is the House Majority Leader in North Dakota, the top position in that body. He has significant responsibilities for creating and assigning members to interim committees. The North Dakota Legislature meets on a biennial basis, so they rely heavily on the work of interim committees. The tradition there is to have flexible, open and bi-partisan interim committees. Although the legislature has a solid Republican majority, some of the interim committee chairs are Democrats. Rick has found that the best practices occur when the committees have the right mix of members (legislators and citizens), clear objectives and definitive deadlines. For example, the legislator members as a whole have to reflect the values and views of their respective chambers. Non-legislative members have to keep their self-interest under control and legislators have to avoid becoming “lobbyists for the cause.” The legislator members are the ones who take the official final vote on recommendations. One recent example that went well was a higher educational roundtable that brought higher education leaders, business and industry representatives and tribal leaders all together. Rick’s final suggestion was for leaders to pick committee members so there is a mix of beneficiaries and those who will fund the outcome.
Senator Les Ihara, Jr. described his experience with Hawaii’s Joint Legislative Committee on Family Caregiving. They had four senators and four representatives on the committee. They had strong outcomes, with the overwhelming majority of their recommendations getting passed into law. Les noted a number of factors that led to the success:
The legislator members were all in key positions to act on the recommendations once they reached the legislature.
The work was done with a clear spirit of transparency. Attendees at the meetings received all the same information and materials that the legislators got.
The committee used a very informal atmosphere in which discussion and questions flowed freely between legislators and citizens. Everyone was treated as an equal in the discussions.
The meetings were facilitated and the discussion was designed to work through to consensus. Clear procedures were followed when disagreements occurred as the committee developed a “can you live with it” standard to help consider various items.
The meeting information-sharing emphasized fact-based research.
The committee developed a newsletter for 250 people so that people could keep abreast as the committee developed recommendations.
The committee met intensively in a four-month time period. It was important to hold multiple meetings to allow the discussion time the consensus process requires.
There was a key outreach component, both in terms of taking a message to the media and developing booklets to educate the public on key aging issues.
The problems that did occur tended to relate to items that were too complex, from a legal, technical or financial standpoint, to be resolved in the short time the committee had to act.
Wisconsin Representative Cory Mason began by describing traditional task forces in Wisconsin. They have the advantage of creating time and space to address complex or politically divisive issues, allow deliberation and consensus building, and bring different stakeholders to the table. The possible shortcomings involve formality, failure to reach political consensus and the potential that the report will sit on the shelf. Cory recommended that legislators consider a more “grass roots” model. He used this approach to create legislation addressing the infant mortality problem in Racine, Wisconsin. Cory sought no bill or other official legislative action to create the taskforce. Rather, he used his legislator position to bring together a coalition of public health professionals, firefighters, nurse educators, day care providers and moms who were all interested in the problem. Cory’s role was to provide resources, not answers. He asked them for the best solution to the problems and would draft up the groups findings at various stages. They went through multiple reviews of bill drafts and this helped focus and refine the group’s decisions. The process was informal and the legitimacy of the solution came from the community, not the legislator. |
| Meeting Session: |
The Boomers Come to the Capitol |
| Overview & Presenters: |
More citizens are coming to the Capitol to testify and otherwise participate in the legislative process. Is this a reflection of the “baby boomer” generation getting to an age where health concerns or tax issues are bringing them out in force? How can legislators tap this “boomer” energy and enthusiasm?
Moderator: Jim Greenwalt, Director of Information Systems, Senate, Minnesota
Presenters: Representative Susan Westrom, Kentucky
Representative Peggy Welch, Indiana
Sue Gullufsen, Manager, Information & Teleconferencing, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska |
| Summary: |
Jim Greenwalt started the session by noting what a big demographic group the ‘baby boomer” generation is, something legislators and legislatures need to understand. Although Jim is an IT staff director, he urged attendees to use face-to-face connections with constituents. Improve your constituent relations with technology, but always think in terms of personal ties. Jim introduced the panelists.
Representative Peggy Welch encouraged legislators not to brand “baby boomers” as technology averse, as they are increasing using email and other options. She suggested that this group has tried to forge its imprint on everything from college to childbirth, so they will likely be active in connecting with legislators in their retirement years. Boomers can be a great resource, but legislators need to be prepared for the pressure and expectations they will bring. Peggy recently developed a handout on “how to communicate with your legislator” in part to reach this boomer group.
Sue Gullufsen has been the Manager of the Information and Teleconference network for Alaska’s Legislative Affairs. She oversees a 22-site series of legislative information offices in remote locations like Kodiak, Bethel, Barrow and Wrangell, as well as cities like Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. The information officers at these sites really take the legislature to the community, such as school meetings. Each location poses different challenges. Barrow is so cold for so much of the year that people get their news primarily from television. In Petersburg everyone gathers at the post office. All the officers are deeply connected to their communities before they are hired. The office maintains an extensive web site and makes broad use of teleconferencing to allow people in remote locations to participate almost as if they were physically present in Juneau, the state capital. The program has expanded to allow people to call in through the district office or from home. In addition, the local TV stations stream video on the Internet so people testifying by teleconference can often see the people they are talking with.
Representative Susan Westrom described a series of programs or projects that she uses with baby boomer and other constituents:
She has a shadow program where she invites citizens to spend an entire day with her in her legislative work. She recruits people to participate through her newsletter and her web site. Susan relies on her interns how help oversee the logistics of the event, which involves a completely transparent experience. She has had participants aged 14 to 80 and she has shadows three days a week.
She holds a “Day at the Capitol” for constituents and she utilizes senior citizen volunteers who organize the day’s activities. They take a Capitol tour, attend a committee meeting and do a lot of “networking.”
Susan distributes material from the Attorney General regarding key information about crimes against seniors.
Her newsletter includes a survey that prompts her constituents for their thoughts about issues like long-term care insurance and women’s health issues. |
| Meeting Session: |
Strong Legislative Caucuses
(co-sponsored with the Institute for State Tribal Relations and Women’s Legislative Network) |
| Overview & Presenters: |
What makes a legislative caucus vital and effective? Whether a caucus serves Republicans or Democrats; women, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans or Native Americans; or some other group, certain strategies and practices can help their members build relationships, find support and accomplish their goals.
Moderator: Lana Oleen, President, Lana Oleen Consulting Services LLC, former Senate Majority Leader, Kansas
Panelists: Representative Martha Walz, Massachusetts
Representative Shane Jett, Oklahoma
Representative Gloria Fox, Massachusetts; Massachusetts Black Legislative Caucus, Vice-Chair
Paul Tokasz, Partner, Patricia Lynch Associates, former Assembly Majority Leader, New York
Justin Sargent, Director of Operations and Outreach, Office of Senate Majority Leader, Wisconsin |
| Summary: |
Lana Oleen led the panelists through a series of questions in a talk show format. The panelists suggested a number of ideas toward improving the strength of legislative caucuses, whether they are traditional Republican or Democrat majority or minority caucuses or something along the line of an African American, tribal, women’s or some other kind of caucus:
A caucus works much better with staff. Legislators may have a genuine interest in the work of the caucus, but even a “specialized” caucus really needs staff who can focus on the day-to day needs of the group.
Native American caucuses in some states have found a natural affinity with rural legislators, as many of the tribes have significant populations in rural areas. The building of relationships along rural lines has been a common occurrence.
New York has shown that the specialized caucuses have tremendous strength when they act together on items of common interest. They recently collaborated on some immigration-related issues that had a significant impact.
The Oklahoma Native American Caucus found it very valuable to concentrate on defining their purpose, which is to promote what is best for the state from the focus of the tribes. They have found that the unity of the caucus is more important than any one issue.
The Massachusetts Black Caucus has tried to focus on problems that plague communities of color, such as health care disparities.
All agreed that building trust within the caucus is a critical step. You have to examine how you are going to handle issues where you don’t all agree, and then create a system to work through disagreements.
The participants varied on their use of open or closed caucuses. Some favored using closed caucuses to iron out differences and plan strategy, while others favored the democratic spirit of open caucuses.
To move from minority to majority party status, a caucus often has to make some critical changes and do some hard work. Minority party caucuses have to recruit good candidates because that more than anything else will make them competitive. Also, you need to craft a message and then keep your candidates on message. The words are important in a campaign.
The minority party is often at risk because the majority is constantly looking to splinter off votes. One of the hardest legislative positions can be whether to stick with your caucus and personal beliefs on an issue or compromise that when you have the opportunity to do something substantial for your constituents.
Some specialized caucuses have found value in creating helpful materials for other legislators. The Oklahoma Native American Caucus developed a map showing the tribes and their distribution throughout the state, all keyed to legislative districts. The material also created a key contacts list for the various tribal leaders. They have gotten great feedback on the practical value of the materials. |
| Meeting Session: |
No Cup of Coffee---The Line Between Legislators and Lobbyists |
| Overview & Presenters: |
Colorado recently joined the states that have set strict limits on lobbyist/legislator interactions with Amendment 41, but questions and problems have followed. This session examined the purpose behind these attempts to regulate lobbyist conduct and the lessons we have learned.
Moderator: Robert Nelson, Senior Attorney, Legislative Reference Bureau, Wisconsin
Presenters: Senator John Marty, Minnesota
Brian Flaherty, Director of Public Affairs, Nestle Waters North America, Connecticut
Susan Huntley, Policy Specialist, Center for Ethics in Government, NCSL, Colorado |
| Summary: |
Bob Nelson described Wisconsin’s long history with strict laws regulating lobbyists’ gifts or services to legislators along with other ethics-related restrictions. Despite these laws, Wisconsin has had a pattern of serious infractions that remind us that laws alone won’t change behavior. Bob introduced the other panelists.
Susan Huntley described the Center for Ethics in Government, which was an initiative of legislators and lobbyists looking to improve ethical conduct in state legislatures. The center focuses on training for legislators, staff and lobbyists and on conducting research on state ethics laws. The center does not rate state laws or create a model code of conduct.
Susan described recent federal and state trends. Federal legislation is considering increasing the “revolving door” restrictions on how long ex-lawmakers must wait before lobbying and restricting former members of Congress from access to various facilities like the Capitol gyms. The legislation is also increasing penalties for serious ethics offenses, considering loss of pension benefits along with criminal penalties. One area the federal legislation does not address is having independent oversight, which has been a trend in some states. Other issues in states lately have involved the choice of whether to regulate through a gift ban or through increased disclosure; the definition of “gift;” regulating year-round versus session only; and whether to include restrictions in rules, statutes or the constitution.
Senator John Marty recounted his experience nearly 15 years ago authoring Minnesota’s “No Cup of Coffee” law (strict restriction on lobbyists’ gifts or services to legislators). John agreed that lobbying is essential in our democracy, but asserted that we need to create a strict line between legislators and lobbyists. He noted both the public perception of government “being for sale” and the human tendency to reciprocate in some fashion whenever you’ve been given a gift, even something small. He mentioned that we would all be aghast if a Super Bowl coach took the referees out to dinner the night before the game and that public tends to see lobbyist gifts in the same light. Gifts, he said, bring good will and good will increases access in the legislative arena, no matter how much those directly involved feel the practices are harmless.
Brian Flaherty mentioned his experience on this issue first as a staffer, then as a legislator and now as a lobbyist. He noted Susan’s descriptions of states wrestling with the definition of “gift” as being an indication of the larger problems on this issue. At the core, the public is reacting to a sense that legislators have “broken faith” with them through various types of conduct. In particular citizens resent it when they perceive legislators acting with a sense of entitlement. Rather than approach the problem from a gift ban perspective, Brian suggested that the emphasis has to be on the personal integrity of the people involved in the legislative process---legislators, lobbyists and staffers. Stating that “sunshine is the best disinfectant,” Brian encouraged the states to learn from each other through the work of the center. |
| Meeting Session: |
Taking the Pulse of the New Legislature |
| Overview & Presenters: |
Legislatures aren’t what they used to be. This session explored the trends of constant campaigning, increasing partisanship, more partisan staff, more training for members, better use of technology and increasing pressure from new legislators wanting to hit the ground running.
Moderator: Marti Harkness, Staff Director, Office of Program Policy and Governmental Accountability, Florida
Presenters: Representative Rob Eissler, Texas
David Henderson Legislative Administrator, Oregon
Stephen Kelley, Director and Senior Fellow, Center for Science, Technology and Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Minnesota |
| Summary: |
Marti Harkness described some major trends in state legislatures regarding partisanship, technology, staffing and effectiveness, but he also related some particular changes in his field of performance auditing. In the past, performance auditors were much like academics, doing their reviews with little sense of timing. Their work was done with a strong sense of isolation and independence. In Florida, with the impact of term limits and other factors, there is now a strong trend toward timely and concise research. There is also a push to use electronic mediums to a great extent. In all this, the culture still maintains a strong emphasis on accuracy, but the expectations of the legislators are quite different now.
Steve Kelley reflected on his time in the legislature and initially noted the long-term trends of improved professionalism and increased demands on staff. In terms of technology, he suggested that television and video coverage of the legislature has expanded to the point where legislators are under scrutiny all the time. Every appearance, every statement can show up in later campaigns. In this time of increased technological awareness, the key is for legislators to learn and use these tools, all the while not losing sight of the importance of building personal relationships.
Steve also noted the demographic trend of increased suburbanization and the “contested seat” nature of those suburbs. This trend is bringing more professionals and business people to the legislature. Most legislatures have tended to fill the power positions (leadership and appropriations chairs) with urban or rural legislators, but there is growing pressure to fill power positions with suburban legislators. Lastly, Steve suggested that with the close splits in many states between Republicans and Democrats, many are pushing for “fighter” candidates over “consensus builders.” It’s hard to tell if this will be a long-term or short-term phenomenon.
Dave Henderson described the work of a public commission charged with looking at all aspects of legislative operations. Two of the key recommendations involved making the Oregon State Capitol a wireless hotspot and vastly expanding the legislature’s video coverage. The “hotspot” project used a budget of $202,000 and a timeline of seven months to purchase, install and test the wireless equipment. The system includes 88 wireless access points throughout the Capitol, with the sites determined through a technical survey. Access for the public is simple and instruction cards are available. Lastly, the video coverage has been greatly expanded and the legislature has reached agreements with public television and university broadcasting authorities. Their vastly expanded coverage includes not only legislative activities but news conferences and executive and judicial branch activities as well.
Representative Rob Eissler echoed Steve’s comments on legislators’ needs to focus on building relationships while taking advantage of technology. He noted that traditional mail has all but dried up and that he starts each day at 5:00 a.m. by going through email. Blogs and Internet reporting have a huge impact and legislators have learned that their voting records are quite visible in real time. Advocacy groups are becoming more and more savvy in tracking all this. Talk shows are also having an increased impact. Rob sponsored a bill to address some problems with the Texas “zero tolerance” laws around drugs and weapons and was surprised to quickly get national coverage and calls from as far away as Rhode Island.
Rob also talked about living in a time calling for specific types of leadership. Your constituents come to know you with a certain sense of your beliefs, behavior and philosophy. Quoting a leadership expert he recently heard, Rob noted that leadership may be “disappointing your constituents at a rate they can absorb.” You may learn things that require you to take votes or positions that anger or confuse your followers, and you have to do what you think is right and explain your decisions. He described a bilingual education proposal he helped lead, which took a position contrary to the beliefs of many of his constituents. Though the approach was controversial, Rob felt that the research showed the correct path and he worked with others to build support, plus he took his story directly to the media. The important factor was taking the time needed to tell the whole story. |
|
Featured Links
Legislators & staff only
|
