Meeting Session:

 Polarization: It’s Unbearable

Overview & Presenters:

Ask any veteran legislator and you’ll likely hear that the legislature isn’t like it used to be.  Partisan fights and heated campaigns have driven a wedge between and even within the parties.  This roundtable discussion session explored the keys to maintaining civility and good working relationships in the capitol.

Moderator:  Senator Jeffrey Plale, Wisconsin 

Presenters:  Senator Dori Connor, Delaware              

                   Representative Doug Jones, Idaho

Summary:

Senator Jeffrey Plale noted that the Wisconsin Legislature had a long tradition of playing practical jokes.  There was always an attempt to keep people smiling and legislators made a real effort to get to know each other across party lines.  Campaigns have gotten costlier and the personal attacks have increased, so it is hard to get passed that when the session begins.  People start believing their own press releases and adopt an “I’m always right, you’re always wrong” attitude.  Senator Plale was affected in all this by being stranded in an airport with a senator from the other party.  They did a lot of talking about the loss of civility and what could be done about it.  They formed a council on civility in government and have sought to get fellow legislators to sign a pledge to get along with one another.  They have continued the civility group, although it has been renamed several times and has not had the success they had hoped.  Senator Plale introduced the other members of the panel.

Senator Dori Connor reminded attendees that legislative splits occur along male/female, union/nonunion, conservative/moderate/liberal, and religious lines.  It’s not just a party divide.  Polarization in Delaware has been heightened by bill introduction limits, committee assignments and the high cost of elections.  She also noted the nastiness surrounding the debate over a bill regarding sexual orientation.  Further, the leadership’s position on creating a large disparity in the pay between majority and minority staffers has been a significant polarization factor.  All this sticks out like a sore thumb to the public.  She urges legislators to remember the “power of one.”  You can make a difference one day at a time with patience and laughter.  She noted that growing up in a mixed Republican/Democrat party home has helped her see that no party has a monopoly on all the good ideas.  She suggested each legislator has to take a good look in the mirror and admit your own mistakes as a good starting point.

Representative Doug Jones has been in the Idaho Legislature for over 20 years.  Although the Republicans have over 80% of the legislative seats, there are at least two, if not three or four, factions within the party that lead to polarization.  The budget deficit and the ensuing debate over a sales tax increase, as well as an initiative-based term limits provision, all added to the divisiveness.  Representative Jones has seen less civility between members, fewer social gatherings and more cliques.  In the past, after debate in the chambers, the opponents would often walk off the floor together.  Today that is rare.  Although the Republicans control things, the North/South and urban/rural splits have caused some lasting problems.  He also sees more young legislators coming in with personal agendas and they don’t seem to care about anything else.  We have lost those who believed in the system and could be counted on to take a “for the good of the state” perspective.  Representative Jones says he doesn’t see a clear solution, but organizations like NCSL and CSG have and must continue to promote civility and collegiality.

In the roundtable discussion that followed, there were a number of comments.  One attendee thought the North Carolina co-speaker system in the recent tied chamber period helped build some bridges across party lines.  In recent cuts in Wisconsin, there is some perception that the House forced the minority staffers to take the hit, while the Senate took a shared cut approach for partisan staff.  One Texas legislator noted the positive influence of a fellowship group, where shared faith and support helps build understanding across party lines.  Another attendee noted that the behavior always improves when a legislator’s family member is in the gallery – “how can you be mean when family is there.”  Some present noted the great impact that some states have had by including some minority party chairs of committees, although others indicated that this would be a tough sell in the states that don’t have that tradition.  A last theme to the comments centered on new member orientation.  This training is a unique opportunity to send new legislators off on the right foot.

Meeting Session:

Legislative Training:  What Works Best?

Overview & Presenters:

With term limits, turnover and increasingly complex issues to decide, many legislatures are overhauling their training for new legislators.  Time is always limited, so planners have to make tough decisions on what to teach and how to teach it.  This session looked at some recent innovations and studies and gave tips on how to invigorate your state’s legislator training.

Moderator:    JoAnn Hedrick, House Chief Clerk, Delaware

Panelists: Tom Covington, Principal, NewFound Mountain Associates, North Carolina                               

Mitch McCartney, Director, Information Office, Unicameral Legislature, Nebraska

Susan Clarke Schaar, Senate Chief Clerk, Virginia, NCSL Staff Vice Chair

Summary:

JoAnn Hedrick described the importance of legislator training and introduced the panel.  Mitch McCartney explained some of the nationwide trends in new member orientations.  He described his state of Nebraska as indicative of the need for good training: with term limits, Nebraska will have a drastic and dramatic turnover and new members will have less time to grasp complex issues.  Under term limits, he thinks legislators will be less likely to acquire an institutional focus.  Mitch described his research, which focused on Arkansas, California, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin.

For program content, areas that were included by at least some of the subject states included core training subjects (like understanding the rules), societal change factors (like economics and demographics), policy issues (like education) and institutional appreciation.  Specific sessions often included committee structure, budget process, ethics and working with staff, lobbyists and the press.  The significant findings included the importance of involving legislative leadership and using former and current legislators as teachers/faculty.  The median length of training for these states was five days.  As to issue areas, the top choices were tax policy, education and health and human services.  Budget, ethics and media training are very typical skills/behavioral areas for training.  For innovative approaches, Mitch cited Missouri’s tour to see key state programs and services, California’s and Wisconsin’s use of briefing books and Wisconsin’s “Food for Thought” speaker series.  Lastly, Mitch suggests that two areas that need more emphasis are institutional appreciation and societal change factors.

Tom Covington described some in-depth research he is doing in North Carolina as a lead-in to creating a new training program.  He started by trying to get legislators to identify exactly what it is that makes good legislators effective.  He also did a lot of looking at how adults learn, finding a strong need to allow for concrete experiences and active experimentation.  The research so far has shown a need to address key skills like getting things done, political savvy, listening, communication, coalition building, decision-making, taking the long view and acquiring competency in key areas.  He also heard a lot about trends such as loss of civility, increase in partisanship and the change in campaigns.  Tom is in the early stages of suggesting a legislator training program that will address traditional new member issues but will also include self-assessment and skill building.

Susan Schaar noted how far Virginia has come since the 1970’s regarding new member orientation.  Back then, new members sat around a table and the leader just told them what to do.  Since that time Virginia has added mock floor and committee sessions, brought in all the legislative agencies to talk to members, and included many of the things other states have added.  They have also looked at relationship building through dinners and other social events and used videos to allow members to take on some of the learning at the time, place and pace of their own choosing.  New areas of emphasis have been ethics, sexual harassment and the media.  Susan also noted the need for redundancy in training, which they carry out through the use of notebooks to reinforce the various learning messages.  They don’t use outside agencies in conducting the training, which allows them to control the subject matter. There is a stage later on where the state agencies can give overviews.  The timing of the orientation is always an issue as people want to take time off after the election, yet you can’t run into the holidays.  The first week in December often works best.  Susan ended with some tips:

Spouse education is a critical piece of the orientation.

Computer training is best done through a general session followed by individual training.

Use NCSL for pieces of your training. They can provide speakers in key areas and deal with procedural and institutional topics as well. 

Look beyond members and address some training for assistants and other staff.