Legislative Effectiveness & State Government Committee
Meeting Summaries
April 2005
|
Meeting Session: |
Nonpartisan Legislative Agencies: Surviving Party Control Change
|
|
|
|
|
Overview & Present |
When the party control of a legislature or chamber switches, the ripple effect goes a great distance. While changes in partisan staffing are expected, the last decade has also shown a great impact on the nonpartisan legislative agencies as well. This roundtable discussion session provided tips for these agencies on how to strategize and thrive in a changing partisan atmosphere.
Moderator: Senator Dori Connor, Delaware
Presenters:
Steve Miller, Chief, Legislative Reference Bureau, Wisconsin
Gary VanLandingham, Interim Director, OPPAGA, Florida
Gerry Cohen, Director of Bill Drafting, North Carolina
Doug Enevoldsen, Chief of Staff, House of Representatives, Oklahoma |
|
|
|
|
Summary: |
Senator Connor opened the roundtable discussion and introduced the presenters. She noted that the session was designed to explore the effects of party control change on nonpartisan legislative agencies. Although nonpartisan staffers often see themselves as bending over backwards to be fair, objective and impartial, the minority party legislators may view those staffers with a degree of skepticism or cynicism. When the party control changes in a legislative body, the new majority may not trust those staffers and may consider replacing some or all of them. The shock of a party control switch can be great for nonpartisan staff, particularly the directors.
Gary VanLandingham noted some research he had done on this topic for a graduate program. During 1996-2003, he found that change of party control tends to lead to a reduction in staff positions. There was a 38-position drop in the states that had a party control change, while states with no party control change averaged a gain of 45 positions. Term limits was also associated with staff reductions. Although Gary’s figures were for professional staff, and included partisan and nonpartisan positions, he indicated that nonpartisan staff are often a target for the new majority. The staff may not realize how the legislators are perceiving them, how legislators view nonpartisan staff as really carrying out the will of the majority. Gary’s advice is to really strive to be fair, objective, balance and professional in your work. When a party control switch occurs, you have to be proactive right away. You must deal with the new majority’s trust concerns very quickly and very assertively.
Steve Miller provided tips on what you can do in the stable times to help you weather a party control switch:
Introspection – you have to periodically do a deep and honest self-evaluation to test your nonpartisanship.
Overt nonpartisanship – you have to declare your nonpartisanship to everyone. In Steve’s agency, they note their core values (nonpartisanship, confidentiality, expertise and pride in the institution) on all their key publications. Through repetition of the message and following through in practice, they really make an impression on legislators.
Document your process – write down what you do (the services you provide) and then follow your process.
Diversify your services – don’t be reluctant to add some new services for your agency. A broad range of services can help deflect a charge of partisanship.
Maintain an institutional focus – look at the legislature and how it fits in with the three branches of government. Have a clear message about how your agency helps the legislature fit with the other branches.
Doug Enevoldsen has been the chief of staff during a recent party control switch in Oklahoma. The change is still occurring and has been filled with anger and high media scrutiny. Doug was asked by the new Speaker to do a rapid review of the House staff, which included two major staff agencies. Doug has moved them into a single agency with five divisions. Although the staff have been traditionally nonpartisan, Doug felt there were some instances of staff acting in a partisan manner. Also, there were problem issues around overtime pay. Through some reductions in staff size and pay, plus elimination of overtime pay, Doug estimates there will be a net savings to Oklahoma taxpayers of $500,000 yearly. In three rounds of firings, he feels that they have lost some institutional memory, but have gained a lot in terms of skills with his new hires. His biggest regret is that he lost some key staffers he wanted to keep, but he thinks he didn’t approach them soon enough. The next biggest lesson was realizing how little the organization was able to change. Doug was experienced in change management, but the legislative agency personnel were not.
Gerry Cohen noted that in North Carolina’s recent party control changes, he sat down immediately with the new Speaker to assure him of their desire and policy to treat all members equally. The Speaker’s support was important, because some of the newly elected members questioned whether the staff was truly nonpartisan. Gerry found that the new member orientation was a critical time to impress on everyone how deep their commitment is to nonpartisanship. All of his experience points out the importance of trust and how you have to earn that trust through demonstrating the value of your effort, knowledge and experience. |
|
Meeting Session: |
Legislating For Results
|
|
|
|
|
Overview & Moderator: |
Interest in accountability and performance continues at all levels of government. This roundtable discussion focused on the legislative role in using performance information to make budget and policy decisions.
Moderator: John Massey, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
Summary: |
This roundtable discussion session included participants from Utah, Puerto Rico, Wyoming, New Mexico, California, South Dakota, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Ohio, Maine, Virginia and Maryland. NCSL and the Urban Institute have had a joint project on Making Results-based State Government Work. They have created a series of action briefs on legislating for results, which they have done in consultation with a number of states.
The goals in the project have been to help legislators and staff to ask better questions and to focus on what results citizens are getting for their tax dollars. The project is now focusing on a staff guide. One attendee noted that the legislature is routinely overwhelmed by information from the executive branch and much of this project involves helping legislative staff wade through that data. The discussion initially focused on work in Utah and New Mexico.
In Utah, there has been a push to have the executive branch submit fiscal information to the legislature earlier. With a short legislative session, the legislative staff needs more time at the start to help put the information in usable form. They have broken down some of their standard information into issue briefs and they include performance measures. They feel that they need more work on the performance indicators that they are using. There is a feeling that the legislators need more training on asking the right questions.
In New Mexico, they have had training and they are working on implementation. The fiscal staff continue to prepare a large budget compendium, but they have created a new document that highlights policy and performance. The focus is on policy topics rather than agencies and they are concentrating on the top 15 areas in terms of spending. Some of the problems they have encountered include lack of executive branch interest and changing performance measures.
In the general discussion, attendees made the following observations:
- It is like pulling teeth to get key data out of the executive branch.
- It would help the states for NCSL to create a clearinghouse of sorts to show best practices and best performance measures. A website that provides common parameters for outcomes would be helpful. Similar indicators in the states are common.
- We have a credibility issue in legislatures where too many “junk” bills are introduced and we spend the same amount of time on the junk bills as the important ones. We should consider bill introduction limits.
- We need to have more analysis on what isn’t working in state government.
- In our state, agencies are end running the appropriations committee. We need to revise our procedures so that can’t be done.
- We are moving from legislating by anecdote to legislating by reason – we’re still light years away.
- The focus has to be on how to measure results and how to hold agencies accountable.
- We might get some assistance in moving to performance-based budgeting by making a connection to the state’s business schools.
- Leadership commitment to performance budgeting varies.
- Tennessee is moving toward performance budgeting.
- Maine’s performance budgeting measures are somewhat outdated.
- In South Dakota, one question is whether federal-state match dollars are being spent wisely.
- States don’t have to start from scratch – much has been learned from the states that are using this already.
- States can learn from some private sector companies that have created some customer-focused measures of success.
|
|
Meeting Session: |
The Legislative Caucus: Cat Herders Needed
|
|
|
|
|
Overview & Presenters: |
In the “good old days,” partisan caucuses used to meet behind closed doors and come out in a unified front on the key issues. Straying from the party line was swiftly punished and the leaders were seldom undercut by their caucus colleagues. The caucus world has changed and members are less likely to automatically follow the caucus lead. This session explored what has happened in caucuses and provided advice for finding the balance between party discipline and individual member expression.
Moderator: Representative Rob Eissler, Texas
Panelists:
Delegate Carol Petzold, Maryland
Senator Derek Schmidt, Senate Majority Leader, Kansas
Assemblyman Paul Tokasz, Assembly Majority Leader, New York
|
|
|
|
|
Summary: |
Representative Rob Eissler opened the session and introduced the presenters. He noted the wide range of formal and informal caucuses operating in his own state and others and described some of the “convincing” skills that caucus leaders need to develop, as well as the knowledge of when they need to get members to toe the line. Today we see the traditional Republican and Democrat caucuses, but we also see women’s, Latino, Black and other group caucuses, plus interest area (like a children’s caucus) and geographic region caucuses.
Assemblyman Paul Tokasz is the New York House Majority Leader, where the House Democrats party caucus includes various other caucuses, including Black, Hispanic and Puerto Rican. The Democrats have a large majority, but working through the various group perspectives on any issue takes time. They have a closed caucus system, so they can have very frank discussions on a subject, work out their differences and come to the floor of the Assembly as a unified front. Assemblyman Tokasz works extensively with the various group caucuses to make sure each group has raised its issues about a bill. Paul knows he can’t take a bill to the floor unless he has 76 votes and he has yet to have a bill lost on the floor. The key is establishing a rule of “no surprises” in that members are encouraged to raise all their problems with legislation at the caucus stage and Paul and the other leaders will take the time to come up with a compromise that everyone can live with. In this manner, they encourage an approach where people are free to vote how they choose, but the debate is collegial. Paul also talked about knowing his members and who serves in districts that will make certain votes hard or impossible. The leader has to be fully aware of all his or her members’ needs politically. He also mentioned one of his biggest challenges, when the legislative intern program was almost shut down over a scandal involving a legislator and an intern. Although there was a strong push to eliminate the program and reduce the media heat on the issue, Paul urged the body not to eliminate what was a very valuable program. They took some time and added some protections and other revisions to the program, and the experience was a reminder that some “battles” are worth the time, heat and energy involved.
Senator Derek Schmidt talked about his majority leader experience with the Republicans in the Kansas Senate. They do not have the number of formally organized caucuses that Paul talked about, but he felt that many of the leadership principles are the same. Senator Schmidt provided observations from his Kansas experience, the role of styles and techniques on leadership and external influences. In Kansas, Senator Schmidt noted that the Senate is truly a collection of individuals. You can’t count votes in “clumps” the way you might in a larger body. A leader has to see his or her caucus as a “second constituency” in which the members are kept satisfied and comfortable and the leader practices good constituent service. Every senator has a big ego (it’s a job requirement in many ways) and leaders need to keep that in mind. Senator Schmidt has seen various types of legislative leadership skills, from the Lyndon Johnson “consequences” or retribution model, the “French Revolution” leader who is merely trying to stay in front of the group that has already decided where to go, and the “lead a horse to water” approach, which is figuring out where the group should go and making the most persuasive case for it. In the current culture, persuasion, not retribution, is usually the best approach. Senator Schmidt advised leaders to be aware of the external forces at work in your state – he cited the governor and the conservative caucus in his state as having a huge impact on his fellow legislators.
Delegate Carol Petzold, who is the current national President of the Women’s Legislative Network, described the role that women’s caucuses play in state legislatures. In some states they are formally organized and in some states they are informal and unstructured. They usually focus on issues of particular importance to women, such as children and family topics. Women’s caucuses tend to encourage collegiality and help promote women as leaders and provide mentoring for new members. They often stress skills and practices relating to running good meetings, making inclusive decisions and being bi-partisan where appropriate. Delegate Petzold thinks that women’s caucuses are most successful where they have some formal structure, meet regularly, maintain bi-partisanship, communicate clearly and avoid divisive topics, like abortion. They have to work together to have any power and earn respect. Sometimes it seems that women’s caucuses get more respect from the press and outside sources than they do from fellow legislators. Lastly, Delegate Petzold urged the women legislators present from states without a women’s caucus to form one – the camaraderie and support they will gain will make it worthwhile. |
|
Meeting Session: |
Committee Business Meeting
|
|
|
|
|
Overview & Moderator: |
Committee members discussed plans for committee sessions at the Annual Meeting 2005 and committee work products.
Presiding Officer: Chair: Senator Jeff Wentworth, Texas |
|
|
|
|
Summary: |
The committee made plans for sessions for five available time slots at the upcoming 2005 Annual Meeting. The approved sessions are:
Communicating Your Message (While preserving the Institution). This session would be a natural session to co-sponsor with the LINCS staff section and Mitch McCartney (Committee Staff Vice Chair) would be involved.
Are Legislators Understaffed? (Relationship of Legislative Power to Staffing). This session is designed to show the range of staffing practices in the legislatures and the pros and cons of different practices.
Effective Fundraising (Including Internet Fundraising) – part of the legislator training track series.
4&5. Sharpening Top-Notch Skills. This will be a “mega-session” co-sponsored with the Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee (LSCC) and will include portions on communication to a diverse audience and stress management. It is anticipated that all the staff sections will co-sponsor the event as well.
The committee also suggested that NCSL provide some computer training at annual meeting on an ongoing basis (such as a “cyber room” as used in the past) and recommended how to manage a flood of e-mail messages and how to deal with spam and viruses as good topics. The committee also supported a training program for personal staff that will take place outside the committee’s time slots.
Senator Dori Connor reported that the production is finished for the CD on “Wise Women: Sage Advice from Seasoned Lawmakers” and she passed out copies to the attendees. The committee has helped guide the entire “effective legislator” CD series and current committee Vice Chair Senator Connor was one of the participants on the “Wise Women” CD. The CD will be mailed to all women legislators and will be available, upon request, to any other legislator or staff member. |
|
Meeting Session: |
Tying It All Together: The Legislator/Citizen Connection
|
|
|
|
|
Overview & Presenters: |
Why is it so hard to bring citizens and legislators together for a meaningful dialogue? Many citizens feel out of the loop with government and legislators want to improve the connection with their constituents, but what should be done? This session explored some dynamic programs and methods to connect legislators and citizens.
Moderator: Representative Diane Winston, Louisiana
Presenters:
Senator Sheila Kiscaden, Minnesota
Cynthia Farrar, Director, Deliberative Democracy Program, Yale University, Connecticut
Karl Kurtz, Director of State Services, NCSL, Colorado |
|
|
|
|
Summary: |
Representative Diane Winston introduced the panelists and noted that legislators spend a lot of time with citizens when they are campaigning, but after the election there are challenges to keeping the connection strong. She noted the great value of supporting public dialogue and sharing legislators’ experiences. These public dialogues work best when there is deliberation, not debate, and an expert facilitator to guide the process. Legislators may use their influence to act as a convener of the discussion, but their role in the dialogue is often just to listen. Diane noted her experience as chair of the women’s caucus in Louisiana and the great response they had when they brought meetings to some smaller cities that didn’t usually get legislative attention. The people were astonished that legislators wanted to hear what they thought. She also described a practice she has of soliciting 10 people in five key topic areas. She communicates regularly during the session and they give her great feedback on the legislation being considered. The group is often a good source for finding people to testify on her own legislation.
Karl Kurtz noted that it is vitally important for legislators to communicate to the public about the institution of the legislature. It is part of the job description – legislators have an obligation to educate the citizens. It also makes life easier for legislators, as the number one legislator complaint is public cynicism and the educational approach is part of the strategy to combat that cynicism. Also, there is a particular obligation to educate young people, as we all need to contribute to their education. Karl described NCSL’s toolkit for legislators entitled: “Beyond the Election: Communicating to the Public.” The toolkit provides helpful hints about speaking to kids, speaking to adults, handling constituent communications and working with the media. Lastly, Karl described American Legislators Back to School Program, in which NCSL encourages every state legislator to take part in a school session in his or her district. NCSL has tips for legislators on what to do in their school programs and Karl noted that 2,000 legislators had talked to some 300,000 school children.
Cynthia Farrar talked about Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Deliberation Day. These are discussion groups that PBS has held on two key national challenges: improving national security and American jobs in the global economy. They have held 27 of these discussions in different parts of the country using randomly chosen audiences, a balanced and structured conversation and surveys at the end. Cynthia noted that discussions have an impact on how participants feel about themselves. The public discussion on the issue is not guided by special interests or polls. The positive impact is increased when you repeat discussions in the same location and is enhanced when there is media coverage of the proceedings. In terms of lessons to share with legislators, she mentioned:
Participants in these discussions really start to think about the trade-offs involved in making choices.
Participants have a better understanding of the complexity of issues legislators face and their reasonableness.
Legislators can play a key role in these discussions by listening and reporting back to their colleagues.
Legislators can help these groups choose future topics for discussion.
Senator Sheila Kiscaden started by describing a story involving a constituent. She had called a number to see if the person would put up a yard sign and got a man who said that he had voted only once – for former Governor Jesse Ventura. The man said “He talks like me, he looks like me – he’s not like you people.” The encounter crystallized a sense Senator Kiscaden had of some of the disconnect between citizens and legislators, the lack of trust. She decided this session to try to work with others in two areas to try to improve things. In terms of meeting with her constituents, she felt like the existing meetings were more of a presentation approach in which there was little dialogue. Meeting with people from the League of Women Voters, community colleges and other community groups, they launched a series of public forums based in part on the National Issues Forums model. In Minnesota, they have a gathering called “Coffee and Conversation” where they set a topic, have some experts give some key background information, and then they move into a series of small roundtable discussions of about 6-8 people where each table has a trained facilitator and a state legislator or local elected official. The gatherings have had over 100 attendees each time. The legislators and officials play a listening role in the discussions, but during the closing they comment on a key “take-away” thought that they have from listening to the discussions. The meeting lasts for two hours and the feedback after the first two gatherings has been very positive.
Senator Kiscaden also worked to try to improve the legislative environment itself. The recent history in Minnesota had involved a lot of polarization, and she sensed that both citizens and legislators wanted a change. Working with NCSL, the Policy Consensus Initiative and the Hubert Humphrey Institute, she launched a training effort that resulted in workshop called “Beyond Bickering and Gridlock.” Over 70 legislators from both parties came and participated in sessions designed to build both confidence and competence. The workshop helped the legislative environment and bi-partisan efforts (such as a group on health care) are continuing.
In the discussion among session attendees, certain practices were shared:
A shadow program where a legislator has a constituent follow her around all day, which she does three days a week. She has a waiting list of 60 people wanting to participate and she seeks Republicans and Democrats and a wide age range.
A shadow program where a legislator has a media person follow her on her daily meetings.
A business card that has a mini CD with key legislative information embedded.
|
|
