December 1999 State Legislatures magazine: Reducing Rancor in Michigan partisan squabbling

State Legislatures Magazine: December 1999

Editor's Note: This article appeared in the December 1999 issue of NCSL's magazine, State Legislatures. To order copies or to subscribe, contact the marketing department at (303) 364-7700.

Reducing Rancor in Michigan

As Different As ...
A New Era of Incivility?
Only One More Year
Michigan's Not Alone

NCSL Studies the Effects of Term Limits

Missouri Creates a Joint Committee on Legislative Term Limits

Reducing Rancor in Michigan

Geniality, bonhomie, civility-they're gone from the Michigan House. Some blame it on term limits.

By Dawson Bell
Maybe next time they should try a toga party. With lots of beer. Clearly, breaking bread together-as Michigan's Speaker of the House Chuck Perricone and one of his Democratic colleagues, Detroiter Keith Stallworth, tried with a fall session opening barbecue-isn't getting the job done.

"The job" being a thaw in relations between the warring factions of the Michigan House of Representatives in the chamber's first PTL (post-term limits) session. Instead of warming, the barbecue brought on yet another chilly exchange of barbs between Perricone and his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Michael Hanley.

Many of the expected pitfalls of term limits-control shifting to lobbyists and bureaucrats, embarrassing attempts to enact the failed miracle cures of the past for intractable problems-have not materialized, but Michigan has been beset with one new and potentially serious obstacle.

These guys don't like each other. And the animus isn't confined to the top. Personal relations across and within the parties in the Michigan House are at their lowest ebb in memory. With at most six years to make an impact, there appears to be not enough time to make friends.

Except for Stallworth and a handful of other Detroit Democrats, the September picnic on the Capitol lawn was a markedly Republican event. Hanley let it be known that such occasions should be co-hosted by leadership (instead of a junior and iconoclastic member like Stallworth). He showed up for a few minutes, but disappeared before the serious pig eating got under way. Perricone suggested that Hanley had instructed other Democrats and staff to boycott the affair.

Trivial stuff. But pretty typical of the snarling that has been going on across the aisle virtually nonstop since January. About the agenda (controlled, in Michigan, entirely by Republicans). About the process (GOP bills on fast, sometimes frantic, track; Dems left without committee hearings). About the hours (the Michigan House set a record for post-midnight lawmaking in the first six months of the year).

AS DIFFERENT AS ...
Without question, Perricone and Hanley are very different personalities. Perricone is definitely a Type A. He had a plan for leading the first term-limited Michigan House before most of Michigan knew there would be one. Hanley, a former local union officer, is more laid back. His ascension was more in keeping with the anointment style of Michigan Democrats, all of whom were bitterly disappointed when they lost their House majority in the 1998 elections.

The war began in the first week of session, when the Perricone-led House responded within days to Republican Governor John Engler's call for an income tax rate cut. The Democrats decried it as a sop to the rich; they were ignored. It continued with a controversial, and for Democrats divisive, initiative to transfer control of the Detroit schools to the city's mayor. Hanley and Perricone warred throughout. During the school takeover debate, Perricone sidestepped Hanley altogether, opting instead to negotiate with Democratic Floor Leader Kwame Kilpatrick.

By the time lawmakers left town for summer recess, it wasn't possible to say that the two House leaders had a bad relationship; they had no relationship. To most of Michigan, this situation hardly mattered. They liked (or didn't) what the Legislature was doing, and didn't know or care how legislators were getting along.

A NEW ERA OF INCIVILITY?
Trying to determine whether Michigan or any other state has entered into a new era of incivility is guesswork. Lansing's Craig Ruff, a public policy consultant who has worked in and for state governments for 30 years, is not convinced.

"Those of us who watch it closely would like it to be conflict-free. It's human nature to want people to get along," Ruff said.

"There does seem to be unprecedented tension in [Michigan's] leadership," he said. "But remember, in the 19th century it wasn't uncommon for brawls to break out on the floor. We've had fistfights in the last 20 years."

But Paul Hillegonds, the last Republican House speaker before Perricone (1993-96), said he is worried. Not surprised, but worried.

"There is a sense of urgency that comes with term limits," he said.

"Everyone is trying to rush through their goals. You have to step on toes. You don't have time to worry about long-term relations."

That's true within the caucuses as well as across party lines, Hillegonds said.

"Caucus leaders don't have time to build long-term relations with their own members. The tendency is to rally the troops for battle with the other side."

Hillegonds said the detrimental effect on the commonweal may not be immediate or dramatic. But it will come.

"In the end, in order to build consensus, to make the necessary compromises to resolve serious problems, people have to trust each other," he said.

"Rancor breaks the bonds of trust."

ONLY ONE MORE YEAR

In the meantime, the troops recognize they are being led by lame ducks. Both Hanley and Perricone are through in 2000. And though both are respected within the ranks, the fact that neither will be in a position to punish disloyalty 18 months from now is not lost on would-be heirs.

In the first six months of 1999, Perricone's relations with his second in command, Floor Leader Andrew Raczkowski, have been strained. And after the rancorous Detroit school debate, some Democrats openly discussed the question of whether their caucus might be well served by a change in leadership mid-term.

None of the principals is ready to concede that the situation is critical, or that it was brought on by the conditions created by Michigan's term limits (six years for House members; eight in the Senate). Hanley said none of his differences with Perricone are personal.

"We have a professional relationship; we don't have a personal relationship," he said. He admits that their professional relationship has been characterized by enmity, but "I don't think it's a product of term limits."

"Generally, there has been less civility throughout the institution," Hanley said.

Republican Floor Leader Raczkowski said the Michigan House has been plagued with "personality problems," but doesn't blame them on term limits.

"We've had some breakdowns on process and strategy. You can blame that on term limits," he said.

"But there isn't any problem legislatively. We're getting the job done."

Perricone said the House has suffered from an "excess of partisanship" in 1999. But he believes it can be attributed more to the high stakes 2000 election, in which Democrats must regain control of the House to have a say in reapportionment, than to term limits or his relations with Hanley.

Michigan lawmakers may be less chummy than in the past, Perricone said, but "with or without term limits, parties have to choose to get along. We're doing the best we can."

Alan Rosenthal of Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute of Politics said growing incivility may reflect the national political climate as much or more than it does the short-term impact of term limits. For at least the last decade, he said, legislators generally have spent less time with one another socially. In part, he said, because they have been hammered so often by the media and demagogues within the ranks for associating with lobbyists who arrange or pay for the socializing.

"A climate of distrust makes it hard to legislate," Rosenthal said. "They don't have to like one another. But if you can't trust the other side to make a deal it is very hard to get things done."

MICHIGAN'S NOT ALONE
Around the country in other newly term-limited chambers, there have been similar, if less severe, breakdowns in collegiality. In Oregon, the new speaker of the House initially rewarded the outgoing (but not yet term-limited) former speaker with plum committee assignments.

A few months into the term, she stripped them away after deciding that "he was undercutting her,'' said Oregon lobbyist Larry Campbell, a 16-year legislator and former speaker himself.

Oregon Democrats cancelled a leadership election when they couldn't come up with consensus candidates.

"It's very difficult for leadership to exercise any control," Campbell said. "Everybody is running off in 15 different directions."

Whatever the extent of the problem, there seems to be even less notion of what to do about it.

Former speakers Campbell, a supporter of term limits, and Hillegonds, an opponent, both said six years is too short. But both also suggested that there is little likelihood that voters in either state could be convinced to expand the limits any time soon.

Hillegonds said he has urged Michigan legislators to make "relationship building" a regular part of the legislative calendar.

Michigan Representative Joe Rivet, a freshman Democrat, agreed that the hectic pace of lawmaking early this year made it difficult to regard his colleagues as something other than the enemy.

"We didn't have any personal relationships. That first vote on the income tax...I didn't like that, so I didn't like them," he said.

Of course, the contrarian view of the entire situation might be that it is self-correcting. The Perricone-Hanley feud at the Michigan Capitol will be history in a little over a year, because they won't be at the Capitol.

But clearly, it's going to take more than a barbecue.

Dawson Bell covers the Michigan Legislature for the Detroit Free Press.

NCSL Studies the Effects of Term Limits

The National Conference of State Legislatures staff is currently conducting a study to identify the effects of term limits on state legislatures. This study, requested by the NCSL Executive Committee, will examine how term limits affect:

The composition of state legislatures.
Legislative operations.
The role and power of legislative leaders.
Public policy crafted by state legislatures.
The strength of the legislative institution.

In addition to identifying the impacts of term limits on state legislatures, NCSL plans to spotlight actions legislatures can take to deal with them.

The NCSL study team has started to conduct interviews with legislators, staff and other observers and is gathering and documenting information in selected states. The states that are already losing members because of term limits are being studied first-Colorado, Maine, Michigan and Oregon. Studies are also starting to take place in Arkansas, California and Ohio. A report summarizing the study team's preliminary findings was presented to the NCSL Executive Committee in July. A more detailed report will be presented at the Executive Committee's meeting in January.

Preliminary findings identified by the study team are that:

There has been limited change in the composition of legislatures, although observers report an influx of more ideological, single-issue members. There is pressure on legislators to run for other offices and to leave the legislature for other jobs. A number of House members have moved to the Senate, and a few senators have moved to the House.
Governors are stronger, and legislative leaders are weaker. Governors have the benefit of experience and access to long-tenured staff in the executive branch. The increased turnover among leaders and the steep learning curve that goes with being a new legislative leader have combined to make them less powerful. In addition, more members are jockeying for leadership positions in their first terms and are more willing to challenge incumbent leaders.
Newly elected members come to the legislature with a sense of urgency. They know they have a short tenure and want to get their ideas adopted quickly. They are less deferential to the more experienced members than in the past and are more aggressive in pursuing their agendas.
The influence of lobbyists is mixed. They can exert greater influence because of the institutional knowledge they possess, but they lose the personal relationships they had with the members who are termed out.
Senates have more experienced members as term limited House members move to the Senate. Legislators and other observers in the states predict that the senates will continue to have more experienced members and, as a result, will be able to exert greater influence over the houses.

-Rich Jones, NCSL

Missouri Creates a Joint Committee
on Legislative Term Limits

The Missouri General Assembly created a Joint Committee on Legislative Term Limits during the last session to study the effects of term limits and make recommendations on how best to prepare for them.

The areas to be studied include the effects of term limits on the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, the influence exerted by state government employees and lobbyists, and public policy issues facing urban, suburban and rural areas.

"Whether you like them or hate them, term limits are going to have an enormous impact on state government," said Representative Ted Farnen, the committee's co-chair. Rather than focus on repealing them, Farnen said he wants to examine ways to make the changeover smoother.

The committee will report its recommendations to the General Assembly by Jan. 1, 2000.

Visitor counts for this page.