Legislative Effectiveness Committee Meeting Summaries

Meeting Session:

Overview & Presenters:

The committee discussed possible session topics for the 2001 Spring ASI meeting and potential committee work products.

Facilitator: Senator Bob Jauch, Wisconsin

Summary:

Senator Bob Jauch of Wisconsin, Chair of the Legislative Effectiveness Committee, facilitated the committee business meeting. The committee looked primarily at sessions for the Spring 2001 ASI meeting in Costa Mesa and committee work products.

For the Spring ASI meeting, the committee provided suggestions for the plenary and committee sessions. Many of the suggestions related to the recent election procedures and the need to address problems that arose. For the plenary sessions, JoAnn Hedrick suggested altering our traditional format and gathering all the participants in a "committee of the whole" to discuss the topic. We might recruit more attendees if they thought they had a voice in what we will do. Senator Jauch thought we could hold a plenary on the goodness of the institution. We should not be on the defensive when our legislatures are so good at dealing with problems and handling complex issues.

For committee sessions, members identified many aspects of election issues that could be a part of more than one committee session. Representative Doug Jones noted that people would be amazed at the great variety of voting techniques currently being used in the U.S. Rich Johnson noted that the election law discussion needs involvement with both state and local election officials to get the full perspective. The members noted that we could get vendors to do some "show and tell" on some of the best practices in the voting field. JoAnn Hedrick explained how Delaware had provided funding at the state level to modernize their voting with a "touch screen system". The committee noted that our sessions must attract legislators and use legislators as panelists who are familiar with election issues. It will also be important to connect "trust" issues in one or more of the election sessions. The committee also reiterated its desire to look at Initiatives Process Reform. Laurie Weber of Nebraska and John Olsrud of North Dakota noted some of the initiative process issues in their states involving paid circulators. Others mentioned the need to allow public input on initiatives through legislative hearings.

The committee also looked at trust and relationship building, noting that some legislatures had moved from collegiality to clusters. Campaigns are getting dirtier and the feelings are spilling over into the legislature session. Arguments on the floor are getting more personal. Senator Jauch noted that this issue breaks into two parts: trust inside the legislature (to be addressed at the Annual Meeting) and legislatures efforts to build public trust (to be addressed at the Spring ASI). The California Spring ASI session has to connect voters and the public trust in a way that will attract legislators to the session. We were urged to use case studies in the presentation, looking at both good and bad examples.

On work products the committee reiterated its desire to work on the following work products:

• Survey of Legislator web sites
• Article on institutional memory
• Article on pride in legislative service
• Survey of member training and orientation practices
• New tape for audiotape series (current tapes address media relations, working with the budget, legislative prowess, chairing committees, building consensus and serving constituents). Two suggestions for the next audiotape were the theme of institutional memory and the role and use of legislative staff.

Meeting Session:

Overview & Presenters:

This session described legislative use of Internet web sites, e-mail, web streaming and computer conferencing.

Moderator: Senator Bob Jauch, Wisconsin

Speakers: Senator Steve Kelley, Minnesota
Butch Speer, Clerk of the House, Louisiana
Evan Goldberg, Chief of Staff to Senator Bowen, California
Chuck Finn, Professor, Empire State College, New York

Summary:

Senator Bob Jauch introduced the panel and noted the increased expectations on legislators regarding e-mail and web sites. He noted that one California legislator gets up to 400 e-mails a day. This has opened a challenge to legislators, but it will be an opportunity to help the people become more knowledgeable about the process.

Evan Goldberg subbed for his boss, Senator Debra Bowen, who is dealing with California's energy crisis. He suggested the "mom" test for setting up your web site. Your mom ought to be able to access and use your web site. It can be sophisticated but it has to be easy to use. Also you should view your web page as a portal, as many people will use you as their only entry into government. You should provide links to local government and state agencies. He also talked about automatic response messages and the need to remember that you will receive multiple e-mails from individual constituents. Finally, you've got to keep your page up to date or all of the information will lose credibility.

Senator Kelley talked about the variety of tools available to legislators, with the cost of those tools going down and the quality going up. He particularly noted desktop publishing, with the ease of doing quality newsletters and reports. He mentioned that legislatures could use streaming video on the Internet in a way that makes the session interactive and could provide greater explanation and context. Regarding web sites, he noted the value of using humor and the need to write for a younger, more sophisticated audience.

Butch Speer described the Louisiana House experience with purchasing laptops for all the members. From the beginning, members were given as broad an application as possible, including access to e-mail and the Internet. In terms of the impact of laptops on deliberation, Butch said that you've got to look at the culture of your legislative body. The Louisiana House is a hectic, raucous body, so there was no worry about limiting e-mail and Internet access on the floor. As to the issue of who has the wealth to buy computers and gain greater access to legislative activities, Butch thinks that any step to open the process up to the next citizen is a step in the right direction.

Professor Finn described a number of cautions and concerns about information technology and its impact on the legislature. The improvements in technology may cause more meetings to be held with videoconferencing, but much is lost when you're not in the room. Technology may increase the power of the executive branch, at the expense of the legislature. The current technology is fragile, often failing on its own or through human error. E-mail and its relative anonymity may result in increased mean-spiritedness in discourse. We can reach more people, but for what purpose? Legislatures are not in a position to compete with Hollywood in terms of production. He stressed the legislatures are very different from business and that they have to concentrate on answering certain key questions:

• What are our values?
• How does technology serve those values?
• Are we clear about the differences between business and governance?
• How do we level the playing field so that we don't have a digital divide based on class?

Meeting Session:

Overview & Presenters:

This session provided tips on how legislatures can use audit, program evaluation, rules review, appropriations and other processes of legislative oversight to make sure that legislative intent is followed.

Moderator: Richard Johnson, Deputy Director, Legislative Service Bureau, Iowa

Presenters: Senator Jim Costa, California
Representative Libby Jacobs, Iowa
John Turcotte, Director, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), Florida

Summary:

Richard Johnson introduced the panelists and described the importance for legislatures to use expenditure review, program evaluation and rules review to ensure that legislative policy decisions are being followed. Senator Jim Costa continued on the theme of the critical importance of legislative oversight. Legislators often look to policy making, constituent relations and budget decisions as being the critical areas of their work, but oversight is highly important to making the legislature a co-equal branch of government. Senator Costa explained that he thinks we don't typically do the oversight well. This work is labor intensive and time intensive, and it takes a dedicated legislator to do it properly. We tend to emphasize oversight only when there is a major crisis or a legislator has a deep interest in a particular area. Also, there is often a disconnect between establishing a policy and providing the fiscal resources necessary to implement that policy. Although not fashionable, oversight work can be rewarding when you do it well. Perhaps one greatest need is to stress this in new member orientation so that legislators will understand its true importance from the start.

John Turcotte started by noting that there are many routes to legislative oversight. Individual legislators get involved through casework, chambers have their substantive and fiscal committees and legislatures have joint committees and agencies. These various bodies and agencies can use traditional financial audits, program evaluations, information system reviews, investigations, best practice reviews and sunset reviews. The key is having a wide array of options available to the legislature. Although full-blown investigations are seldom used, having that authority makes all the other different options much more credible. John noted the trend for program evaluators to respond faster, provide briefer reports and generally act more in a consultative role than they have in the past. Also important is for auditors and program evaluators to get the full backing of leadership and to have active and engaged legislators on the oversight committee.

Representative Jacobs described the oversight in Iowa as a "work in progress". They do some things well, but there is no unified, well thought-out plan for oversight activities. They do end up relying to a great extent on legislative staff and the executive branch. Iowa is a part-time legislature with no personal staff so legislators tend to be reactive in nature. Representative Jacobs described some of her work as chair of a new oversight committee. Their emphasis quickly became technology as they helped Iowa do Y2K preparations. They were able to work well as a committee in a way that crossed both party and house lines. They brought in consultants and used some business practices that helped as well. Also their process was inclusive, literally bringing everyone to the table, that got the most out of all the talent available. She urged legislators to look at technology as an important oversight area because it improves your ability to move your resources where you really need them. She also had a "selling point" on the importance of oversight work-constituents demand accountability, and oversight work ensures accountability. She ended by describing the need to connect leaders to the importance of oversight work, saying it should always be on the agenda for emerging leaders' training.

Rich Johnson traced the history of administrative rules review and noted that oversight in this area usually follows one of the following approaches:

• Override rule by legislative statute
• Legislative veto by resolution
• Period of review by committee with rule held in abeyance
• Delay effective date of rule until legislative committee's differences are worked out
• Authority to object to a rule (switches burden to agency to prove it is valid)

Meeting Session:

Overview & Presenters:

This session examined the academic and legislative research and observation about the actual effects of term limits on legislatures.

Moderator: Representative Doug Jones, Idaho

Speakers: Jennie Drage, Policy Specialist, NCSL
Gary Moncrief, Professor, Boise State University
Senator Charles Horn, Ohio

Summary:

Representative Doug Jones described the importance of getting a wide variety of input and feedback on actual legislative experience with term limits, and he introduced the members of the panel. Dr. Gary Moncrief started by reminding the audience that the 19 states with term limits have some differences that are very critical. Some restrictions are shorter or longer, are constituted as one house or legislative restrictions, and are lifetime bans or "sit out" requirements. Also the states vary on how much of the term limits effect has occurred. However, Gary's research (with Joel Thompson in North Carolina) has been illustrative, questioning a random sample of lobbyists in five term-limited states. These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine and Michigan. In the area of lobbyist perceptions of the effect of term limits on state legislative operations and procedures, there were fewer changes than expected. The lobbyists did perceive that term-limited legislators are less knowledgeable about statewide issues and how the legislature operates, but they saw no significant changes on things like time spent on casework or likelihood to offer amendments. Gary did find significant responses around the issues of perceptions in the change in influence structure after term limits, with lobbyists sensing that the relative influence of the governor, administrative agencies, nonpartisan and caucus staff and internal groups have all increased. The lobbyists also believed that a different kind of person is running for the legislature: more ideological and more partisan. Campaigns and candidate recruitment have also changed. Finally, the lobbyists relationship with legislators has changed, with lobbyists spending more time communicating with legislators, building coalitions and just "getting the job done". Gary reiterated that these general findings vary by state and states would do well to look at other states that are similar to them in terms of restrictions and part-time or full-time status.

Jennie Drage described NCSL's efforts in the term limits area and noted that we have had actual effect in 11 of the 19 term-limited states. She emphasized that it is not just the effects of members who are term out, but the impact on legislative leadership. In 2000, seven Senate Presidents, 10 House Speakers and 21 Majority or Minority Leaders were termed out. NCSL is acting to help the term-limited legislatures prepare for the changes and maintain their effectiveness in a new environment. Interviews, round table discussions, data collection, an online survey, testimony and technical assistance are all part of this effort. In terms of impact, she noted the increase in ideological, single issue proponents, the greater pressure to move from House to Senate, the pressure to leave for other jobs and some increase in the number of women legislators. Legislative operations have been impacted-efficiency has been lost due to inexperience and a lack of understanding of the process. New members are less deferential and have a greater sense of urgency. There is a greater turnover in and more challenges to leadership. The jockeying for leadership starts when a new term-limited class comes to a legislative body. Others are gaining power at the legislature's expense. Legislatures are responding to this term limits challenge with increased training for members and staff, improved communication and technology, and enhanced candidate recruitment.

Senator Chuck Horn described the Ohio experience. There, 75% of the people approve of term limits. A number of term-limited House members ran for the Senate, and almost all of the new senators are former House members. The impact of term limits will be felt more strongly in Ohio's House. They have also experienced legislators being more likely to leave for executive agency positions. This means a greater likelihood that legislators will curry favor with the governor. Also, House leadership will likely be very inexperienced. Senator Horn also noted differences in campaigns and in floor activity. The legislature is responding with a much greater emphasis on training, including a recent six-day House retreat. The training is broadening to look at "big picture" themes like history and economics and involves the help of veteran legislators. It also includes spouse training and ethics. Senator Horn contacted his colleagues about this topic and they generally felt that the limits should have been longer. However they did see positive aspects of term limits like greater diversity and new ideas and energy. In closing, he urged legislators to look honestly at what is behind citizen distrust as expressed through term limits. Also, states can make adjustments, use technology and increase communication with citizens to remain efficient and regain the public trust.