Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, Dec. 4, 2011 | 2 a.m.
Besides turning too many left-wingers into authoritative constitutional experts and serially obnoxious Cassandras, a conservative think tank’s lawsuit to clarify the separation-of-powers clause might actually have one salutary effect: Spark a real debate about curing the disease known as the Nevada Legislature.
Even if you disagree with the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s attempt to excise executive branch employees from the capital Legislative Building, no one who has been around that alleged process, save some lobbyists and lawmakers who have profited from it, would not argue it is a sick institution. And no one can possibly believe the only infirmity is computer technicians from the Public Utilities Commission (state Sen. Mo Denis) being lawmakers, although NPRI is right to raise the serious legal question of separated powers. (See my Friday column.)
But the worst and most debilitating feature of the Legislature is that it is part-time, so conflicts, whether with public or private sector employment, are guaranteed. Critics often miss just how cancerous this can be to public policymaking, not just because lawmakers have to serve two masters but because lobbyists exploit the conflicts to skew votes or sully recalcitrant lawmakers in the media.
Thus are laws written that favor not the common interest but the interests of governments or corporations, unreasonably polluted by lawmakers who are either blinded by their conflicting loyalties or all too willing to serve their nonlegislative masters.
So, yes, let’s get rid of public employees in the Legislature. And make no mistake: Local government workers have much more relevant conflicts than any of the executive branch-types NPRI wants to jettison. The scandals have been legion over the years, both public and private, of city and county employees who came to the capital and acted as lobbyists for their governments and often were paid, or took sick leave, to do so. But, so, too, are there myriad examples of influential lawmakers who worked for law firms or were on company boards or toiled in certain professions that clearly influenced how they legislated.
One friend of mine chafes about the biennial prattling by lawmakers, who declare on the floor that they have no conflict because they are affected no differently than anyone else in their profession. But the point is: They are affected. And legislators should have fealty to one thing and that alone: legislating.
So what to do?
Here’s my modest proposal, which is likely to go about as far as Swift’s and might be harder to sell to the public than devouring their young:
• Full time means no conflicts: It is impossible — yes, impossible — for a Henderson employee to ignore the interests of that government if he serves in the Legislative Building. So, too, for an employee of McDonald Carano, which has several lobbyists, to be oblivious to the multifarious interests of the law firm. The former may be illegal, but both are insidious. So instead of paying lawmakers low five figures, let’s pay them low six figures and make them full-time. Give them well-paid staff, too. The result: A better talent pool and, I’d argue, better laws. A citizen Legislature meeting every other year was quaint once; now it’s just anachronistic and ineffectual.
• Sunshine on lobbyists: The argument against full-time lawmakers is not just that they get insulated from the regular folks, but that they are even more susceptible to influence from well-connected lobbyists and their clients. So change the rules: Lobbyists must disclose any expenses on lawmakers and legislators must be banned from accepting only the most prosaic gifts from the paid advocates. Lobbyists would not just have to register for all clients but have to report all contacts with lawmakers.
• A different kind of transparency: This part is critical. All campaign contributions must be reported within 72 hours on the Internet. As I have said ad nauseam, there is literally no good reason why this doesn’t make sense. Please don’t tell me it’s tough to connect to the Web in Winnemucca. This would prevent much real and perceived corruption.
For those who believe absolute enforcement of the separation-of-powers clause will disturb the legislative playing field, get behind this proposal. For those of you in the private sector who want to serve but don’t want the hassle, get behind this proposal.
It doesn’t help Republicans. It doesn’t help Democrats. It just helps.
Anything else, including the results of the NPRI suit, would do what a neutered and conflicted Legislature does nearly every session: Apply a bandage to a catastrophic illness.
Alas, the largest impediment to this idea is not special interests, who will always have influence, but the Gang of 63, which would have to pass these measures. Legislators heal themselves? Not likely.
Perhaps I need to rethink my visceral antipathy to the initiative process.
Add a five year "cooling off" period from legislative service to paid lobbying and you have the full initiative.
And Rick Perry wants to make Congress part-time.
Power should be temporary and not full time. Otherwise we will end up with 63 people trying to interfere in the lives of people on a full time basis instead of only 4 months every two years. Think of how much farther they could run the state into the ground on a full time basis. We already have 535 people working to interfere with the people of the nation and the result is a 16% real unemployment number and it's higher here (the real number is closer to 25%). Although Carson city would have a permanent population increase of lawmakers and 25 lobbyists for every lawmaker, somehow I think they might feel they can do with out the interference.
The problem is that the two full-time legislatures which I have watched in my life, up close, New York and California, are filled with profoundly corrupt legislators, even though they are paid more than the average person. A full time legislature is not in and of itself a panacea, because even though well paid the type of person the full time legislatures attract are those who want more, and more and more.
Another issue that should have been raised in this discussion is that by having a very part-time legislature, too much power is retained by the executive branch. We all saw how damaging that can be during the Gibbons administration.
A legislature that meets every year, for a specific amount of days, would be helpful. It would also eliminate the mad rush that occurs at the end of each legislative session to get bills passed. Often, those bills aren't well thought out and have unintended consequences.
I would like to see a clean slate rule. I propose every 24 years or so that no incumbent is eligible to run. They should take a one cycle time out and the slate should be wiped clean of all incumbents every 24 years. Just like the president.
I say we clean the slate 4 times a century and we would have a chance of undoing the promises they made to themselves.
Jon, in the most respectful way, "HAVE YOU FLIPPED YOUR LID???" A full time legislature?! My goodness, you are promoting not only more expenditures for salaries of politicians who already make exorbitant pay, you are also expanding the role of government in our lives. That is the last thing that we need. Plus, it makes no difference whether these elected party line misfits meet part-time, or full-time. There is going to be gridlock.
How about using your influence from your television show and your political columns to expose independent candidates who do not have the political backing and funding to run for an elected office?
A good example of an independent candidate would be a successful and responsible middle-class housewife and mother. Now, she knows how to formulate a budget. She knows how to live within the financial means of the family with a low debt ratio, and a high credit score. She also knows when financial cuts have to be made, and where the most appropriate areas are in effectuating these cuts. For example, no more going out to dinner. Reduction of, or elimination of, new clothes expenditures, vacations, etc.. This housewife, and candidate, would surely not cancel the families health insurance plan. You see, Jon, she knows. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to run this state's finances effectively, reasonably, and fairly. It just takes someone who cares and has common sense.
Another good example is an independent candidate who is retired, but was once a successful small business owner. Nothing like having this individual to negotiate union contracts with state employees and private contractors, is there?
How about construction workers, plumbers, and electricians as candidates? Don't they know all about the costs along with fixing and maintaining our infrastructure?
Jon, the list goes on and on of highly qualified independent citizens to run this state, and yes, on a part-time basis. But, they do not have an opportunity to do so. Why? Because the establishment restricts the least powerful in attaining these elected offices.
I would have hoped that a man of your integrity and intelligence would not have stooped to supporting bigger government and larger expenditures with less progress.
I ask of you, change your course, and start supporting the good people of Nevada and their simple family interests in such a way that our state governing bodies are not only obligated, but successful, in providing each of us with the opportunities of living a decent life here in Nevada. Sincerely, Brad Chapline
Mr Ralston has flipped his wig. Most people would agree that we are not getting our moneys worth. At part time we are probably only getting 1 min of work out of every ten. Making them full time employee's won't change that. What we need is smaller more efficient government. SMALLER.....You can't make this situation better by making it bigger. There are full time legislatures out there and those states are not doing any better.
I disagree with the idea of a full time legislature, an i especially disagree with 6 figure salaries for them. I suggest the opposite. Let me use an example. The elected school board members make about 2500 a year. I suggest the same for all public office. If anyone is in it for the money, they need not apply!
States with full time legislaters:
California Michigan New York Pennsylvania Illinois Florida Ohio Massachusetts New Jersey Wisconsin.
These states are always in the news for how unhappy and corrupted their legislatures are. The people in these states are very unhappy with the way they are being run. These are the states that are considered full-time.
Mr. Ralston just wants a liberal idea of a government. If you notice they are also very liberal states and by far the most financialy unstable.
With all due respect, whatever happened to our government that is by the People, and for the People? Where are the everyday, little guy citizens in our government? Has our society discounted these mundane, hard working, in the trenches citizens in lieu for high society snobs who crave absolute power and control over the too weak to resist citizen?
As others have mentioned, there are numerous examples of states with full-time legislatures that yield equally disasterous results. We need political reform in the shape of dissolving the archiac 2-party system and electoral college, and the bringing in of everyday citizens (just as in a court of law jury of peers).
I agree with the requirement of making lawmakers more transparent in their reporting lobbyists' political contact, contributions, and support. Voters can vote more intelligently when the truthful information is out there about these politicians. Otherwise, voters are shooting themselves in the feet during elections.
The rights of American citizens have been trampled upon by the very government that has been sworned to "protect and serve" them. We desparately need the everyday citizen involved in governance to make it functional, representing the will of the People and making government work. That would be a refreshing and welcomed reform!
Blessings and Peace,
Star