(C) Minnesota Reformer This story was originally published by Minnesota Reformer and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Good governance is not a part-time job • Minnesota Reformer [1] ['Eric Harris Bernstein', 'Kelly Mcconney Moore', 'Aaron Brown', 'Marshall H. Tanick', 'More From Author', 'May', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline'] Date: 2024-05-31 The Minnesota Legislature’s 2024 session ended in chaos. Over a cacophony of objections from Republicans in both chambers, and with just minutes to spare before the 11:59 p.m. May 19 deadline, the DFL majority rammed through a 1,430 page mega-omnibus that combined nine committee reports into one massive bill. Despite exaggerated cries of democratic decline, the 11th hour strategy is nothing new: GOP social media accounts were prepared with past quotes from Democrats, denouncing similar last-minute tactics when they were used by Republicans in 2018. Although intended as a gotcha, the alleged hypocrisy only proves the problem is bigger than either party: The 5-month legislative session (even fewer in a non-budget year) is simply not enough time to complete the legal business of the state. Furthermore, the part-time status of legislators limits their capacity to oversee policy implementation and opens up a wealth of potential conflicts of interest. When we talk about funding government, our minds go to the classrooms, hospitals and roads that comprise our basic public infrastructure. But recent events remind us of the importance of the system responsible for overseeing those systems. Here are three reasons why Minnesota should commit to a full-time Legislature. State governance is a big job. Minnesota, like most states in the U.S., is the size of a substantial country, with an economy that would rank among the 50 largest in the world and a population roughly equal to Norway or Finland. Although state legislators share power with federal and local authorities, the most intensive governing, administration and finance happens at the state level. Here’s a brief list of the state’s key responsibilities: Overseeing these complex systems is full-time work. But right now, legislators are given just a narrow window of time in which to meet. This contributes to the sort of backlog that resulted in last week’s frenzied end of session, but more importantly it limits the capacity of legislators to act as effective liaisons to their communities and expert stewards for the public good. Despite the folksy appeal of citizen legislators clocking into the Capitol for a few months before returning to the office, hospital or classroom, the reality is that becoming an expert in any one policy area takes years of effort and experience. The 3- or 5-month session is barely enough time to assemble, consider and pass a slate of reforms, let alone follow up on how past policies are being implemented, connect with constituents, or plan for the long-term. This lack of capacity not only stymies legislative effectiveness, it is a major threat to the public interest. Legislators should work for us (and only us). In his 2019 book “State Capture,” University of Columbia political scientist Alex Hertel-Fernandez describes the rise of the American Legislative Exchange Council — a corporate-backed conservative network dedicated to disseminating conservative policies across state governments. The book argues convincingly that ALEC’s success was driven largely by the limited capacity and expertise of state legislators. Rather than come up with their own ideas, under-resourced and time-strapped legislators jumped at the offer of ready-made legislation that would help demonstrate their effectiveness in office. And while ALEC focuses on conservative legislators, it is no secret that lobbyists representing interest groups on both sides of the aisle are perhaps the most common source of ideas and expertise in St. Paul. The influence of unelected actors poses a substantial threat to democracy, and these conflicts are greatly intensified by the economic reality of serving as a state legislator. At around $50,000 per year plus expenses, the salary of a Minnesota legislator is roughly equal to Minnesota’s per capita median income, which is not commensurate with the skill, experience, and effort required to do the job effectively. During session, legislators work far more than a conventional full-time job, while outside of sessions they still carry many year-round responsibilities, including constituent services and prep for the next session. And that’s to say nothing of the uncompensated effort and expense of running for re-election. On a per-hour basis, legislators earn less than many of their constituents in retail and restaurants, and considerably less than business owners and lobbyists who seek to influence them. This is a problem for the recruitment and retention of hard-working legislators without independent wealth. The result is a Legislature slanted towards older and wealthier lawmakers who have more time and personal resources to devote to the work. Less affluent legislators (more often people of color) hold multiple jobs and are resultantly more likely to burn out, leading to higher turnover and less effective representation. Putting aside the personal burden on legislators, the necessity of additional employment creates substantial risk for conflicts of interest. Whether working in private business or public service, personal dependence naturally skews the priorities of politicians who should ideally remain impartial. Legislators will never be without the biases created from personal experience, but ensuring economic independence would at least mitigate these dynamics. Paying legislators a full-time salary would increase the time they have to put towards their work, and would greatly reduce employer-based conflicts of interest. Granting them more time to work would slow the reckless pace of each session and make it more tolerable for electeds and their staff. Ultimately, this would help ensure that policies are made in the best interests of all Minnesotans. A more responsive, effective state government. As the primary feedback mechanism for state policy, and the one most accountable to each individual voter, the Legislature is like Minnesota’s political nervous system, receiving feedback from communities across the state and relaying the necessary messages to implementing agencies. The stronger the Legislature, the more effective our policies will become and the more they will reflect legislative intent and the desires of voters. Right now, the Legislature passes laws and executive agencies are left largely to their own devices to put them into action. This creates an imbalance between branches of government and leaves a gap in oversight. Last fall, for example, federal EPA inspectors found dangerous emissions and insufficient pollution control at the Smith Foundry in the East Phillips neighborhood of south Minneapolis. How could the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual operating budget, fail at such a basic function of its mission? State legislators are the natural investigators in such instances, and many of them stepped up in outrage. But limited capacity curtails their ability to remain engaged year round. Probably the most common argument against a full-time Legislature is the additional cost. But if your goal is to limit the size of government, then the state Legislature would be a very silly place to skimp. At $120 million per year — or about 0.3% of the general fund — the Legislature’s budget is small relative to its influence. Put another way: If we are going to spend tens of billions on public programs, it would stand to reason that we should spend tens of millions to ensure those expenditures are accountable to the people of Minnesota. A bipartisan idea? Happily, Minnesota is already committed to a strong legislative branch: We rank in the top half of states in terms of legislative professionalization according to University of Missouri’s Squire Index and we invest in substantial government accountability infrastructure, including the Office of the Legislative Auditor, regular legislative commissions, and other executive offices devoted to results management. The OLA completes comprehensive studies of government programs and have been key contributors in the ongoing Funding Our Future fraud case. Creating a more full-time Legislature would take us further towards the bipartisan goal of government accountability but would require a constitutional amendment. The measure to put the requisite referendum on the ballot did not materialize this year, despite the efforts of House Majority Leader Jamie Long, who told me via email: “The current legislative schedule makes it very difficult to recruit and retain legislators from diverse backgrounds and experiences. The constitutional amendment I proposed would give future legislatures the flexibility to set their own schedule, without the constraints put in place in the 1880s that don’t align well with the modern needs of a legislature.” Although the idea of a full-time Legislature is more usually associated with left-of-center politics, there is at least one Minnesota Republican who is sympathetic to the idea. Rep. Walter Hudson, R-Albertville, doesn’t support Long’s current proposal but shared his general interest via direct message: ”Serving in the Legislature requires sacrifice from anyone with a moderately successful private sector career…I would like to see thoughtful reform to legislative compensation and interim expectation, which acknowledges the full-time commitment that serving in the Legislature requires.” For supporters and skeptics alike, there’s value in doing the job of state government right. [END] --- [1] Url: https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/05/31/good-governance-is-not-a-part-time-job/ Published and (C) by Minnesota Reformer Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/MnReformer/