John Diaz the Chronicle’s editorial page editor has written an interesting and thoughtful column about the dysfunction in the Legislature. He accurately points out that repealing term limits, and going to majority votes for taxes will not solve anything unless other changes take place. If Legislators want to gain more public approval for their actions it will not come by giving them more power. Diaz suggests a number of common sense improvements: no ghost voting, no vote changing, no vote add-ons, let the record of votes stand; no expunging records so that actions disappear; no fundraisers during deadline weeks if for no other reason it is distracting; and not tolerating absent legislators from votes.
His suggestions are good ones. But I have more.
Bills should be in print for 72 hours before they are voted on. The worst part of legislative mindset is that the end justifies the means. If a legislator has a bill that will save the world or end the common cold, or mandate kindness it still does not justify waiving all the rules of procedure to truncate public access and review. California has survived for 159 years without it and certainly a few days delay would not hurt. When bills are introduced they are available to the public in print form by 7 AM the next morning. There is no reason they could not be posted to the web site the moment they get a number. Likewise, amendments to bills are also available in the legislative counsel computer the moment they are introduced but they routinely are not made available on the web. Insiders know how to get copies from the clerks and secretaries at the desk but that is not the same as full public access.
Committees should not be permitted to meet at the same time as session. The public, lobbyists, and reporters are forced to choose which official meeting to attend. This reduces the scrutiny of what business transpires. More and more bloggers are watching CalChannel and other web broadcasts it is important that they know when committees meet and that those committee sessions be broadcasted or webcasted.
The silly deadlines should be changed. While legislators are full time they generally meet less than 8 months of the year and again generally Monday through Thursday. Then legislators are forced to meet a series of arbitrary deadlines throughout the year that simply force hasty decisions on hundreds of bill many of which are not yet ready to go to a hearing and vote. This culminates in a rush to judgment in late August or early September where the Senate and Assembly become factories stamping out bills like an assembly line. No public purpose is served by these deadlines. No bill should be heard in committee until the author and supporters are ready. Legislators should never be asked to move along a work in progress giving up their right to vote on the bill in its final form.
Legislators should know the bills they are voting on. This one may be the hardest because there are so many bills to read but that is what the voters expect their representatives to do. They also expect independent judgment. I remember the disgust I felt overhearing a legislator show a reporter the party analysis of a bill then explain the caucus told him to vote that way. If he had just read the analysis or the bill he would have had all sorts of reasons why this was a good or a bad bill and he could have declared his own judgment on those reasons.
I really appreciate great legislative debate. Legislators who know the bill and know what they believe can be outstanding in explaining their point of view. While I share the conservative point of view I prefer a vigorous knowledgeable debate on every bill. This is what the Legislature should strive for.
His suggestions are good ones. But I have more.
Bills should be in print for 72 hours before they are voted on. The worst part of legislative mindset is that the end justifies the means. If a legislator has a bill that will save the world or end the common cold, or mandate kindness it still does not justify waiving all the rules of procedure to truncate public access and review. California has survived for 159 years without it and certainly a few days delay would not hurt. When bills are introduced they are available to the public in print form by 7 AM the next morning. There is no reason they could not be posted to the web site the moment they get a number. Likewise, amendments to bills are also available in the legislative counsel computer the moment they are introduced but they routinely are not made available on the web. Insiders know how to get copies from the clerks and secretaries at the desk but that is not the same as full public access.
Committees should not be permitted to meet at the same time as session. The public, lobbyists, and reporters are forced to choose which official meeting to attend. This reduces the scrutiny of what business transpires. More and more bloggers are watching CalChannel and other web broadcasts it is important that they know when committees meet and that those committee sessions be broadcasted or webcasted.
The silly deadlines should be changed. While legislators are full time they generally meet less than 8 months of the year and again generally Monday through Thursday. Then legislators are forced to meet a series of arbitrary deadlines throughout the year that simply force hasty decisions on hundreds of bill many of which are not yet ready to go to a hearing and vote. This culminates in a rush to judgment in late August or early September where the Senate and Assembly become factories stamping out bills like an assembly line. No public purpose is served by these deadlines. No bill should be heard in committee until the author and supporters are ready. Legislators should never be asked to move along a work in progress giving up their right to vote on the bill in its final form.
Legislators should know the bills they are voting on. This one may be the hardest because there are so many bills to read but that is what the voters expect their representatives to do. They also expect independent judgment. I remember the disgust I felt overhearing a legislator show a reporter the party analysis of a bill then explain the caucus told him to vote that way. If he had just read the analysis or the bill he would have had all sorts of reasons why this was a good or a bad bill and he could have declared his own judgment on those reasons.
I really appreciate great legislative debate. Legislators who know the bill and know what they believe can be outstanding in explaining their point of view. While I share the conservative point of view I prefer a vigorous knowledgeable debate on every bill. This is what the Legislature should strive for.