Dan Patrick on legislative reforms

I realize that Sen. Dan Patrick writing an article for the Texas Observer is a bit like Geneva Kirk Brooks having a byline in Playboy, but give the man his due: He raises some very good points in his piece on reforming the Legislature.

Here’s the reality: By 2040, the state’s population will double to nearly 50 million. Our budget will likely be well over $500 billion. We’ll need hundreds of miles of new roads, 40,000 or more new teachers, more nurses, more schools, more hospitals.

In legislative time, under the system of meeting every two years, 2040 is only 15 sessions away. Since both chambers spend only about two months of every session actually voting on bills, this means that we have about 30 actual months to solve the problems, and take advantage of the opportunities, of what will likely be the state with the nation’s largest population, economy and budget.

Consider a few other data points. This session’s Legislative Council—a group of 50 state-employed lawyers who write all the legislation, amendments and resolutions—logged 100,000 hours of overtime. The workload increased in some areas by more than 150 percent over just the 2005 session. The council did an outstanding job, but this insane workload created errors that gave some House members the chance to kill important legislation based on minor mistakes.

We cannot continue to operate as we have, with 140-day sessions every other year, and serve the best interests of the people. The jobs of legislators will only grow more difficult as our population grows. Already, each state Senate district is larger than a congressional district in Texas. By 2040, each House member will have nearly 250,000 constituents.

What should we do? I have several ideas. The most controversial: Make legislating a full-time job. This is not just a matter of making the House and Senate work more smoothly. Today, the people who can afford to serve are mostly lawyers and wealthy businesspeople. There is nothing wrong with these folks, but we do not have a true cross-section of the people. The average person cannot work for $600 a month and take six months off every other year from their job. I believe Texas would be better served if more citizens could run and hold office. Full-time members would need to be paid a reasonable salary, but in a state our size, that would be a small cost to do the job as it needs to be done.

I know this: When constituents call or ask to meet with me, they expect me to be in my office. They don’t want to hear that I work part-time. The truth is that many of us work full-time now, serving our districts. But not everyone can do that.

Short of a full-time Legislature, we could also consider meeting 90 days every year, so we can address issues in a more timely manner. We could spend one session only on the budget and emergency items that need action. The following year, we could focus on all other issues, along with emergency items relating to the budget.

There are good reasons to not want a full-time Legislature, but I think Sen. Patrick is correct to say that the Lege really can’t get enough accomplished in the time it has now, and this is only going to become a bigger problem over time. This is not to say that simply extending the legislative calendar will increase efficiency, but I think it’s foolish to simply say that what we’ve always had has always worked and always will. Every successful organization adapts to changing times and changing demands, and we owe it to ourselves to think about how we can have a better, more responsive Legislature. Sen. Patrick’s suggestions deserve consideration.

There are two things I’d add to this. One is that once we admit we need to pay legislators a full-time salary, we need to be grownups about the need to periodically make adjustments to those salaries. We can leave it up to them or we can create some kind of mechanism (automatic cost-of-living increases) or external body to make the decisions, but if we do leave it up to them let’s try not to get all bent out of shape when they award themselves a raise. And two, I think we really do need to think about increasing the size of the Lege over time, at least on the Senate side. If part of the problem there is as Sen. Patrick admits that they’re all on too many committees and can’t attend all of the meetings, then having more Senators seems to be an obvious answer. At the very least, I think the Senate needs to be about the same size as the Congressional delegation. It’s that way now, but after the 2011 reapportionment it’ll be as many as five members behind. I say let’s fix that now before Senate districts get any bigger.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Show Business for Ugly People and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Dan Patrick on legislative reforms

  1. el_longhorn says:

    Props to Sen. Patrick for this op-ed. I can’t see how this is good for him politically, but everything he says is absolutely true. The volume of bills during session makes it impossible for anyone to properly vet the legislation, much less debate it. I think limiting the number of bills that a member can file is a great idea, too. At least that would be a start to creating a more manageable workload.

  2. I say no, no, no, no, and a thousand times no! They do enough damage in 140 days every two years as it is, and there’s no evidence they’ll do anything more positive if they meet more often. Just meeting when they do we have more than 2,300 felonies on the books, e.g. including 11 involving oysters – how many will there be if they meet all the time? We have state agencies that build roads, hire nurses, etc.; the Legislature’s role is to authorize, not implement.

    The Lege Council problem could be solved by simply hiring more staff.

    I also think a part-time legislature gives its members much more grounding because they actually have to earn a living like the rest of us. For that reason, I wouldn’t support a full-time salary. The barrier to average people running for office is fundraising for the campaign, not folks’ ability to accept the reduced pay.

    Most critically, and this is very much a nonpartisan issue: Short sessions every two years level the playing field between public interest groups and the corporate lobby. If everybody has to be there full-time, year-round, every year, the grassroots folks can’t compete with those who have deep pockets and a permanent presence. You become California or D.C..

    As it stands, for those short two months the Lege is actually considering bills, the truth is the Texas Legislture is (IMO) the most little-d “democratic” legislative body in the country. If you show up informed, prepared and fight the good fight, you can get a seat at the table almost no matter who you are. Make the Lege permanent and only the most well-heeled special interests will get to participate.

  3. el_longhorn says:

    Good comments by Grits. I would start by amending the House rules to limit the number of bills that can be filed and see what that does.

    “The barrier to average people running for office is fundraising for the campaign, not folks’ ability to accept the reduced pay.”

    I think it is both. It is tough to raise the money to run for office, and then when you get there it is tough to balance work and legislative/political commitments. Maybe give the members a salary equivalent to the average starting salary of a teacher in Texas?

Comments are closed.