The Thicket at State Legislatures

"A Symptom of True Political Illness"

by Karl Kurtz

Lee Hamilton, the former member of Congress who directs the Center on Congress at Indiana University, has a hard-hitting new commentary, "A Disastrous Budget Process" in which he takes Congress to task for its ongoing failure to complete the appropriations process.  Among other things, he says:

Congress has lost the institutional ability to follow an orderly budget process. As a result it has undermined its own committees, shunted most of its members to the policy sidelines, failed to maintain the constitutional balance of powers, condemned the people who administer federal programs to season after season of uncertainty, and eroded the consensus–building, transparency, and accountability that keep our democracy vital....

There is a simple solution to all this. It's called “the regular order.” For many years, Congress took up individual appropriations bills, debated them, and passed them on time. That process evolved for a reason: It safeguarded public discourse, enhanced congressional oversight, and buttressed the vital role Congress plays in forging consensus among diverse regions and constituencies.

If Congress wants to remain relevant and legitimate in these challenging times, it can start by reviving its disciplined approach to budgeting.

Long Time Legislative Auditor Set to Retire

by Bob Boerner

According to The Associated Press State & Local Wire, the Treasure State is losing the long-serving legislative auditor to retirement.  Montana's legislative auditor since August 1985, Scott Seacat, will retire on June 30, 2008.

Mr. Seacat is the third legislative auditor in Montana history since the office was created in 1967 and is the longest-serving.  He has worked in the Legislative Audit Division for 32 years and headed it for 24 years.  He estimates that audits over the past 32 years have saved Montana taxpayers more than $350 million.  The Montana Legislative Audit Division does independent financial audits and performance audits of state government agencies and programs.

A total of 45 state legislatures, including Montana, have established these specialized evaluation offices to help state legislators meet their critical oversight responsibilities.  There are only three directors who have served longer than Mr. Seacat.  George Schroeder, in the South Carolina Legislative Audit Council, has served as Director since November 1975 and Jim Nobles, in the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, has served as Legislative Auditor since 1983.  And, John W. Turcotte was Executive Director of the Mississippi Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation Expenditure Review (PEER) from 1978 to 1995, Director of the Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) from 1996 to 2003 and Director of the North Carolina Program Evaluation Division since June, 2007.

Are Public Employee Salaries and Benefits Out of Line with the Private Sector?

by Ron Snell

On February 1, USA Today reported on the substantial and growing gap between average compensation in the public and the private sectors.   A little bit of analysis, though, suggests that the claim is highly misleading.

It's true that if, like USA Today, you compare average public employees' compensation with average private sector compensation – meaning the average of everyone in one category or the other – you see a startling difference.  Average employee compensation is 50 percent higher in the public sector than in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Table 1.  Average Compensation, Private and Public Sectors, September 2007

	Average Hourly Salary	Average Hourly Benefits	Total
Private Sector	$18.42	$7.66	26.09
Public Sector	$26.26	$13.24	39.50

Averages, of course, bring together a lot of disparate information.  For the private sector, the CEO of Microsoft is lumped with the guy who flips burgers at McDonald's, and for the public sector, the director of your state medical school is averaged with the lady who flips burgers at the Capitol Cafeteria—if it hasn't been contracted out.  When the numbers are broken apart by what people do, they look different.

Table 2.  Average Compensation, Private and Public Sectors, September 2007,

By Category of Employment

	Average Hourly Salary	Average Hourly Benefits	Total
Private Sector Professionals	$33.02	$13.80	$46.82
Public Sector Professionals (education and legal)	$33.88	$14.06	$47.94
Private Sector Service Employees	$11.09	$4.61	$15.70
Public Sector Service Employees	$18.45	$12.29	$30.74

As table 2 shows, salaries and benefits for professionals vary only a little between the public and private sectors, with public employees having a 2.4 percent advantage.  That matters a lot in any comparison.  The employees I count as professionals in Table 2 – instructional employees in K-12 education and higher education plus judicial and legal employees --  make up 35 percent of all public employees (and this excludes other professionals working for governments, for whom there's no good count).   This very high percentage of professionals in the public sector, as compared with the private sector, weights average public sector salaries toward the high end.

Arkalifornia?

by Karl Kurtz

Given the differences in their size, Arkansas and California governments usually get compared to one another only because they are right next to each other alphabetically in a typical 50-state table.  But in his budget message last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged that California adopt a spending control provision modeled on Arkansas's revenue stabilization law.

Of course, this generated the expected derision from Californians who don't like to be compared to any other state.  "If I wanted to live like Arkansas, I would move to Arkansas," scoffed California Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.

In "Schwarzenegger hopes to model state budget process after Arkansas," Aaron C. Davis of the AP went out and did his homework, producing a mixed review of how well the Arkansas system works.

Going beyond the comments in the AP story about the Arkansas system, the Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research has a very detailed Powerpoint presentation, "Financing State Programs in Arkansas," that covers the revenue stabilization law.  In case you don't want to wade through all 77 (!) slides, the revenue/spending system is covered in slides 33-47.  In simplified form, this policy requires the legislature to place the minimum level of funding for each state general fund program into a category A.  This amounts to around 90 percent of estimated available revenue.  Additional levels of support for state programs are placed in category B (another five to seven percent of estimated revenue) and still further amounts (the available balance) into category C.  Category B funds are spent at the governor's discretion only if adequate revenue is available, and category C is expended only after B.

In its assessment of the program, the Bureau of Legislative Research points to the following benefits of the law, which was put into practice in 1945, saying that it:

• Removed the dedication from major broad-based taxes
• Provided a fund distribution from a pool to various operating funds
• Allowed the legislature to set their funding priorities every two years [the Arkansas General Assembly is biennial]
• Prevented deficit spending
• Reduced funding instability due to changing economic conditions
• Assured agencies of even cash flow.

So far so good, but the Bureau's presentation also points to some unintended consequences of the law:

• Permitted the approval or mandate of a program without providing funds to implement it, raising unrealistic expectations
• Allowed the Governor to manipulate financing and timing of legislative enacted initiatives
• Permitted agencies and the Governor to determine programmatic priorities within funds and disregard legislative intent
• Created uncertainty in the agency financial plan for the year.

Advocates of legislative branch independence and the ability of the legislature to balance the power of the executive in California or any other state should take a close look at those unintended consequences before adapting the Arkansas system to their own states.

Massachusetts 2007 Sessions Ends before Thanksgiving, Begins Again in Seven Weeks

by Richard Cauchi and Christina Nelson

After 323 days, the Massachusetts General Court wrapped up formal sessions for 2007 the day before Thanksgiving.  The year was marked by transitions, realigned political forces, and growing concern about revenue shortfalls by next year.

The Democratic majority in both House and Senate (at 88 percent the largest in the nation) applauded loudly when Deval Patrick was sworn in as the first Democratic governor in 16 years (and the first black governor in the Bay State’s 387 year history).  But the media quickly played up the disagreements between the freshman governor and the seasoned legislative leadership.  The resignation of Senate President Travaglini in March resulted in the first-ever woman President: Senator Therese Murray.

Some local media complained that only 208 laws were approved this year,"
although statistics show that this is more than states such as WI, OH, PA, MI and NJ. 

The state's Fiscal Year 2008 budget was the most visible bill for the first six months. It moved fairly smoothly and was completed by the June 30th deadline.  The State House News Service (Sept. 17, 2007, not online ) quoted Senate Ways and Means Chair Steven Panagiotakos as saying that the governor signed off on roughly 98.5 percent of the Legislature's $26.8 billion FY 2008 state budget. This included over $1.8 billion to maintain the administration’s commitment to the Commonwealth’s historic health reform law. 

The small portion he vetoed proved contentious, as reported by Statehouse News. In the final week of session, the legislature returned to override vetoes and add $37 million of the $41 million in cuts back into the spending plan. Veto overrides often found Republicans and Democrats voting together, though Senate Republicans used their floor time to question the governor's adherence to campaign promises on cuts to fire safety, Department of Youth Services, and local tourism councils. Votes in the House went much more quickly. 

"Things ain't what they used to be and never were."

by Karl Kurtz

The airplane home to Denver from Washington Reagan airport last Thursday night was a "congressional special."  There were at least half a dozen current or former members of Congress on the flight from the Colorado delegation or other parts of the west.  On the jetway waiting to board the plane I asked one of them, a former member of the California Legislature, what the prospects were for Congress and the President reaching agreement on appropriations bills for the year.  He threw up his hands and said, "The leadership of both parties has lost the ability to compromise!  They're too busy trying to score political points off of each other.  I'm frustrated by it.  Some of us have talked to our leadership about it, but we don't get anyplace.  They say, 'yeah, yeah, we hear you,' and then turn around and start bashing the other guys again."

That immediately put me in mind of several other recent stories on problems of partisanship, lack of camaraderie and inability to compromise in legislatures.  I asked this member of Congress  if he had read Lee Hamilton's commentary, "Why not Try Genuine Consultation," on this very subject.  He had not seen that one, but we had both read  about a California conference featuring former legislative leaders talking about how to improve California state government, "Capitol leaders past and present: Look to the good old days."

The subhead on that Sacramento Bee story captures it fairly well: "What's missing?  Booze, backrooms and bonding, they say."  Former California legislative leaders like Willie Brown, Pete Wilson, Jim Brulte and John Burton variously lamented that the old-time social bonding of legislators of both parties at evening dinners, receptions and poker parties has fallen by the wayside under strict ethics laws and term limits.  The personal friendships that they built up at night across party lines helped them to resolve policy conflicts during the day, they said.  They also talked about the value of being able to negotiate behind closed doors in ways that are much more difficult to do today.  These leaders were echoing themes that appear in the new biography of former California Speaker Jesse Unruh.

The congressman and I parted company (he to score an upgrade in business class and I to steerage--a middle seat in the back) before we could finish talking about these stories of the "good old days."  But I have a few more thoughts to share. 

First, the Bee and the organization that sponsored the conference, the  Public Policy Institute of California, anchored this story in public approval ratings of the legislature of 34 percent (click to enlarge the chart of public opinion), which they regard as very low.  Well, I have been collecting public opinion polls about perceptions of state legislatures for 20 years, and I would say those numbers aren't bad.  Scores between 35 and 45 percent approval are fairly typical across the states and over time.  People just don't think highly of the legislative process (if they think of it at all) no matter what they do.

[Read below the jump to find out the author of the quote that titles this post.]

Lead with the Money

by Gene Rose

Forget "follow the money." The mantra, according to a couple of speakers at NCSL's Fall Froum last week, should be "lead with the money."

State legislators and staff know full well that the budget is where hundreds of policy decisions are made. Sometimes parts of budgets represent significant change, but most often the decisions made within state budgets fly under the radar of public scrutiny.

On Wednesday, medical author Marianne J. Legato, M.D., presented research information suggesting that -- despite significant research -- men die at all age groups at a higher rate than women do. While her comments caught the attention of this male, she said something at the end of her remarks that I found nearly as intriguing.

She suggested that if state legislators believe more research needs to be done in particular health areas, then they should create funding opportunities for scientists and researchers to do that type of research. They will, she said, "follow the money." In other words, if prostate cancer rates are becoming unacceptable, then states should create funds to attract research in that area. Through the budget process, "you have great power," she said.

On Thursday, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters encouraged more public-private partnerships on transportation projects, noting that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley made public statements recently that the private sector may do a better job on transportation projects than the public sector.

The presentations prompt several questions. Should legislatures take a more active role in generating funds that attract research (not just in health, but any public policy area)? Should more seed funds be created that prompt public-private partnerships to address critical areas (like transportation) that maybe have outgrown government capabilities? Or should these types of decisions be left to the agencies in charge of these activities?

One can easily argue that state budgets don't allow for the types of discretionary spending to "lead with the money." Others will say that this is not a proper role for state governments and that innovation and research should come from the private sector. There are plenty of small examples where states have directed money for economic development or offered tax incentives to encourage investment. Should these be considered for other public policy issues, too? What do you think?

Suing States Over Budgetary Decisions

by Karl Kurtz

Yesterday's Sacramento Bee has an interesting story, "State's unruly budget pattern," about the frequency with which state courts side with plaintiffs in lawsuits against California's budget settlements.  In addition to large legal fees for the state, these decisions often mean that budget cuts made by the legislature to balance the budget in one year have to be paid back with interest in later years. 

In the article, California's Legislative Analyst, Elizabeth Hill, is quoted as saying that in 30 years in Sacramento she can't remember a single year in which the state was not sued over the budget.  While no doubt our biggest state often has the biggest problems and usually the biggest numbers on everything, this statement still surprised me.  I am not aware of that much litigation over budget decisions in other states.

[Addendum, 10/15/07.  Liz Hill responded to this post with an email message saying that what she told the reporter "was that I could not think of a time in my more than 30 years that we were not tracking pending litigation for its effect on the budget.  This is different than the tone of her article and the thrust of your commentary."  I certainly agree that this is different from how the reporter and I paraphrased the remark and apologize to Liz for any misinterpretation.  Nonetheless, the basic point that California appears to experience more budget litigation than other states appears still seems valid.]

When I asked our NCSL budgeting expert, Arturo Perez, about the article, he said that the California experience seemed unusual to him, too.  He asked legislative staffers in the next two largest states, Texas and New York, about their experience with litigation over the budget.  His contacts in those states both told him that although they have had to deal with lawsuits over school funding, spending limits, corrections and a few other areas, most of the lawsuits have not dealt with the budget process or actions taken by the legislature directly tied to the execution of the budget.

Arturo and I speculate that California experiences more lawsuits on the budget not just because of its size, complexity and diversity but also because of the initiative process that has put many constraints on what the governor and legislature can do in writing budgets.

We would be interested in hearing from other states on the frequency of lawsuits against the legislature's budget decisions.  Please add a comment below or click on "Contact us" in the right column and send us an e-mail.

Transparency in Public Pensions: Coming to Your State Next?

by Ron Snell

Public irritation at how much some retired public employees receive in pensions makes the news periodically in state after state.  A 2,205 page report released by the Massachusetts State Treasurer's Office and made available online by the Boston Herald lets you look at exactly how much each recipient of a state pension in Massachusetts receives.  You can search it by name, but apparently not by amount of benefit.   

Undeterred by the need to search through all the pages, the Boston Herald reports that 85 beneficiaries receive more than $100,000 a year, with the list topped by a former medical school faculty member at $232,000.  He is followed by former Massachusetts Senate President and University of Massachusetts president William Bulger, at $185,000.  Former governor and 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis has been earning a more modest pension of $30,033.72 per year since 1991.

Pensions at that level reflect high compensation and long careers in public service. Massachusetts caps pensions at 80 percent of final average salary (usually the average of compensation for the last three to five years of employment).  That's a relatively low cap among the states that have one:  100 percent is a more common figure.  Thrifty Vermont has set its cap at 50 percent of final average salary, at the low end of the spectrum.  The states' benefit formulas and limits on pension benefits can be found in Section 6, "Benefit Formulas," of the National Education Association report, Characteristics of Large Pension Plans.

Concerns over state and local governments long-term obligations to retired employees for pensions and health benefits make it certain that the media will continue to scrutinize individuals' benefits.  Some states guard individual pension payments as a matter of privacy, but that could change.  Massachusetts has broken new ground with the publication of a comprehensive list, but in today's climate, other states may be forced to follow suit.

Rules Changes Don't Make Conflicts Go Away

by Karl Kurtz

Yesterday's Sacramento Bee has a good story, "Budget brawl boosts lure of majority vote," on discussions in California about removing the state's two-thirds majority requirement to pass a budget in the wake of the budget impasse in the legislature that ended last week.  The story quotes one of my colleagues as follows:

Arturo Pérez of the National Conference of State Legislatures, which represents state lawmakers, said California is one of three states that have a two-thirds majority requirement on budgets. Arkansas and Rhode Island are the others.

"Simple majority is the rule of the land," Pérez said. Even Congress passes budgets with a simple-majority vote, as do most cities and counties.

With Republicans the minority party in California for most of the past several decades, the higher voting threshold for budgets has given them a say on the state's annual fiscal plan. This year, Republicans used that power to delay passage of the budget for 52 days.

Pérez cautioned, however, that a simple majority will not ensure an on-time budget. He pointed to North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Illinois as three simple-majority states that failed to pass their budgets on time this year.

"There's so many elements involved in any type of legislation, and the budget is simply the largest example of that," Pérez said. "It's too simplistic to say if we had X, we'd have Y."

Arturo's wise comment that changing the rules of the game will not necessarily produce ontime budgets is a corollary of a principle espoused by political scientist E.E. Schattschneider in a classic 1960 work, The Semisovereign People.  Schattschneider's principle of the displacement of conflict says that institutional structures or rules may affect when and where battles occur but that they don't cause the conflicts to go away. 

Budget battles in the states are a good illustration of this idea.  The rules of the game vary greatly from state to state.  For example, the Maryland Constitution prohibits the legislature from increasing the governor's budget, only allowing the General Assembly to decrease line items proposed by the governor.  Does this eliminate negotiation and compromise between executive and legislature?  No, it means that legislative leaders who want to influence the budget have to make their priorities known to the governor before the budget is submitted. Maryland governors pay attention to legislative priorities for fear that they may have to sustain unwanted budget cuts, if they don't respond to the leaders. 

Budget battles are usually the most visible conflicts in American politics because the stakes are highest, and they are the greatest test of wills between political parties and branches of government.  In our two-party, separation-of-powers system, there will always be conflicts between Republicans and Democrats, governors and legislatures, even between chambers, regardless of the rules of the game.

This is not an argument for or against a two-thirds vote vs. majority rule on budget bills in California--or any other rules change.  There may indeed be good reasons for changing the rules--in California or any other state--and thereby affecting when and how conflict over the budget occurs.  Instead, it is a caution that a rules change will not eliminate the disagreements and the need for effective negotiation and compromise to resolve them.  It is, as Schattschneider's book is subtitled, "a realist's view of American democracy."

Energy, Eminent Domain, Health Care Highlight Connecticut Session

by Jeanne Mejeur

Connecticut's 2007 Legislature adjourned in June, after a contentious session, particularly over budget and tax issues.  The General Assembly addressed a number of major issues and budget matters during the 2007 legislative session.

A key goal of the majority Democrats was to pass a progressive income tax on wealthy residents and to adopt an Earned Income Tax Credit to benefit working families, but neither proposal made it through the legislature.  The only tax increase was a higher rate on cigarettes.  The General Assembly passed a $36 billion budget that included increased funding for health care and education.

The General Assembly enacted major provisions on electricity and energy efficiency.  A key component was a $70 million dollar appropriation to restore an energy conservation fund, but the measure was vetoed by Governor Jodi Rell.  Other provisions establish "green building" requirements for state buildings, establish oil and gas conservation programs, and create an Energy Efficiency Partnership to reduce demand for electricity and promote the expansion of renewable energy sources.

Eminent Domain was again a major issue for the second year in a row.  A Connecticut city was the subject of the US Supreme Court decision in the 2005 Kelo case, where the Court approved takings of private property for commercial redevelopment projects, as a means of generating tax revenue.  Traditionally, eminent domain is used to take private property for purely public purposes, such as highways or public buildings, but the Kelo case broadened the definition of public purpose to include economic development.  Many states have since enacted laws to redefine public purpose, to restrict the use of eminent domain to traditional purposes.  The Connecticut General Assembly passed a number of reforms during the session, aimed at clarifying eminent domain procedures and providing greater protections for home owners.

The General Assembly also enacted measures to expand access to health care, increase use of medical technology and encourage preventative health care.  The laws included establishment of two new entities that will focus on alternative ways to provide primary health care services, explore financing mechanisms, contain health care costs and improve the quality of health care.

The legislature joined a number of other state that regulate protests at funerals, in response to a religious group that is staging protests at funerals of Iraq war soldiers across the nation, in protest of gay rights.  Violation of the law would be a misdemeanor offense.

Two major Leadership changes took place this session in both the House and Senate.  Long-time House Minority Leader Representative Bob Ward resigned his seat in the House to focus on business interests.  Representative Larry Cafero is the new leader for the House Republicans.  Senate Minority Leader Louis C. DeLuca resigned his leadership post but retained his seat in the Senate.  Senator John McKinney is the new Republican leader in the Senate.

Unfortunately, the newspaper stories that support this summary have been archived and are available only to subscribers.  The Hartford Courant's Connecticut Politics Page is a useful source on the legislature.

[Jeanne Mejeur is NCSL's liaison with the Connecticut Legislature.  Photo of Connecticut dome by Eric Oxendorf.]

Special Session Required to Complete Montana State Budget

by Sara Vitaska

The Montana Legislature apportioned the state's $1 billion surplus, but it took Gov. Brian Schweitzer calling policymakers back to Helena for a special session to approve a state budget, tax cuts and a school funding plan. The 2007 session became the first regular Montana Legislature in history to adjourn without adopting a budget for the coming biennium.  According to the Missoulian newspaper, the 2007 Montana Legislature was the most contentious in years. 

The 90-day legislative session started and ended embroiled in partisan politics. The 2006 statehouse elections left Democrats with a narrow 26-24 lead over Republicans in the Senate, while Republications in the House had a 50-49 vote margin over Democrats, with one Constitution Party member who typically voted with Republicans. The Senate partisan composition had been tied until former a Republication legislator switched parties after the November election.

Education, human services, corrections, alternative energy, and tax relief for homeowners topped the 2007 biennium agenda. Several of the Governor's "Square Deal" initiatives came to fruition as the legislature passed $140 million for public schools over the next two years; $400 one-time property tax rebates for homeowners; a $100 million infusion into the state's prison system for new facilities and programs; and significant one-time contributions to the state retirement system.

According to a Lee Newspaper poll, Montana voters flunked the Legislature's job performance, while at the same time, strongly supported some of the session's major accomplishments. The poll found that 67 percent of voters gave the divided Legislature a negative job-approval grade. At the same time, 55 percent of voters said Gov. Schweitzer's $400-per-household property tax refund was sufficient. The poll also found that 63 percent of voters approved of the Legislature's spending almost three-fourths of the projected $1 billion surplus on public schools, prisons, human services, state colleges and construction. Twenty-six percent indicated more of the surplus should have been returned to the taxpayers. In addition, 53 percent approved of the decision to provide money to schools districts who wish to offer voluntary full-day kindergarten.

History was made this session when Missoula's Carol Williams was elected as the first female Senate majority leader in Montana history. During the special session, Republican leaders elected Rep. Dennis Himmelgerger to replace Rep. Mike Lange who was asked to resign as House majority leader following his disparaging remarks about the Governor and other Democrats during the regular session.

[Sara Vitaska is NCSL's liaison with the Montana Legislature.] 

Minnesota Finishes on Time

by Meagan Dorsch

Minnesota’s 2007 legislature wrapped up in late May without having to go into special session.  It's "the first time since 1999 that the Legislature finished its work on time in a budget year," DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor party) Representative David Bly posted on his blog.

However, Session Weekly, a nonpartisan publication by the Minnesota House of Representatives, called this session "a cliff-hanger until the end."

With one day to go, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed the entire tax bill put together by the DFL-controlled legislature.  He objected to the bill's requirement to build inflation into the budget forecast--which he says would put "government growth on autopilot."  His veto also cancelled several other major items, including property tax refunds, local aid increases and subsidies for the expansion of the Mall of America.

The omnibus tax bill veto was perhaps the most dramatic in a series of vetoes, including one that killed a proposal to provide property tax relief by increasing income taxes.  Vetoes also nipped at budget bills. 

In addition to finding a budget compromise, lawmakers enacted a renewable energy policy, aimed at combating global warming.  Not everyone was happy with laws restricting the use of ATV's throughout the state.

Other major bills passed included health insurance for children and $800 million dollars in K-12 school funding over the next two years. 

Record Budget Surplus in Louisiana

Continuing our sine die series summarizing legislative sessions around the country, Sheila McCant of the Louisiana House staff has done our job for us in  "2007 Regular Session Wrapup".   According to Sheila's post, the second session of Louisiana's biennium is largely confined to fiscal issues, "and the money issue came in many forms - a record surplus, breaking the spending cap, tax breaks, incentives, and pay raises for teachers, support workers, college faculty, judges, state employees, and others."

Rep. Tim Burns also posted a commentary on the session right before Sheila's summary in the House blog, In the Loop.  And the Times-Picayune has another summary, "Legislative term ends on recovery high note."

Changes in the Louisiana Legislature

by Karl Kurtz

The Louisiana Legislature, especially the House of Representatives, is undergoing rapid change in at least two areas. First, 12-year term limits in each chamber, enacted in 1995, are taking full effect for the first time in the elections of 2007.   Of the 105 members of the Louisiana House, only 52 are running for reelection, so at least 53 members will be freshmen after the 2007 elections.

Second, Republicans, long a small minority in the legislature, have been making significant gains in the last decade and expect to make more in the 2007 elections, turning a traditionally one-party legislature into a competitive two-party system.  The current party lineup in the House is 61 Democrats, 43 Republicans and one independent.  Since passage of many bills (changes to expenditure limits, taxes, general obligation bonds) require a two-thirds majority (70 votes), Republicans now have the power to block action and are using it.

The Louisiana Legislature has Long (pun intended) been dominated by one of the most powerful governors in the country.  They have operated under what is called "the cult of the governor."  Among other things, this means that governors have historically "anointed" the speaker and the senate president, even when the governor was of the opposite party of the majority in the legislature, and then consulted with the presiding officers on the appointment of committee chairs.

Now, at least some Louisiana legislators believe that these changes may offer the opportunity for the legislature to assert itself and to balance the power of the executive more effectively.

In anticipation of these challenges, the Louisiana House set up a Special Committee on Preparing for Term Limits.  At the request of this committee, NCSL this past weekend put together a workshop for a bipartisan group of six potential legislative leaders to discuss how the House can most effectively adapt its procedures and traditions.  We brought in a group of current and former legislators from other states to brainstorm and consult with the Louisiana team.

Given the off the record nature of this workshop, I can't report in detail on the discussions that were held.  However, I think I can safely share a few nuggets of legislative lore and procedure that came out of the discussion:

Idaho Legislature Adjourns

by Karl Kurtz

The Idaho Legislature adjourned on Friday, March 30, ending the 10th longest session in the state's history.  The session was extended for a few days to resolve a house vs. senate deadlock on the legislature's role in transportation project decisions.  In the end, the legislature agreed to leave project decisions to the state Department of Transportation, as Gov. Bruce Otter had requested.

Other accomplishments of the session, according to a wrapup in the Idaho Statesman, included assistance in college funding for low income students, funding for a new community college, and significant boosts in school funding and many other state programs, as the state expects a $200 million (9%) surplus over last year's budget.

Immediately after the session, workers moved into the capitol to begin renovation of the building, which will take two years to complete.  During the reconstruction, the governor will move to an old post office building in Boise and the legislature to the old Ada County Courthouse, which the Idaho Statesman describes as "a behemoth of an Art Deco building with lots of, um, character and few of the amenities of a modern building."

[Photo by Eric Oxendorf]

South Dakota Legislature Adjourns

by Karl Kurtz

Oops, we missed another adjournment last week.  The South Dakota Legislature adjourned on March 6 after being marooned at the capitol in Pierre by a snowstorm over the previous weekend. They will return for a veto session on March 26.  The wrapup story in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader focuses mostly on the budget bill, which included a 5.4 percent increase over spending in the current fiscal year.  The legislature also approved a reduction in property taxes, using an offset from tobacco money to fund it.

I liked this quote from a legislator who serves on the joint appropriations committee, which meets every morning during session and far more than any other committee:

Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke told other senators that a lobbyist saw her entering the Capitol early one morning for an appropriations meeting and remarked that she was on her way to the Bat cave.

It's like that, being an appropriations member, Bartling mused. “You go to the Bat cave and after 39 days, you come out a hero.''

I'll add the bat cave to my list of metaphors for the legislative process--a topic for a future blog posting.

Podcast: States Take Cues From NCSL Higher Ed Report

by Nicole Moore

Several states are considering higher education reform bills in the wake of a report in November from NCSL's bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education.

Connecticut is looking at putting together a plan based on a study of its demographics. New Jersey is considering a council that would examine education issues from pre-school through college. A bill in Utah would reform that state's financial aid system. Those are just a few examples.

Learn more in this edition of the Buzz at State Legislatures podcast. Last week at NCSL's Education Finance Summit, I interviewed the chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission, Connecticut Representative Denise Merrill; a member of the commission, New Jersey Assemblyman Craig Stanley; and the director of NCSL's education program, Julie Bell. (9:05.)

California's Unique Legislative Analysis of the Governor's Budget

by Karl Kurtz

Yesterday, California's Legislative Analyst, Elizabeth Hill, issued her office's annual analysis of the governor's budget proposal.  We call attention to this not because of the content of the analysis, which is probably not of much interest to our readers outside of California, but rather because it is the only legislative staff office that we know of that routinely prepares an independent legislative analysis of the governor's budget.

The Legislative Analyst's Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget includes 100-300 page chapters on each of seven major areas of state government with specific recommendations for changes in the budget and a 262 page "perspectives and issues" analysis.  Not only that, but this year the office has produced a 20-minute video Webcast of Elizabeth Hill's oral summary of the report.  If you don't want to read 1,000 pp. of analysis or watch the Webcast, the Sacramento Bee has a story on her press conference releasing the results.

We are not aware of any other legislative office that produces such an analysis.  Of course, many legislative fiscal analysis offices prepare their own revenue forecasts independent of the executive, but the LAO's analysis of the entire budget goes far beyond those reports.  Not even the Congressional Budget Office undertakes a detailed analysis of the President's budget, although it does periodically produce a budget and economic outlook that projects budgets and revenues for the decade to come.

If anyone knows of any other state legislative offices that produce a comprehensive, independent legislative analysis of the governor's budget, please let us know either by email or by comment below.