The Thicket at State Legislatures

Longtime Florida House Sergeant at Arms Earnie Sumner Receives Emotional Farewell Upon His Retirement

By Morgan Cullen

 

Earnie Sumner, right, with Deputy House Sergeant at Arms Marty McDonald in the House chamber on Earnie’s last day of session.

Longtime Florida House Sergeant at Arms and NCSL Officer, Earnest “Earnie” Sumner will be retiring next month after 42 years of legislative service.  Earnie began his distinguished career with the Florida Legislature in 1971 as an OPS (part time) employee and was named House Sergeant at Arms by Speaker Daniel Webster in 1998.  Over the course of his career, Earnie served the Florida House of Representatives for 138 legislative sessions in a variety of capacities.

Maintaining chamber security and decorum, keeping up capitol properties and facilities, coordinating office moves and travel logistics, overseeing emergency planning and meeting the daily needs of the chamber’s 120 members are just some of the responsibilities that Earnie consistently managed on a daily basis.  Last week, the House honored Earnie’s career with an official House resolution and no fewer than four standing ovations from the members he has served for so many years.  Speaker Will Weatherford also announced that a House Meeting Room would be named “Sumner Hall” in Earnie’s honor.    

In addition to his storied career in the Florida House, Earnie was also very active at NCSL for many years.  In 1978, Earnie became a member of the National Legislative Services and Security Association (NLSSA), one of NCSL’s 10 staff sections committed to the professional development of security and services personnel throughout the country.  Over his 34 years with NLSSA, Earnie served on the organization’s executive board in a number of capacities, including two terms as NLSSA president (2006-2008).    

As a member of NLSSA, Earnie maintained a strong commitment to the legislative institution and was dedicated to the professional development of new staff members both in Florida and around the country.  Earnie understood the importance of developing new talent and viewed NCSL as an opportunity to pass on the professional expertise he had acquired over his career.  It was through this commitment that Earnie was awarded all three of the organization’s service awards, the Legislative Staff Achievement Award (2002), The John Everhardt “Trooper” Award (2003) and the Tony Beard Memorial Award (2008). 

 

Earnie Sumner

Earnie also served NCSL on the Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee (LSCC) and the Executive Committee where he made the continued development of legislative staff a top priority.  NCSL Executive Director, Bill Pound was sad to hear that NCSL would be losing such a valued asset.  “Earnie Sumner’s well deserved retirement is a loss not only to the Florida House, but to NLSSA and NCSL. Earnie has been a leader of NLSSA for many years and represented the staff section and Florida well on the NCSL Executive Committee. It is gratifying to see the recognition accorded him by the Florida House on his retirement.”

 

Trying to transform mental health treatment

By Ed Smith

"I'm here representing the largest mental health institutions in the United States--local jails and state prisons."

That was how Sheriff Grayson Robinson, of Arapahoe County in Colorado, opened his remarks Thursday at NCSL's Spring Forum session "Revisiting Mental Health Needs and Services."

"There's one sadder comment," Robinson added. "We are ill-prepared to do that service that is expected of us."

The remarks were poignant in a state that has experienced its share of tragedies, from the Columbine High School attack in 1999 to last summer's mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, that later were shown to have links to mental illness. The session also came as the Colorado legislature is considering a package of mental health bills in the wake of the movie theater shooting.

Robinson said he was hopeful that the legislation now under consideration--the $19 million package includes an expansion of crisis response, community treatment and treatment in jails--would reduce recidivism.

"If you look at the recidivism rate, it has to do with addiction and mental health. That should be a signal to all of us that we're not doing something right," Robinson said. "If we gave them more treatment in the jail, when they leave maybe there will be less chance of them coming back."

Lisa Clements, director of Colorado's Office of Behavioral Health, said Governor John Hickenlooper's commitment will make a difference.

 "Now we're looking at how to get crisis response out to every Coloradan" regardless of where that person lives, their income or other circumstances.

Don Mares, CEO and president of Mental Health America of Colorado, said he believed those backing the mental health legislation in the state were committed to long term pursuit of the issue. And appropriately so, he added, since mental health issues affect one-quarter of people in the country.

"I think that it impacts us all," said Mares, a former state legislator. "It's part of being a human being. It's part of who we are."

Despite the challenge today in passing legislation addressing behavioral health issues, Mares said it's a transformation from 20 years ago when he was promoting a mental health-related legislation.

Two decades ago, for many people such legislation was "a complete waste of money." Now, he added,  we're at point where "people think it's real."

To Manage or not to Manage...

By Brian Weberg

Should you accept a management position when offered? There often isn't much choice about this, whether you work in the legislature, elsewhere in government or the private sector.  Management jobs typically are the ones at the top of the compensation food chain and to say no to a directorship or similar title can mean saying no to earning the best salary available in your workplace.

Too bad this is so often true. Some people just aren't cut out for the managing role or aren't really interested, or at least aren't adequately prepared for it.  It should be OK to decline these jobs and just keep on being the best bill drafter or researcher or computer programmer or budget analyst that you can be.  But the culture and pay plans in many legislatures make saying "no" to managing a very tough choice.

An interesting article on this topic titled "Maybe Management Isn't Your Style" appeared recently in the New York Times business section.  Author Peggy Klaus  comments, "...a bad boss is born each time someone goes into management without knowing whether he or she is truly suited for the role."  And, as she points out, bad bosses are one of the leading reasons good people quit and productivity suffers.

Managing is a professional specialty just like the other staff specialties found in state legislatures.  Yet most legislatures, and maybe most workplaces, push people to the top of their organizations and into supervisory and management roles without much attention to developing the knowledge and experience they need to take on these roles.  Years ago I had a good friend who worked in a large accounting firm.  It was no different there.  The best CPA talent moved up the ladder quickly and into "senior manager" positions where many of them failed miserably at their new management responsibities.  Great accountants, poor managers.

Klaus offers a list of things to think about before moving into management and recommends that "If you decide to take the plunge, accept that being a great manager, or even a good one, is a learned skill.  Like many professionals, whether N.B.A. players of opera divas, you will become successful by honing the right skills with huge amounts of practice."  Great advice, to be sure.  But maybe legislative staff organizations also need to do more to help.  Some, like in Connecticut and Nevada, are offering in-house leadership and management training opportunities.  Legislatures also could do more to reward and find nitches for their super-talented, high-productivity employees who don't want to manage but who rather desire to keep on doing what they do so well. 

Full- or Part-Time Legislature: Which is Better?

By Karl Kurtz

That's a question I get all the time when I speak to groups, both inside and outside of state capitols, about American legislatures. A recent magazine article featuring my categorization of legislatures as "professionalized," "hybrid" and "citizen" has generated several recent inquiries about which type of legislature is better.

I have an answer to this question, but first a few words about terminology. "Full-" and "part-time" are the common phrases that most people use to differentiate the operations of state legislatures. Political scientists have a fancier term, "professionalization," which measures not only the amount of time that legislators spend on the job but also the compensation of legislators and the number of staff working for the legislature. Professionalization is the concept that I have used to create the categories of legislatures.

The concept of legislative professionalization is designed to measure the capacity of legislatures and legislators to make policy decisions. Capacity, though, does not necessarily mean performance. A legislature with high capacity can perform poorly (Congress being an example), while legislatures with low capacity can perform at high levels.

It's also important to note that the policy-making capacity of a legislature (professionalization) is only one value among others that legislators and voters may set store by when they make decisions about the resources that they provide to their state legislature. One value that might conflict with increasing the capacity of legislatures might be public views about the appropriate scale and cost of state government. A second might be a desire to be governed by citizen legislators who spend most of their lives living and working in their local communities. Like the legendary Roman leader Cincinnatus, who left his farm to fight a war but returned to the plow when the war was over, citizen legislators go to the capitol to legislate for a few months but then return to their home towns.

All of this leads to my answer to the question: Neither one is necessarily better. I believe that the principal goal should be to have a legislature that is an independent and coequal branch of government, able effectively to represent the views of constituents, pass laws, and balance the power of the executive. Different legislatures with different levels of professionalization can accomplish these goals. Each state needs to choose the level of resources (compensation, time and staff) that allows them to meet these goals, within the context of their state's culture, size, complexity and values about government.

I will say, though, that the larger population states that are more socially complex and have necessarily large executive branches are more likely to need greater capacity in order for their legislature to be an independent and coequal branch of government. In other words, to represent its fairly homogenous population of half a million people effectively, Wyoming may not need California's full-time legislators, who are paid close to $100,000 a year and have a staff of more than 2,000 to help govern a state of 38 million people. But Wyoming's citizen legislature, which meets two months of the year, pays its members $12,000 and has a staff of about 40, would find it hard effectively to balance the power of the executive in a state as large and complex as California.

And indeed, that is the path that most states have taken in building the capacity of their legislatures. With only a very few exceptions the states that have the most professionalized legislatures have the largest populations, and the citizen legislatures are in the smallest population states. The hybrid legislatures are in-between, mostly in the medium population states.

Building on a table that appears in Peverill Squire and Gary Moncrief, State Legislatures Today: Politics Under the Domes, here is a summary of the implications of the two extreme levels of professionalization, incorporating some values other than policymaking capacity. The middle column of this table is adapted from Squire and Moncrief's book; the right column is my summary of qualities associated with citizen legislatures (click to enlarge).

Setting Staff Pay Levels: Complicated Stuff

By Brian Weberg

Art credit: Investor Watchdog

Setting and maintaining effective compensation levels is an important task and goal in any professional organization.  More and more, state legislatures are creating formal compensation and classification plans that set out pay ranges for specific jobs.  NCSL has played a role in this effort, assisting numerous legislatures with the detailed work required to develop effective pay systems. 

NCSL also receives at least one call a week from state legislatures that want data about what other legislatures pay their staff.  Presumably, they want these data so they can be sure that their compensation levels are appropriate and competitive. Unfortunately, salary survey data from other legislatures often are not very relevant for this kind analysis.  In fact, NCSL discontinued collecting 50-state staff salary data many years ago because: 1) it is extremely difficult to know if a "research analyst" in one state has equivalent duties to a research analyst in another legislature, and 2) capital city job markets are very different from one another and the data has limited value as an analytical tool.  For example, a legislative research analyst in Jefferson City is hired from and works in very different economic and job market conditions from a legislative research analyst in Des Moines or Denver or Santa Fe.  

NCSL has been encourging state legislatures, therefore, to discount the value of interstate legislative salary data as a comparative benchmark for most positions and instead focus more on salary data collected in relevant "pay markets."  These relevant pay markets may be different for different kinds of legislative jobs, but for most state legislatures, local salary data is best. This usually means looking closely at pay rates at state and local government jobs in and near your capital city. 

In their book, Compensation, authors George Milkovich and Jerry Newman provide the following guidance for identifying good sources of comparative salary data: "The three factors usually used to determine the relevant labor markets are the occupation (skill/knowledge required), geography (willingness to relocate, commute, or become virtual employees), and competitors (other employers in the same product/service and labor markets)."

Our experience is that geography is a dominant factor when analyzing most legislative labor markets.  We have seen very limited evidence that legislatures engage in out-of-state recruiting for new positions and also very few examples of employee movement from one legislature to another.  The most significant employment competitor for most state legislatures is the executive branch of government in the same state.  The "occupation" factor can also be an important key for selecting relevant comparable data.  For example, clerical positions probably can be compared to clerical roles in many different kinds of organizations in the same geographic area.  And computer specialists are sought out by a diverse range of employers.  For these jobs, it's sometimes useful (but expensive) to go to third party sources of salary data like the Economic Research Institute which offers city-specific salary benchmarks for common job titles.  On the other hand, jobs like chief of staff, bill drafting attorney or policy analyst are more specialized to government and sometimes to certain kinds of non-profits or public affairs organizations. In these cases, it's probably best to do original salary survey work to find relevant comparable data.  

All of this is to say that setting legislative pay levels is complicated stuff.  And here we're just talking about establishing "external" equity with the job market.  Good pay plans also have "internal" equity--offering equal pay for equal job value within the workplace.  But that's another blog post.  Also, legislatures need to consider the total pay package when comparing compensation.  Traditionally, but maybe not as much these days, strong benefit packages for legislative employees have somewhat offset the need to maintain strong salary competitiveness.  Finally, not all rewards are monetary, a point described in a previous Thicket post on employee motivation.  State legislative employment offers a range of powerful intrinsic rewards that may substitute, at some level, for the incentive to make more money.  

Legislative Staff: Not Doing it for the Money

By Brian Weberg

State legislatures across the country are ramping up for the 2013 session with a focus on preparing new members, new committee chairs and new leaders for another challenging year of debate and policy making. New member orientations, briefings and trainings are taking place in just about every capitol.  Operating largely below the radar in each legislature is a cadre of legislative staff--hard-working public servants who make it their business to ensure that the new year gets off to a great start. 

Most of us at NCSL work closely with state legislative staff, and we have a special and privileged view into their work and workplaces.  We witness their high level of competence, skill, knowledge, education and experience.  We are also inspired by their remarkable level of engagement, dedication and loyalty to their work and to the legislative institution.  And we know that for many, if not most legislative staff, salary increases and promotions that slowed down or stopped four or five years ago have been slow to return.  Yet legislative staff seem to carry on, bringing their talent and passion to each new legislative session.

How do they do this?  Or, perhaps, the more appropriate question is why?  How do high-functioning professionals like legislative staff find motivation in an era of stagnant pay and benefits? 

Dan Pink offers some clues in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us. Pink says that research shows that for jobs similar to those held by legislative staff, money only gets you part of the way there.  The three keys to motivating and engaging employees, according to Pink, are what he calls Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose.  Now, he also adds a caution that money remains important as a motivator, but only up to a point.  People need to feel fairly compensated, but beyond that threshold, money's impact on motivation brings declining returns. Beyond the fair pay threshold, employees respond more to the intrinsic rewards delivered by being self-directed (Autonomy), applying advanced skills to tough challenges (Mastery) and by making a contribution to a larger good (Purpose).

Pink has prepared this clever video summary of his book: 

I think Pink's analysis explains a lot about why and how legislative staff remain so engaged in their work, even during tough economic times. It also provides staff managers and legislative leaders with three important benchmarks they can use to measure and improve the motivational conditions of their workplaces.  

At this time of year, when the focus is appropriately on the members and their needs, maybe a bit of time can be carved out to assess whether staff have what they need to bring their very best efforts to the difficult and challenging tasks ahead.  As economic conditions improve, legislatures should check to be sure that their pay levels do not lag behind the local job market.  But they also should not ignore, according to Dan Pink, the powerful motivational opportunity presented by promoting and encouraging employee autonomy, mastery and purpose. 

Michigan's Gary Olson, Past NCSL Staff Chair

by Karl Kurtz

Gary Olson, former director of the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency and staff chair of NCSL in 2002-03, died last week after a four year battle with melanoma. Gary also served as president of the National Association of Legislative Fiscal Officers.

In recognition of Gary’s outstanding contributions to state fiscal policy and for his dedication to expanding training opportunities and services to legislative staff, he was honored with NCSL's Steven D. Gold award in 2010. “His work and contributions are definitely in the tradition of Steve Gold, who provided assistance to so many legislators and staff, and he is a worthy recipient of this award,” said NCSL Executive Director Bill Pound in a tribute to Gary published in State Legislatures magazine.

The article goes on to note the many similarities between Steve Gold and Gary Olson, including not only their professional ties but also their devotion to the University of Michigan. Now, unfortunately, there is another link between the two. Both died too young: Steve at 52 and Gary at 57.

“Gary has made solid contributions to the professionalization of legislative fiscal staffing during some very difficult budget times in Michigan,” Pound said. Like Steven D. Gold—former director of fiscal studies at NCSL and one of the country’s foremost state fiscal policy experts—Gary also found time to become a leader in the development of legislative staff programs nationally as an officer of NCSL.

Gary has many great friends among legislators and legislative staff around the nation and numerous NCSL staff who learned from him and benefited from his leadership. We miss him. We also send our best wishes to his lovely wife Teresa.

Gary's obituary appeared in the Lansing State-Journal. A more complete remembrance of Gary will be in the next edition of State Legislatures magazine.

Too Much Information: Enemy # 1 for New Member Orientation

by Bruce Feustel

New Mexico state Rep. Eliseo Lee Alcon speaks to the Legislature’s freshman class during new member orientation in 2010.
Credit: Santa Fe New Mexican

Turning inexperienced new legislators into savvy members able to hold their own in the legislative and political processes is both a challenge and a responsibility for legislative leaders and senior staff. In an increasingly partisan world with more media scrutiny, greater transparency and ever-more complex policy choices, new members must avoid political pitfalls and become effective legislators from the outset. This is true for legislators in all 50 states but especially so in the 15 term-limited states where new members may take on leadership responsibilities almost immediately.

Effective new member orientation programs play a key role in helping legislators transition from campaigning to governing. Many legislatures are putting more thought and planning into their new member orientations, focusing on determining what knowledge and skill training will best prepare the new lawmakers.

For over a decade NCSL has been collecting ideas and best practices for successful new member orientation programs from the legislators and legislative staff that coordinate these events. Here are some of their top tips for orientations:

• Plan well ahead.
• Get leaders' active support and involvement.
• Don't overwhelm the participants.
• Focus on the essentials.
• Make it hands-on and interactive.
• Give participants time to get to know each other.
• Be flexible and make adjustments.
• Provide training in segments that allow time for reflection.
• Custom fit your computer training for a wide ability range.
• Give participants materials that allow them to continue learning.
• Get feedback and adjust future programs based on that information.

In our most recent survey of new member program coordinators, a variant of "don't overwhelm them" prevails: Don't give them too much information. One survey respondent described it as "too much territory covered results in less retention." Another mentioned that the hardest part of NMO planning is figuring what to keep out of the program. A third cautioned fellow coordinators to remember that it is "an orientation. The details will work themselves out" as the freshmen start the actual session. This "don't overwhelm them" goal is even harder now, as there may be added pressure from many sources to add more to their orientations.

To counter this, many coordinators like Terry Anderson in Wisconsin are improving the training materials that give the participants a chance to reflect and review the key information. Numerous programs also include some lower-key receptions. Effective legislating involves building trust and relationships, and that often starts with a lawmaker's fellow new members. Legislators begin the process by understanding their colleagues and what makes them tick. These receptions often give the participants a chance to unwind and reflect on what they've heard and what their peers are thinking about heading into the session.

More information is available on NCSL's new member orientation web page.

Millennials in Politics: What Drives the Next Generation’s Interest in Public Service

by Jon Kuhl

Who are these people and what drives them? That’s the question moderator John Celock posed while opening the panel discussion on young state legislators and legislative staffers. Celock, only 32 himself, is no stranger to this topic. He’s currently a state politics reporter for the Huffington Post, and author of “The Next Generation: Young Elected Officials and Their Impact on American Politics,” a book that profiles young people who have successfully run for political office.

While writing his book, Celock identified four starting points for young people’s careers in politics. The first is people who want to make politics their career. It’s a motivation with which one panelist, Representative John Burris of Arkansas, could identify.  “If you want to be president by 40, you gotta start early.” The room laughed along with Burris, but he may not have been joking. Having been elected to his first term in the Arkansas House in 2008 at age 23, Burris already has served as minority leader.

Celock’s second starting point is young people who begin their careers as legislative staffers. The staffers on the panel didn’t express a desire to run for office, but if they did, they would join the ranks of many who have, including Hillary Clinton, who once worked on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary.

Having a parent for a politician is Celock’s third category. None of the panelists had parents in elected politics, but it isn’t hard to think of many who have. Alaska’s U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski is a prime example. Her father, Governor Frank Murkowski, appointed her to the Senate in 2002.

Celock’s final career starting point is people who are motivated by idealism. In explaining this category, Celock cited veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who choose to run for office. Panelist Representative Clem Smith of Missouri seemed to fall into this category, having decided to run for the Missouri House of Representatives after getting involved with the United Auto Workers union.

Like everyone on the panel, Representative Smith thinks his relatively young age is an asset. The phrase, “It’s always been done this way,” doesn’t mean anything to him. Other panelists agreed, saying they bring new perspectives that their older colleagues don’t necessarily have. 

So why do young people want to get involved in politics? “It’s not the pay,” said Bryen Johnson who works for the Illinois Senate, inspiring knowing snickers throughout the room. “You’re having a lasting impact on policy that’s going to be on the books for years.”

In addition to the panelists mentioned, Tisha Gieser from the Alaska House of Representatives and Jennifer Esser from the Wisconsin House Majority Leader’s office were also on the panel.

Book Review: The Evolution of American Legislatures

by Karl Kurtz

...[T]he original state legislatures were the models for the Congress created by the Constitution. It is true that several of the most influenctial voices in the writing of the Constitution disparaged the existing state legislatures. Yet, in every elemental characteristic--number and name of houses and the relationship between them, the legislatures's ability to name its own leaders and adopt its own rules, and the power of the executive veto--the Congress under the Constitution closely resembled the original state legislatures. It bore no relationship at all to the Congress that existed under the Articles of Confederation, which was a unicameral chamber that fused legislative, executive and judicial powers, and granted each state, not each legislator, a vote....

This is a provocative paragraph from the introduction to University of Missouri Prof. Peverill Squire's new book, The Evolution of American Legislatures: Colonies, Territories, and States, 1619-2009.  Squire goes on from this teaser to summarize two evolutionary lines of legislatures in the United States--one that was highly successful and adaptive and the other that was not--in this schematic drawing.

Evolutionary Line 1 encapsulates Squire's compelling case that the 13 colonial legislatures, themselves highly original institutions, shaped and influenced the Constitutional Congress and that these two models together evolved into the territorial legislatures and their successors, the state legislatures. Each of the boxes in this chart receives detailed analysis in Squire's book.

Historians, political scientists and serious legislative junkies will love this book. Drawing on mountains of obscure primary and secondary sources and a comprehensive review of secondary sources (the bibliography is 70 pages in length), it covers not only our modern 51 American legislatures but an approximately equal number of colonial, confederal, territorial, and even the most arcane provisional legislatures. There is no other comparable scholarly work that looks at institutional change in American legislatures on such a grand scale. It is impressive in both its broad brush strokes and its convincing detail.

This is primarily a scholarly work, but Chapter 7, "The Professionalizing of Legislatures Since 1900," should be required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the institutional characteristics of our state legislatures today.