How can we get the very most qualified Arizonans to run for the Legislature?
It's a timely question with our Legislature back in session. But it's worth pointing out that most legislators are not incompetent, nor corrupt, although that is what you often hear.
It never ceases to amaze that when community leaders and respected folk from around the state are elected to legislative office they are magically transformed by the media into self-serving nincompoops. Unremitting media disdain results in dismal public approval ratings. It happens to legislators in just about all states, not just here.
Arizona's current legislature - the East Valley contingent in particular - deserves special credit for instituting necessary but unpopular spending cuts and driving a promised reform agenda (much of which was vetoed by the governor). But no matter. To our pompous pundits, they're still just a bunch of piñatas fit for whacking.
My theory is that state legislators are at a level where they have great responsibility but limited resources. They have to say no frequently. When the blowback comes, they don't have the extensive staff of PR apparatchiks in place that federal politicians supply for themselves.
Still, it's a good idea to look for ways to upgrade our legislature. Let's start with some things that don't work.
Using public money to pay politicians' campaign expenses - Clean Elections - has been a colossal bust. The "clean" folks, in their paid advertisements, still claim they have made it possible for more people to run for office but the numbers don't lie.
The number of candidates for office has remained unchanged for decades in spite of the millions poured into taxpayer-funded elections. The only change commonly attributed to Clean Elections has been a perceived uptick in the level of partisanship.
Another thing to avoid is raising legislative salaries. "Mo' money" is a favorite nostrum of the self-anointed good government reformers. But think about it. Do we really want mediocre legislators frantically clinging to office so that they won't lose their comfortable middle-income salary?
If more pay produced a better class of lawmakers, California would be the envy of the nation. It's not, of course. Instead, California legislators are highly skilled at self-perpetuation in office while driving the formerly Golden State into the ditch. New York, Illinois and most other states with full time legislatures have racked up similar unimpressive results.
The reform that seems to hold the most promise for attracting more talent to the legislature is to hold more limited, structured sessions. For the successful businessman, professional or entrepreneur, the current legislative sessions are too long and, more importantly, too unpredictable.
Apologists claim that state government is so complicated that lengthy sessions are required to get all the necessary legislating done. But that assertion doesn't stand up to examination either. Very few of our problems can be improved by passing more laws. Instead, when the legislature is in session there is always one more situation to micro-manage, one more favor to pass out, one more headline begging a legislative response.
Over a thousand bills are introduced annually. Other than the budget, only a minority are of any pressing significance. Many do more harm than good.
States with a smaller volume of legislative activity do fine. Texas, where the legislature meets only every other year, has one of the nation's healthiest economies.
In Utah, legislative sessions are limited to 45 days. (Arizona strives for 100 day sessions, but marathons up to 170 days are not uncommon and special sessions throughout the year add to the workload.) Utah legislative committees conduct hearings in the interim. Important issues can be considered in a more thoughtful, focused manner while efficiently limiting the time commitments of the citizen-legislators. It's a model Arizona should consider.
State government impacts our daily lives more than you may think. Schools and universities, crime, courts and prisons, environmental protections business regulations, health care and transportation are just some of the issues tackled by state legislators.
We need to do every thing we can to assure that the best and brightest are able to serve as our lawmakers.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
Rich posted at 4:40 pm on Sat, Jan 14, 2012.
Frankly, I don't want them to have enough power or money that their qualifications are important. They are currently overpaid, but then given their performance, free would be too much to pay. And yet we will re-elect some of them, the fault is not in our legislature but in ourselves.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:09 pm on Sat, Jan 14, 2012.
Everything was going great (I agreed with almost all of the Column) until he made a reference to the ..........UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE = Red Flags all over the place.
The reason the Utah State Legislature only meets for 45days is because it's decision-making is done by a ....HIGHER AUTHORITY.
Let's face facts here Folks, if a politician wants to get re-elected he/she had better follow the "straight and narrow" and that ends at Temple Square.
So let's just let the ...Arizona Legislature be the Arizona Legislature...warts and all. It's fun seeing the Democrats holding out their votes until the poor Speaker or Senate President has to ask for the 3rd time....."Has everybody voted"......LOL.
Dale Whiting posted at 1:23 am on Sun, Jan 15, 2012.
OK,
As an "East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net), a retired physician and former state senator" I suppose we need to give Tom some credit here. He should know what he is talking about. "The reform that seems to hold the most promise for attracting more talent to the legislature is to hold more limited, structured sessions." Getting the semi-pros out and allowing the real pros in, those who earn their livelihoods the honest way, does make sense. So does imposing term limitations. That's the sort of small government [the legislature] that seems to make the most sense.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:11 pm on Sun, Jan 15, 2012.
The problem with Clean Elections is that they didn't make it the EXCLUSIVE funding for all candidates.
Every candidate should get the same amount of money to campaign with and tv and radio stations should give each candidate an equal number of free spots as a public service for being allowed to use the airways to make money.
NO OTHER CAMPAIGN COMMERCIALS ALLOWED.
No wealthy candidate can buy his own airtime.
No supporting group can put out commercials or ads or any type of tv or radio material that supports a candidate OR ISSUE.
The exception being for issues that are being voted on by the people. If they are voting about an issue it's different than voting for a politician who owes wealthy sponsors.
All candidates get an equal amount of money for signage and mailings.
That puts everyone on an even footing and eliminates owing wealthy sponsors anything whether they be wealthy individuals or corporations.
And then slap term limits on top of that.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:14 pm on Sun, Jan 15, 2012.
If tv and radio stations had to give politicians free campaign spots -- an equal number and time for each candiate, then the expense to the state for campaign mailers and signage wouldn't be that excessive.
Perhaps have an income tax deduction ( state ) for giving money to the fund and those funds be dedicated so they can't be stolen for some other purpose.