By DONALD L. TOTTEN Should legislators serve fulltime?
IT WOULD appear that nothing has damaged our system of government more than the tendency of state legislatures and Congress to become full-time occupations for their elected members. This unfortunate development has directly resulted in an enormous expansion of the function of government at all levels, as elected officials have come to view their legislative tasks as full-time responsibilities rather than public services. In any occupation, the urge to justify its existence results in an inflated sense of importance. As the legislature becomes more full-time oriented, it creates new programs, expands old ones and manufactures solutions to problems which sometimes do not even exist. The tendency to justify a full-time legislature results in expansion of government into areas that would stretch the imagination of many of the framers of our original state Constitution.
And, individual full-time legislators, in order to justify their existence, produce more legislation covering more areas and appropriating more monies than the entire body did 50 years ago. As legislative service becomes more of a full-time occupation, there is an inevitable tendency for government to grow larger and more expansive in its efforts to justify its existence. With each of the new programs created, two new interest groups are created, both of which are dependent on the actions of the legislature for their existence. These two groups are the beneficiaries of the new programs and the bureaucracies created to administer them. Their voices then exert additional pressure on the legislative body for their perpetual existence and expansion. The less the legislature is exposed to these interest groups, the less the pressures to increase these funds, thereby restraining the growth of government. This proportional relationship between the growth of government and the tendency toward a full-time legislature has caused a rise in the rate of income consumed by government in the form of taxes at the federal, state and local levels from 10 per cent in the early 1900's to almost 45 per cent today. In those states which have retained the citizen-legislator concept, the pressure has not been as great to increase the functions of state government, and their rate of increase in the cost of state government has not accelerated nearly as fast as that of states whose legislative bodies meet more frequently. For example, the top three states in per capita tax collection — Alaska, New York and California — have no limit on their legislative sessions, whereas at the other end of the spectrum, the bottom three — Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi — have definite limits on the amount of time their legislatures can be in session. In fact, among the top 15 states in per capita tax collection, eight have no limits on the length of their sessions, including Illinois which ranks thirteenth. Of the bottom 15 in per capita tax collection, 12 have definite limits on the lengths of their sessions. Unfortunately, even the states which have maintained the citizen-legislator have been adversely affected because the federal government promotes programs nationwide that require state funds and state administration. In addition, new programs created in states with full-time legislatures soon gain recognition in the citizen-legislature states. The tendency toward a full-time legislature greatly diminishes the expertise that the citizen-legislators can bring to the legislative chambers. No political theoretician or full-time politician can match the range of experience and knowledge in the various trades and professions from which citizen-legislators more traditionally come. In Illinois we are beginning to experience the diminution of the role of the citizen-legislator. Today approximately 44 per cent of the Illinois House and 27 per cent of the Illinois Senate are made up of full-time legislators. This trend toward full-time legislators has been accelerating rapidly since the advent of annual sessions, and the trend is not a good one. The full-time legislator, in contrast to those who actually work in the trades and professions, has little idea of what impact the myriad of programs being created will have on those they hope to benefit or regulate. In addition, we have seen a reduction in the average age of the members of the Illinois General Assembly and correspondingly, a reduction in the experience they bring to that body.
An interesting phenomenon is occurring in Illinois because of our trend toward a full-time legislature. As the occupation becomes full-time, more members of the body are dependent solely on the income that their service in government provides and, of course, their continued receipt of that income is dependent on their ability to be reelected. Unfavorable media publicity can destroy the full-time legislator's livelihood. Rather than reflecting his constituency, the full-time legislator tends to reflect what the media is saying so he can maintain his job and his income. This has led to the enormous increase in the influence of the media to not only nominate and elect candidates, but also to influence the issues that the body deliberates. The result, of course, is that eventually the full-time legislator becomes insulated from his constituency and places undue importance on the media relationships rather than on constituent communications. We need look no further than to our Potomac Fraternity, the federal Congress, for how the full-time legislator has become insulated from the American citizen. We need look no further than to our own state: since the advent of annual sessions just eight years ago, we have doubled state spending.
DONALD L. TOTTEN 14/October 1978/Illinois Issues By TERRY A. STECZO
MY ANSWER to the question of whether state legislators should serve on a full-time basis is an unequivocal yes. As the complexion of state government has changed over the past few decades, so has responsibility for members of the Illinois legislature. The literally hundreds of programs which have been created on the state and federal level have made legislative service much more complex, intricate and challenging than in prior eras. Gone are the days when a legislator was expected to be in session for just a few weeks per biennium to approve the state budget and do little else. Also gone are the days when a constituency demanded little more than answers to letters and, perhaps, the resolution of minor problems. State government has become more diverse, and the traditional role of the legislature must change and adapt to a rapidly changing society and its demands for services and solutions. Yet, full-time legislators are a recent phenomenon. In 1941, a member of the ( Illinois House, for the first time, listed his occupation as "legislation." That same description was used by a member of the state Senate for the first time in 1963. During the present decade, however, the number of full-time legislators serving in the General Assembly has increased dramatically. Today, 44 per cent of the House members and 27 per cent of the Senate consider themselves full-time. Statutorily and traditionally, service in the General Assembly has been regarded as part-time. Even so, more and more legislators are forsaking that traditional role to develop more fully the public service role of their offices.
Opponents of the concept of full-time legislators often adhere to the older traditions of legislative service, citing the pre-1870 notion that the General Assembly be composed of so-called "citizen-legislators." The "citizen-legislator" may have been a perfectly acceptable role in our past history, but, in the post-Depression era, it has become less and less relevant. For example, the 42nd General Assembly (1901-02) met in biennial session for 74 days, succeeded in passing only 187 of 1,225 bills introduced, and enacted a biennial budget of approximately $12 million. In contrast, the 79th General Assembly (1975-76) spent an average of 178 days in session. During that period a total of 6,082 bills were introduced of which 1,783 were sent to the governor. Moreover, since the 1970 Constitution requires annual budget sessions, the amount of expenditures approved by the General Assembly averages approximately $9 billion per year — a far cry from earlier legislatures. The evidence suggests that if a legislator today wishes to perform satisfactorily, a much greater degree of time and effort must be put forth. Specifically, a member of the Illinois General Assembly in the 1970's must become acquainted with thousands of pieces of legislation of major and minor importance, all of which will affect at least some segment of the population in a positive or negative manner. In addition, a legislator, yearly, must become acquainted with, and digest, billions of dollars in appropriations requests included in the budgets, or amendments thereto, of hundreds of state agencies. Also, legislators have the responsibility to attend meetings of related committees, subcommittees and commissions which meet throughout the year. In recent years, the General Assembly has made more active use of subcommittee hearings during off-session times. A conscientious legislator must have time available for these sessions. And, as the number of permanent and temporary commissions has risen from one in 1900 to 100 in 1978, time must be made available so that commission work may be conducted in the most productive manner possible. On the local level, legislative responsibility has also increased. The growth of government programs has meant an increase of available services on an individual or municipal basis. Not only has demand to be informed of these services increased, but the expectation that a legislator be available to serve as a governmental liaison when questions and/or problems arise has become more prevalent.
The traditional legislative role has also changed simply because of the increased size of legislative districts. As the size of districts increases, so do the number of persons who contact legislators for assistance or information. In 1901, the population of Illinois was approximately 4.8 million. The average population of the 51 legislative districts was 94,500. Today, there are 59 legislative districts in a state with a population of over 11 million. The average population per district at the time of the last reapportionment (1971) was over 188,000. Included within the boundaries of each district are numerous municipal and other local governing bodies, such as school, park and library districts. Each has diverse, complex problems about which legislators are consistently contacted for assistance and remedies. Be it to solve individual constituent, local or state problems, in or out of session, a legislator today must be accessible. Surely, the time demands placed upon legislators today, as well as the scope of issues and problems with which a legislator must contend, makes the concept of a part-time legislator outmoded. If, on the other hand, full-time service in the legislature were mandated, other benefits to Illinoisans and the legislative process might be realized. First, possible conflicts of interest would be greatly minimized. Second, relief could be given to standing legislative committees which must, in many cases, approve or defeat many bills with a minimum of review or debate so as to meet self-imposed deadlines. Additionally, sponsors of comprehensive and controversial measures might be given valuable time to develop their proposals, rather than placing them on an interim calendar, where they may not reappear until the next General Assembly convenes, due to limitations imposed on even-year sessions. A full-time legislature could devote adequate time during the summer recess to properly study and debate major issues which otherwise might be postponed indefinitely. And, by doing so, it might recapture much of the legislative authority which has been abdicted to the executive branch or special interest groups. The part-time legislator is fast becoming the Edsel of state government and rightfully so. Citizens are demanding better government and more responsive elected officials. If the work product of a full-time legislator assists in realizing these demands, the citizens of Illinois can only benefit.
TERRY A. STECZO October 1978/ Illinois Issues/15
|
|||||||||||||||||||
