Up front: interviews with three legislative staffers

TO GET a broader view of what it is like to be staff person to the General Assembly, I talked to three experienced, front-line staff members. I chose not to interview staff directors because their involvement is not typical of the average staffer.

Photos by Mark Raeber

Q. What is the effect of staff on legislation?
SELCKE: It depends on the staff and legislators you're talking about. Some staff have no input. Some offer simple assistance. And others may start with drafting the bill, and carry it all the way through. If they trust you, you'll know next to as much about the bill as they [members of the legislature] do. You're the central focus for other people to come to for help with technical matters. It depends on the legislator. Staff vary too. I think it's my role to be active, as long as they want it. Some staff don't volunteer anything. By "active" I mean listen to everyone and watch what's going on, suggest amendments, monitor the bill in the Senate, etc.

Q. Can staff kill legislation?
SELCKE: No. It's not their role.

Q: What prepares you for staff work?
SELCKE: No one educational background prepares you, but you have to be able to communicate. Written and verbal skills are important.

DEWEESE: The key element is the ability to adapt to changing policies and organizational framework. No particular training prepares you. You can't be too personally ambitious. You can't be an advocate for a particular issue, or be wedded to the career of a particular member. You can't be too partisan.

RAGEN: I don't think you'd want a school for staff, or anything like that. I had some familiarity from my political studies. Staff should be like the legislators and come from a broad range of backgrounds. New people add a little bit more.

Q. What attributes are needed?
DEWEESE: It helps to have an optimistic view of the legislature. You need an open mind, and the ability to get along with a variety of personalities and styles. You have to have a hell of a lot of humility. There's not a lot of positive personal reinforcement. You have to set individual goals and be intrinsically motivated. The job is what you make it, not catering to styles and whims. You have to have the ability to use good judgment and not move too hastily or go out on a limb. By "limb" I mean acting as a quasi-legislator, or taking a visible role, or offering public comment on behalf of leadership. The watchword is to keep a low profile. Remember that you are not the member. You are supportive and generally invisible and should remain so. You're not the one trying to get elected. You walk a tightrope between personalities and issues. Try to not take sides with members or issues.

Q. Is it any different being a woman on staff?
SELCKE: No. They rely on you if you know what you are talking about. They have no choice. I've never come across anything to indicate or make me feel there's any great difference.

November 1981 | Illinois Issues | 29

Q. How long does it take staff to learn enough to be of value?
RAGEN: It takes two years before you figure out where the information is, and how to get it.

Q. What is it like in the spring?
SELCKE: What do you think? You have absolutely no personal life. You dream about your subject area. It's organized chaos. There are times I wake up in the middle of the night and think of something and write it down. It's the first thing you hear on the radio in the morning. You never stop thinking about it.
DEWEESE: Things are not what they seem. To the outsider, they seem chaotic and unmanageable. But it actually is a compressed work period — kind of a never-ending flow of bills, amendments — and a logistic nightmare. Experience helps you manage the flow of what's happening. Computerization helps. Faster printing of bills. Better posting of notices. When I started, there were seven substantive staff and five appropriations staff. There's better staffing now. [Substantive staff work on bills that change the wording of statutes or add statutes to Illinois law; appropriations staff work on appropriations bills and the entire expenditure cycle of state government.]

Mike Ragen

Q. How hectic and demanding is it? What's the pressure like?
RAGEN: It's extremely draining, both physically and mentally. I sometimes wonder how I can keep going six or seven days at a time, 10 hours a day. But the adrenalin keeps you going. We haven't lost anyone yet [laughs], and no one's jumped. . . . Accuracy is everything. If you screw up, you can literally cost the state millions of dollars. Plus you have to be double-prompt.
SELCKE: Staff rely on staff. Most cooperate and everyone pitches in. You know if someone has a really heavy day tomorrow and you're not as busy. It really works out. It alleviates the pressure.
DEWEESE: Special sessions and big issues take a lot more time, too. More weekends and nights. The people working on reapportionment have been working a lot of nights and weekends.

Q. What if you do an analysis, and you're wrong? Or you interpret something like federal regulations one way, and the other side interprets them in a totally opposite way?
RAGEN: If you recognize your error, that's okay. The senators realize the constraints you work under. With the federal example, we had one like that once. I forgot who won or lost, but the issue was dealt with. Sometimes on the floor, you don't have time to go back to your office or time to look at the statutes, and you have to go on gut instinct.

Q. What gives you satisfaction?
RAGEN: June 30th.

Q. No, really.
RAGEN: You set your sights each session. There are a thousand little entities of satisfaction. It changes from minute to minute. You get an amendment adopted. It's not the typical nine-to-five job.
DEWEESE: I can thumb through the statutes and see things I've been involved in. For each issue I can recall preparing an amendment or being involved with the issue. You try to get ideas across and see those ideas involved in the debate. You prompt issues to be raised. Sometimes you rewrite an entire bill.
SELCKE: Well, when you find a way to amend a bill to solve a problem, that's satisfying. When you see your amendment accepted and used. I have a larger degree of satisfaction this year because of working on the transportation issue. It's important to everybody. It's fun. There's a lot of pressure, but you get to use your knowledge. You get to be more involved.
DEWEESE: Part of my interest is public policy. It's involvement without the electioneering or high profile. You can be very involved — if not equally involved [as legislators] — in policy formation and enactment. When I started out, I wasn't as keenly interested in state and local government. But now I think it is a fascinating, critical level of government.

Q. Who do you serve?
DEWEESE: There isn't a clear priority, maybe because of my subject matter [health and welfare]. But I am employed by and am immediately responsible to [House Minority Leader Michael J.] Madigan. There are different levels of staff. Some have more contact with the general membership, doing constituent stuff, drafting amendments and working with minority spokesmen on committees. There's another level, too — the staff closer to the leader. But you don't work counter to members in favor of leaders, though some of the new members may think that.

Kathy DeTella Selcke

SELCKE: I serve all the Republican representatives. I serve the full House [Republicans], but the Speaker comes first because he's the leader. The other members are not overshadowed, though. I've never been told to not do something someone has asked me for.
RAGEN: I serve Phil Rock, President of the Senate. Then the committee chairman, and the entire Democratic side of the aisle.

Q. What happens if you get completely conflicting instructions on, for example, amendments to a bill? One member wants an amendment to do this. And another member wants an amendment to prohibit exactly that. What do you do?
SELCKE: You do it. You don't pair them off. I don't have any right to question it. You have to be able to change your point of reference quickly. Think like a Chicagoan one minute. And then like a downstater,or a suburbanite. That's what drives you bonkers. You have to change your point of reference regionally, and you have to know the pros and cons. One minute you have to write an article in favor of public transportation. And someone else might ask for arguments against it. I think the Senate staff tend to be more personally involved maybe because there are fewer senators. House staff do more technical research and are not as personally involved.
RAGEN: I've never had it happen. But if it did, you just do it.

Q. What do you do if a member suggests a bill or amendment that is just an ungodly awful idea? Do you warn them?
SELCKE: You give them your best. But warn them? That depends on how well you know them.

Q. Do you get cynical about preparing amendments when you know in advance they are going to go down to defeat?
SELCKE: Not anymore. It's part of session. You have to like the legislature and the sessions. It's all part of it. You try to keep your emotions outside. Unless someone asks you what you think.
RAGEN: Anyone who is angry or dislikes

30 | November 1981 | Illinois Issues

how the system operates is just here to put in time. There is a certain amount of cynicism on repeat issues, but a hard-nose cynic can't last.

DEWEESE: Cynical, no. But sometimes you can't help becoming attached to an idea. I can't be just a functionary. But you have to have some detachment and be able to walk away. You're never at a loss for somthing to attract your interest. You may lose one amendment and go on to another that works. Maybe 15 fail, and one succeeds. There are thousands of bills introduced, and they all have amendments. If you see that you have an impact on a handful, you feel encouraged that you make a difference. It's the constant failure to draft ammendments and see them adopted that drives people out.

Q. Does the legislature do a good job of screening bad bills?
RAGEN: The economy screens the bad bills. The members really respond to the economic times as far as appropriations go. If there's a good balance in the state treasury, many ideas that are costly are proposed. They [legislators] respond to outside influences, like the economy and public opinion.
DEWEESE: On the whole, they do a good job. But it's presumptuous of me to judge good or bad. Sometimes technical errors get through all the way to the governor. There's a lot of filtering of things which are not ripe for passage, or bills that need more study. It bothers me that there's so much emphasis on the foul-ups. There's very little positive reward in this job. They get very little praise. That must be the inherent public perception. That has to be overcome.

Q. What's your reaction when a piece of "bad" legislation goes through?
RAGEN: One piece of legislation won't make everything for a session. If you really get personally involved in the effort to pass or kill something, you're not a good staff person. You're not a good worker. You really have to be neutral and shrug it off. You almost have to be a little cold.

Q. During the session, as issues are considered, what is the mix of politics, emotion and reason?
RAGEN: Ninety to 95 percent of it all, including the budget, is not political in the Democratic-Republican sense. There's a certain amount of emotion. And it's not all crocodile tears. Many issues are emotional. A lot of the child legislation, child pornography, was emotional. I don't know if they were good or bad bills, but some members spoke against the bills and opposed them, even when it was tough to vote no, because the particular member thought the bill was bad. It's a good mixture of all three.
DEWEESE: That's apples and oranges. I've never seen anyone go off the deep end because of strongly held political beliefs. There certainly is a lot of emotional discussing or posturing. The same people who nearly come to blows can be very close out of session. Illinois is an intensely partisan state. Partisanship takes precedence over emotion. Rationality is part of both. There's a certain legitimate basis for political decisions, where "political decisions" means responsiveness to people. You can't stand back and be completely objective. It's all part of the legislature. Few things stand by themselves as nonpartisan or bipartisan, but you hear that a lot.

Q. How do you think staff are viewed by the press and lobbyists?

Kurt De Weese

DEWEESE: The press uses us for information, and that's appropriate. The unwritten rule is that staff aren't to be quoted. We're sources for cues, but you go to the source [legislators] for quotes and stories. With lobbyists, it varies with the group. Some view us as an extension of their organization. Others see us as obstacles to work around. Generally, they respect us and we have a bit of credibility. Staff can serve as an intermediary to filter information and sometimes to mediate disputes. Some strictly avoid staff and try to get to legislators. If they do, then you respond. Then staff becomes kind of superfluous, coming after the fact. Some people might even see staff as a kind of interest group. The legislator talks to staff, but he also talks to lobbyists to form an opinion. We don't tell them how to vote. But a timely comment or question makes a difference.
RAGEN: It runs to extremes. To some of the public, staff is a hack who parties all night. To others, staff is all-powerful, who has the ear of all the senators. We just do our job. With lobbyists, sometimes they try to get to the senators without us, and it can be to their benefit, because we're not there to raise red flags. Other lobbyists are coming around though, and work with staff. The idea of staff is actually relatively new. With the press, I don't know. I rarely deal with them, except to verify a number.

Q. How do you think staff are viewed by legislators?
SELCKE: Every rep has a different view. Some just want you to do constituent work. Others want just numbers and information. Some want nothing. Others want your opinion. That's why it seems so hectic. You constantly have to change your point of reference. The type of demand changes, too. Some reps want all the detail you have. Some none. You do as well as you can.
DEWEESE: Legislators see us as an extension of themselves. Some might think we are working against them. But generally they think of us as a direct extension, trying to filter information, and working constructively. Others may think we add to their workload, but I don't buy that. When I first started here, members didn't have the time to read all the bills, and analysis wasn't available on all bills. Now they have the reassurance that everything has been looked at at least once. On the whole, staff provides a way of getting a handle on the workload. They couldn't do it themselves no matter how much technology you use. I think they are genuinely appreciative.

Q. What do you feel when the session is over?
RAGEN: Elation.
SELCKE: Every year it's different. The first year it was exciting when the session was over. The second year I was relieved. This last year, the third year, it has kept going. We haven't felt much of a break. Transportation is a continuing issue.
DEWEESE: Emptiness. You've pressed and pressed. Some bills have been passed, some killed, others held. Many were not resolved. You've been drained, but it's not as though the game is over and you see a clean-cut end. Maybe not empty, but you don't have a sense of great accomplishment or success or failure. You don't have resolution or job completion. Issues carry over. Appropriations is a good example. No sooner is everything done than it starts all over.

I use the analogy of athletics. In sports you're either tackled or not. You have a third out or you don't. There is a winner and loser. But in the legislature it is a much longer game, without definite goals, and it's hard to tell if it's the beginning or ending. The cast changes, and it's a never-ending political cycle.

Patrick O'Grady is manager of the State Mandates Review Office in the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs. He analyzed revenue issues for the Senate Republican staff for three years and has also worked for a legislative commission and as a lobbyist.

November 1981 | Illinois Issues | 31