the state of the legislature: a self-assessment by north carolina …€¦ · the state of the...

4 p o p u l a r g ov e r n m e n t

R ecent fund-raising and influence-peddling indictments and convic-tions in both Washington, D.C.,

and Raleigh have led to concerns aboutthe legislature as an institution and toan outcry for legislative reform. NorthCarolinians might be surprised—andheartened—to learn that many of theirlawmakers share those concerns.

In this article, current and formerNorth Carolina lawmakers speak in theirown words about their institution, theGeneral Assembly. Through their com-ments, we show how they examine andevaluate the legislature’s performance, as-sess the trends and events that have in-fluenced the institution most in the lasttwenty years, and describe how thesetrends have affected the legislature’s over-all effectiveness. We begin by puttingthese trends in a national context. Weconclude with a call for the General As-sembly and its leaders to heed the com-ments presented in this article and takemajor steps toward self-renewal.

The State of State LegislaturesNationwide

Studies of state legislatures nationwideindicate that they are going throughstressful transitions.1 Legislators areexperiencing increased time demandsand expectations created by the explo-sion of information and by technologiesof rapid communication. They are ex-pected to process more information,respond immediately to multiple publicswho send e-mail, handle pre-recorded

phone messages, and, most recently, payattention to the blogs. Politics is morepartisan and more contentious. Thepublic has less confidence in the legisla-ture than it had in the past. More legis-lators now see their time in the statelegislature as a stepping-stone to higheroffice, so they try to establish partisanvoting records, score points in the media,and reinforce ideological positions.

These conditions and trends are ex-acerbated by computer-based analysesof voters to ensure homogenous, narrow-interest, politically safe districts for in-cumbents. Legislators must spend moreand more time raising funds for increas-ingly expensive media campaigns. Con-sequently, special- and single-interestlobbyists and groups representing organ-izations with deep pockets exert increasedinfluence. Also, legislative leaders skilledat raising substantial campaign fundscommand special new power.

The net result nationwide for governingat the state level is that finding solutionsto public problems that will achieve thesupport of a majority of legislators hasbecome a more partisan, more conten-tious, and more difficult process. These con-ditions have produced state legislaturesthat do not allow enough time for criticaltasks like thoughtful deliberation, creativeproblem solving, compromise, and stra-tegic decision making and policymaking.As the Jack Abramov scandal of 2006showed, these trends are mirrored—andamplified—at the level of the U.S. Congress.

Kiel has served as an organizational consul-tant to government agencies since 1985.Covington was director of fiscal researchfor the North Carolina General Assemblyfor seventeen years. Contact them at [email protected] and [email protected].

P O P U L A R G O V E R N M E N T

The State of the Legislature: A Self-Assessment by North Carolina LawmakersDavid Kiel and Thomas Covington

Oh wad some power the giftie gie us,To see oursels as ithers see us!It wad frae monie a blunder free us,An’ foolish notion.

—Robert Burns, 1796

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 7 5

North Carolina’s Participation inNational Legislative Trends

The ethical questions widely reported inthe press during 2006 concerning theNorth Carolina General Assembly werenot of the same scale and magnitude asthose afflicting Tom DeLay, former ma-jority leader of the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives, and his fellow members ofCongress. However, the early 2007guilty plea of Jim Black, former speakerof the N.C. House, gives credence to theview that the General Assembly has notbeen immune to these national trends.The tribulations of the Washington andRaleigh legislatures produced similarinstitutional reactions: trumpeting ofbig reforms in campaign finance andlobbying laws. In each instance, the

press characterized the effort as toolittle and too late.2

In our study of the North Carolinalegislature, we found evidence that manypast and present legislators, Democraticand Republican, are concerned abouthow the legislature as an institution isstanding up to these nationally high-lighted pressures. We originally designedthe study as a needs assessment for apotential legislative training program,but we quickly found that we wereuncovering information related todeeper institutional trends and issues.

We conducted interviews in 2004with a group of fifty-three past andpresent lawmakers. About 70 percentwere legislators, and about 30 percentlegislative staffers and senior lobbyists.All spoke under the condition of anony-

mity.3 Those interviewed included a mixof men and women, Caucasians andAfrican Americans, Republicans andDemocrats, and newer and more ex-perienced legislators. Because one of uswas the legislature’s director of fiscalresearch for seventeen years, and becausethe Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation wassupporting our study, we experienced a100 percent positive response rate toour requests for interviews.

This report is unique in relying ex-clusively on legislators’, staffers’, andlobbyists’ own perceptions and present-ing findings in their own words. We thinkthat it constitutes a candid institutionalself-evaluation. Our respondents discusswhat makes them proud (or not proud)of the General Assembly, how they assessits effectiveness, what trends have in-fluenced the legislature over the past twodecades, and what impact these trendshave had on legislative effectiveness.

Lawmakers’ Evaluation of Their Performance

We asked lawmakers when they weremost and least proud of the legislature.Their responses to the “most proud”question suggest that they use a varietyof criteria to judge effectiveness. Sixthemes were evident: having long-termimpact, achieving specific results, actingwith fiscal integrity, deliberating effec-tively, preserving the institutional influ-ence of the legislative branch, and actingwith political courage. North Carolinalawmakers are not proud of themselvesor the institution when they think thatlegislative action lacks these qualities.

North Carolina’s state legislators con-duct the people’s business in this modern,well-landscaped building. Many of themare concerned about how their institu-tion is standing up to pressures beingfelt in state legislatures nationwide.

The information explosion and technologies of rapid communication have raised the public’s expectations of legislators.

Rale

igh

New

s&

Obs

erve

r


Having Long-Term ImpactLawmakers assess long-term impact bythe General Assembly’s ability andwillingness to craft and enact legislationanticipating future needs and makingpositive changes that will address stateissues for years to come. The followingcomments reflect this kind of thinking:

I think the legislature’s best momentsinvolved enacting multiyear long-term programs that address broadpolicy problems . . . [like] the Highway Trust Fund, the Basic Education Program, the PublicSchool Accounting System, and the State Government Perfor-mance Audit.

The legislature does a good job atmaking small adjustments in avariety of areas as needed. However,as a body, we are not very good atstrategic long-term planning . . . As a result, if we do long-termthinking, it’s usually because someoutside interest group has done theheavy lifting, like the Public SchoolForum with the bond issue.

Achieving Specific ResultsBy “specific results,” lawmakers meanlegislation that solves a problem for agroup of their constituents, their dis-trict, their region, or the state overall.For example:

Something else that I was evenprouder of was legislation to helpthirty-nine low-performing schoolsin a pilot effort for the ABC Pro-gram [North Carolina’s trend-setting school accountability andincentive system, adopted in 1996] . . .We gave these schools additionalresources to upgrade . . . The schoolsimproved dramatically, and this ledto the adoption of our statewidetesting and improvement programs,that have now become nationallyrecognized and emulated.

Sometimes the results are not good.This produces an opposite reaction:

The legislature currently spends verylittle time looking at the effective-ness of programs [and] establishingprocesses of accountability, indica-tors of results, etc. Legislators seem

to be more interested in gettingthings done quickly, rather than assuring they are done well.

Acting with Fiscal IntegrityFiscal integrity is the third criterion thatlawmakers use to evaluate the effective-ness of their work:

I think, on the other hand, despiteour current budget problems, wehave done well to keep our taxesreasonable, including propertytaxes, corporate taxes, and personalincome taxes.

In general, I feel proud of the legis-lature when we are working tomake our state a better place, butwe have to make do with what wehave. We have to maintain fiscalintegrity.

l think we have moved down a pathwhere there is a lack of financialintegrity. I think we’re going to bepaying in the future for some of thedecisions we’ve made in the lastthree years. The questionable choicesinclude off-budget financing, capitalfacilities certificates of participation,retirement-system funding choices, etc.

Deliberating EffectivelyLegislators take pride in the quality ofdeliberative processes and the quality ofcolleagueship. They typically feel proudwhen they are able to reach a goodcompromise among opposing views,when they fully examine an issue andfeel confident in the result:

I was most proud when we wereable to achieve a consensus on im-portant issues among those whoformerly had held opposing views.One example of this was gettingenvironmentalists and municipal-ities to agree on the terms ofeligibility for the 1993 water bonds.

I was proud of the legislature whenit actively examined the pros and

cons of a proposal . . . We did agood job when we created thestructured sentencing policy, forexample. We took a long time to do that. We had a committee thatworked hard to create guidelinesthat now all the judges use.

When they cannot reach agreements,lawmakers are critical of themselves:

The legislature right now is a bit dysfunctional. We are not aproblem-solving body right now.The House only can act wheneveryone agrees.

My greatest frustration was whenwe were doing welfare reform in1995. In that case you had peoplenegotiating about something theydid not understand. It was ideo-logical versus fact-based, so therewas negotiation by stonewalling.

Preserving the Institutional Influenceof the Legislative Branch Legislators and staffers also can besensitive to the institutional role of the legislative branch of government as a whole, and protective of its position in relation to the power of the governor, the judiciary, and otheroutside influences. They are proud of the body when they think it asserts its constitutional functions effectivelyand forcefully:

I tend to be proud of the institutionwhen they stand up as a body—forexample, when they faced MikeEasley down on the Tobacco Settle-ment when he was attorney general.He was trying to impose a take-it-or-leave-it allocation of the moneyon them.

We also had a very difficult problemwith [the Department of] Transpor-tation [DOT], which had just gonethrough a bid-rigging scandal. DOTconsidered itself a kind of sovereigncountry and would not cooperate . . .We had subpoena power, and weused it. We wound up passingtwenty new statutory provisions tochange the way DOT does things,and we also ultimately cleanedhouse over there, right up to andincluding the secretary.

Legislators take pride in the quality of their deliberations andcollegial relations.

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 7 7

But when the legislature does not stand upfor its role, some respondents are upset:

It seems to me that in the last threeyears, the legislature has allowed thegovernor to eviscerate its constitu-tional authority with respect to thefinances and budgeting for the State.

The legislature is not functioning atits best when it is unduly influencedby the governor, lobbyists, or otherinterests, [when] it does not take thetime to fully explore a measure, andwhen its members do not protect thelegislative institution and its pro-cesses vis-à-vis the executive or ju-dicial branches of state government.

Acting with Political CourageAlthough many people think that being alegislator is all about being reelected, law-makers tend to be proud of the institutionas a whole when they think that it showspolitical courage instead of bowing topolitical expediency. For example:

It was particularly pleasing to mewhen the legislature, as a whole,supported actions that were notespecially popular back home, suchas tax increases during tough finan-cial times and capping the prisonpopulation temporarily while weworked our way out of a lawsuit.

The insurance companies werethreatening to leave the state if wedid not give them everything theywanted, which was to be able tostop writing insurance for daycarecenters and other public facilities.Their tactics were very heavy-handed, but we faced them downand protected the public interest.We also had a situation where wedecided to franchise the wine in-dustry, like the automobile industry.I was accused of all sorts of wrong-doing by the opposition in theirattempt to block it. We went aheadnevertheless.

Legislators are sometimes critical ofcolleagues who take the easy way outand put politics over substance:

I have a problem with colleagueswho try to legislate by sound bite.Some people push a personalagenda in this way. They try to get

things passed that are popularshort-term but may not be good forthe state long-term. Often the legis-lation is based on misinformationthat is not questioned in the rush toget something popular done . . .[T]his costs the taxpayers money.

In addition to criticizing their colleagues’legislative tactics, some lawmakers thinkthe trend toward greater partisanship isbad for North Carolina:

Now we have hand-to-hand combataround partisan interests. We havepeople splitting into groups andpitting those groups against eachother. It has become a detriment tothe state that our decision-makingprocess is so divisive.

Most, but not all, lawmakers think thatthe increased level of political and ideo-logical conflict is a problem for the insti-tution. An alternative view is that conflictis part and parcel of the business oflegislating:

Inevitably, when one legislator orgroup of legislators feels “proud of”a majority action that advancedcertain goals, other members feeldefeated and “not so proud.” So thesimple answer to your question is, Ipersonally felt “proud” when I wasable to convince the majority tosupport an action that I believed instrongly and worked hard to pro-mote. However, my victory wasoften someone else’s defeat—that’sthe nature of the institution.

Trends Influencing theEffectiveness of the NorthCarolina Legislature

We asked those we interviewed todescribe the trends they saw affectingthe legislature over the past twentyyears or so. They cited a wide range ofinterrelated political, financial, ideo-logical, and technological trends. The

consensus was that the General Assem-bly is more divided, more partisan,more driven by campaign financingneeds, and more vulnerable to special-interest influences than it was in thepast. These forces produce a morestressful institutional environment forso-called citizen-legislators. In short, theGeneral Assembly is tracking trendssimilar to those in other legislaturesacross the country (for a graphic presen-tation of the trends, see Figure 1).

An Increase in Two-PartyCompetitivenessOne major change in the legislativelandscape over the past two decades isthe increase in competitiveness betweenthe Democratic and Republican parties.Control of the General Assembly by theDemocratic Party began in the late nine-teenth century and continued uninter-rupted until the early 1990s, ending inthe so-called Mavretic revolution. Rep-resentative Joe Mavretic, a Democraticmember of the House from EdgecombeCounty, led a successful rebellion againstlong-time speaker Liston Ramsey andthe Democratic leadership. The Mav-retic coalition won control of the Housewith support from Republican legislators.For the first time in many years, theRepublicans participated in a governingcoalition. In the mid 1990s, the Repub-licans won control of the House out-right for the first time and, during the2003–4 session, participated in an un-precedented joint speakership of theHouse. Since that time the General As-sembly has reverted to Democratic con-trol (in the current session, 31–19 in theSenate and 68–52 in the House.)

More Heavily Contested and More Expensive CampaignsThe return of Democratic Party domi-nance, however, does not mean a return to a low-competition environ-ment as measured by total campaignexpenditures. More than $30 million, a new record, was spent in 2006 onGeneral Assembly elections, double the amount just ten years earlier.4 Forcampaign expenditures by winningcandidates in elections over the lastfifteen years, see Table 1.

Campaigns are much more expensivethan in the past because of the increased

Spending on legislative campaigns has doubled since 1996, now ex-ceeding $30 million.


Figure 1. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of the North Carolina General Assembly, 1990 to the Present

Political Trends• Increase in party

competitiveness• More ideological national

political culture• Increase in playing

to media

Financial Trends• Rising cost of media• Increase in campaign

expenses• Increase in need for

fund-raising

Shifts in Power• Increase in power of

lobbyists and intereststhey represent

• Increase in power of topleadership people(speaker, president pro tem, chairs of RulesCommittees, etc.)

Structural Changes• Single-member districts• Redistricting to protect

incumbents• More homogenous

districts• Governor getting veto• Governor getting second

term• Top legislative leaders

serving multiple terms

Impact on Deliberations• More ideological

membership• More rigid party

discipline/lines • Less incentive to

compromise, morepolitical posturing

• More contentioussessions

• Less civility, comity; morefrequent breakdowns ofdecorum

Session Impact• Fiscal deadlock, longer

sessions • More run-on bills, special-

projects legislation• Marginalization of study

commissions • Committee chairs

yielding more decisionsto leadership, lessaccountable

Personal Stresses• More constituency

access via e-mail,increased demands

• Fund-raising demandingmore time and energy

• Length of sessionsdetracting from family,business

• Low legislative pay/high time commitment,limiting who can run and serve

Impact on Legislating• More stress on legislators, turnover• Less institutional memory• Less long-term strategic legislation• Less program evaluation/oversight• Erosion of power vis-à-vis governor

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 7 9

emphasis on media-based campaignsand the rising costs of media:

Some factors fueling the influx ofmoney into the system include therise of two-party competitiveness,the need for media expenditures to reach people in urban areas, andthe quasi-monopolies that exist in media markets, making mediavery expensive.

We have become a two-party state.The special interests have becomemore organized; they try to pin youdown with questionnaires. Nationalpolitics has spilled over into stateand local politics: negative cam-paigning, obsession with the media,consultants, focus groups, ads, etc.

There is the trend toward two-partycompetitiveness. This causes peopleto look for issues to run on and todifferentiate themselves from theother party. Everything is now a contest, and issues are less likelyto be decided on their merits. Thereis too much looking ahead to how agiven issue can be used in a thirty-second sound bite by their opponents.

Increased Influence of Campaign ContributorsAccording to lawmakers, the big bene-ficiaries of this and related trends arecandidates with the resources to financepolitical campaigns. Because there is agreater need for campaign money, therehas been an increase in the influence oflobbyists, whose clients are willing tocontribute, and moneyed interests, whichprovide the large contributions neededto run modern political campaigns:

When the [Raleigh] News & Observerattacked the hog lagoons . . . , thehog industry flooded the legislaturewith money. This got the attentionof other special interests, and theytried the same tactic thereafter. Thenet result of this is a great increasein the power of the special interests.

Now everybody has their own PAC,so we have a collection of specialinterest groups pushing their pointof view on the legislature on avariety of issues, and it is harder tohear the people’s voice in all this.

More Unified and Polarized CaucusesLawmakers report that this increasedinfluence has, in turn, led to an increasein the leverage of key leadership posi-tions in the House and the Senate. Therecent speakers of the House and presi-dents of the Senate could raise substan-tial sums of money from lobbyists,professional and corporate associations,and other groups and channel thosefunds to party loyalists. When leaders inboth chambers hold substantial cam-paign funds, they have the means toenforce party unity in the caucuses. Thisfurther polarizes already existing partisanand ideological divisions between theparty caucuses. Lawmakers are awareof and concerned about this practice:

There are more lobbyists than ever be-fore, and because they direct increasingamounts of funds to the leadershipand members for their campaigns,their influence has increased.

The rise of campaign expenses isanother disturbing trend. It nowcosts a quarter of a million dollarsto run for the Senate and $100,000to run for the House. As a result,members are more dependent on thespeaker, who has an advantage inraising funds. [Authors’ comment:Costs have increased even more sincethis statement was made in 2004.]

More Homogenous DistrictsSome respondents think that thelegislature’s creation of single-member

districts in 2002 has been a boon forbuilding coalitions:5

Single-member districts have createdthe possibility and the necessity for people to address issues state-wide because you have to build acoalition of counties to get thingsdone. Multimember districts oftenmeant people could duck issues.

But most of those interviewed say thatsingle-member districts, combined withcomputer-based redistricting designedto protect incumbents, have producedmembers with more homogenous con-stituent bases and a more narrow set ofinterests to represent. This has lessenedthe incentives to seek middle-of-the-road solutions:

Another part of this is theredrawing of legislative districtsalong partisan lines, combined withsingle-member districts. With thecomputer technology available, you can now draw a district withreasonable assurance it will votehowever you design it to vote. Thisleads to narrowly defined interestswithin districts.

Single-member districts and big-money campaigning make you more vulnerable and work againststatesmanship because you have to please your supporters moreconsistently . . . Now “checkingwith the people” is often morerelated to assessing the impact of

Table 1. Spending by 170 Winning Candidates for the North Carolina General Assembly

Election Total Spending Average Spending

1992 $ 3.9 million $ 23,000

1994 4.9 million 28,800

1998 11.9 million 70,000

2002 17.2 million 100,000

2006 22.8 million 134,000

Source: Bob Hall, director, Democracy North Carolina, personal communication, March 29, 2007.Amounts in absolute dollars. Hall explains the results as follows:

The rapid rise in legislative campaign fund-raising and spending began after the 1994election, when the GOP demonstrated its viability, captured the state House majority, andreached campaign fund-raising parity with House Democrats for the first time in modernhistory. House Republican candidates actually outspent House Democratic candidates in the1996 election and held on to the majority for another cycle. After 1994, Democrats in theSenate and then in the House got much more aggressive about coordinating and escalatingtheir fund-raising. The “arms race” took off.


one’s action on fund-raising thanactually gauging constituentinterests in the broader sense.

This narrow interest may also makeit hard to see how a statewide per-spective is required to solve certainproblems, and how legislation that does not directly benefit thepredominant demography of yourdistrict might deserve your support.When everyone votes on a narrowwhat’s-in-it-for-me basis, then thestate as a whole is less likely to beserved effectively.

Greater Diversity of PerspectiveSome lawmakers welcome the diversityof viewpoints that a genuine two-partysystem brings to the legislature:

With a two-party system, morepeople have been involved in theleadership of the General Assembly.This has led to a greater talent poolbeing available from both parties.

Having a real two-party system is abig change. We’ve learned that wehave to work with people on bothsides of the aisle . . . , and [havingtwo parties] continues to . . . bringmore [new] people on. And I thinkthat’s good because people fromdifferent parts of the state, andpeople who are versed in differentareas of what we do here [are moreinvolved in the legislative process].

Having two parties probably makesthings a bit more balanced. Nowyou’ve got diversity in thinking. If you don’t have any checks andbalances, you get caught up in aroutine—you get into a box, andyou don’t want to hear other views.It has made for a better deliberative-type process.

More Political Posturing and MoreCross-Party AnimosityOther lawmakers report that there ismore political posturing within eachbody and between the House and the Senate, designed to attract mediaattention and to get positioned for anupcoming election. This polarizingtendency on the floor of the GeneralAssembly and within the caucuses hasmade positive cross-party relationships

between legislators more difficult. Someof those interviewed say that consideringlegislation on its merits is more difficultbecause of the increased “noise” ofpolitical jockeying, positioning, andsymbolic politics:

Sometimes we get so bogged downin partisan roles [that] people digtheir heels in and forget who theyare serving. Sometimes people willbelieve in a bill but vote against itbecause of the party.

There is a strong trend away fromcivil discourse and debate and prob-lem solving, toward “demagoguing”issues.

Technology has allowed publicpolicy to be driven by national-levelpartisan thinkers and tacticians. The agenda now is on the Internet.If I want to know what the Repub-lican Party or the liberal Democratsare going to be talking about nextyear, there are several websites thatI go to from which I can [get a pre-view of what they will be saying].Legislators tend to go to thosewebsites, you know. As a result, wehave a group-think process, con-nected to national politics . . . Youjust go [to the Internet site], print it off, and introduce it. That is ahuge change.

Several lawmakers report that the socialfabric of the institution is fraying as aresult of this partisan noise:

There are critical trends towardfractionalization in the legislature,and the level of animosity has risenbetween and within the caucuses.

I think the power of friendship isunderappreciated as part of the leg-islative process—friendship evenacross party lines. People will sup-port your bills even if they disagreewith you politically, if there is thatfriendship. Sometimes this aids the

legislative process, which wouldotherwise be stymied. For example,I have been a close friend of [amember of the other party] formany years, despite our vast pol-itical differences. Now, however,things have become so partisan thatthese friendships are harder to form.

The Impact on Legislative Effectiveness

Most lawmakers we interviewed thinkthat, in many cases, the trends justdiscussed are hurting the legislature’sability to live up to the standards it setsfor itself. Our respondents identify someadditional problems, including voterapathy, legislator stress and turnover,and the diminution of the body’s repre-sentative makeup.

Decreased Ability to Plan for the Long TermAbility to plan for the long term appearsto be one of the most important criteriathat some lawmakers use to assess the ef-fectiveness of the General Assembly. Inthe opinion of many lawmakers, the cur-rent trends do not favor taking a long-term view of solving the state’s problems:

There is too much emphasis on thetwo-year election cycle. We have asituation where Medicaid, education,and prison spending continue togrow and crowd out all other partsof the State budget at the same time[that] our tax revenues are decliningbecause of the loss of our manufac-turing base. No one seems to be ad-dressing this basic set of issues . . .We lack a long-term plan andvision. We can foresee the problems,such as the retirement of the babyboomers, but we don’t seem to havea way to address these problems.

We have . . . sacrificed employeesalaries for the last several years. I do not think that legislators are as concerned as they should be with the long-term deterioration of the State workforce. We alsohave not invested in State property,construction, and IT [informationtechnology] as we should. [Authors’note: This comment was made in 2004. In the 2006 legislative

Positive cross-party relations are hurt by a desire for more media attentionand by higher levels of partisanship.

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 7 11

session, the legislature passed thelargest pay raise for state employeesin several years.]

Everyone has a short-term, quick-fixperspective—that is, “What can I doin two years?” This is not a goodthing. We have not used the oppor-tunity of the budget crunch to makegood decisions that create more ef-ficient government and programs.

Less Effective DeliberationThe net result of these trends, our re-spondents say, is more heat and less lightcoming from the combustion of oppos-ing views on the floor of the chambers:

Even though there have been longersessions and budget crunches, theincrease in partisanship emerges asthe major trend affecting legislativeperformance. The battle is oftenabout symbols and images ratherthan substance and policy.

Because there is more parity amongthe parties, there is more discussion

on legislation in the chambers.Unfortunately, a lot of this discus-sion is purely partisan in nature anddoes not illuminate the issues in anyuseful detail. Too often it is a re-stating of philosophy.

The long sessions also crowd outthe study commissions, which did a lot of background work for thecommittees. This leads to more bad legislation, since things are nolonger sent back for study. Now abad bill can [be passed by commit-tee and] gain greater visibility if thecommittee chair wants to curryfavor with someone.

Increased Difficulty inMaintaining Fiscal Integrity

Some see the legislature as stalematedby an ideology-based deadlock betweenresurgent Republicans, who are eager toreverse what they regard as decades ofliberal policymaking, and Democrats,who are increasingly upset over what

they see as a failure to address urgentpublic needs. This stand-off has led toshort-term decision making by the legis-lature and has exacerbated the legisla-ture’s inability to plan and problem-solvefor the long term, or play an assertive rolein government vis-à-vis the executive.These trends and conditions perceivedby legislators and others have, in theiropinions, given rise to a concern for thestate’s long-term financial management:

The public continues to make de-mands for services but resists payingtaxes. The representatives try torespond by shifting burdens to thelocalities and postponing huge taxincreases or service cuts. In the past,the staff could say to committeemembers that we don’t have themoney to do something. This wouldbe accepted as fact. Now they willuse any stratagem to get their ex-penditure in, regardless of the costto future generations. They will usefederal grants to pay salaries (whichthen become a continuing state

Lawmakers think that thelegislature’s deliberations

have become more conten-tious and partisan, generating

much heat but little light.

Taka

akiI

wab

u/R

alei

ghN

ews

&O

bser

ver


obligation); they will put things offbudget (but which still have to bepaid for); they will borrow in sur-reptitious ways that increase theState’s debt. Ultimately, if this trendcontinues, the State will lose itsfavorable bond ratings.

Since the early 1990s, the legislaturehas ceded its authority to controlspending to various groups. Forexample, the University won theright to issue self-financing revenuebonds; the Rural Center has gotten$20 million to give out on specialprojects; the governor [has received]a similar amount for education, etc.. . . So one big trend is that thelegislature has given up a lot of thefiscal control we used to exercise. I do not think this will ultimatelyprove to be a good trend.

Public Disenchantment with thePolitical ProcessBecause of opposing ideological tenden-cies in tax and spending policies, there isan increase in partisan contentiousnesswith regard to the budget. The partisancontentiousness in turn leads to longersessions and more disenchantmentamong the public:

This sets up a vicious cycle for ourdemocracy. Politicians promotefalse expectations about what theycan achieve, people are inevitablydisappointed, leading to disenchant-ment . . . , and therefore those leftinvolved tend to have the moreextreme views, which feeds thepartisanship and shrill exchange.

It is the one-upmanship of partisanposturing that does that—a powerfrenzy, so to speak, sometimes justfor power’s sake. The people are thelosers when this happens, and itdiscourages good candidates fromrunning. All that squabbling causes

the legislature to look petty and thepublic to be cynical.

Increased Stress on LegislatorsFactors besides longer sessions have ledto increased demands and stress onlegislators and staffers. Although infor-mation technology has increased accessto information and made it easier forthe members of the public to contacttheir representatives, it also has speededup legislative work for legislators andstaffers alike and added huge demands:

Information processing has acceler-ated to the point where it has be-come absolutely mind-boggling. We process between 500 and 1,000pieces of information every week. If we were depending on fax andphone, this would be impossible.

The increase in technology has beenimportant, but it has been a double-edged sword. I can now do betteranalyses and turn informationaround quicker, but expectationshave also gone through the roof.

The time that is needed to do some-thing is very compressed. Now wecan create a committee substitutebill in an hour or so. That was un-heard of several years ago.

Technology has also had the effectof making things go faster. We say,“We will do this now and then fix it later.” Everyone expects a quickturnaround, so there is less time tothink—this is a bad trend.

The Decline of the Citizen LegislatureThe stress factor, the increased com-petitiveness and cost of campaigns, theincreased polarization of views and adecline in civility in the bodies, and con-tinuing low pay have led many to wonderif the day of the citizen legislature isclose to an end. Today, few workingpeople and those raising families can

afford the time or the lost income to bepart of the legislature:

With the session extended as long as it is, and the pay so low, some of the best people cannot give theirtime to the legislature because ofother commitments.

With legislators making only$12,000 to $13,000 a year, youcannot be a poor person and serve. You must be a retiree or awealthy person.

These factors in turn lead to a decline in representation of some parts of theelectorate:

The longer sessions have meantthere will be fewer farmers andsmall-business people serving. These groups will lose out becausethey will not be represented. If youhad fewer retired or rich people inthe legislature, you would have adifferent perspective on the process.

There are fewer and fewer citizen-legislators who have young familiesand have jobs and active businesses.There are more people who areretired or close to it.

We now have fewer people in thelegislature who hold down full-time jobs. We have more retirees.We have fewer young people andwomen under forty-five.

Decline in Legislators’ Deliberative CapacitySome fear that this set of circumstanceshas led to a lower “caliber” of member—fewer lawyers and fewer real leaders:

It is increasingly difficult for attor-neys to serve and to keep up withtheir law practices. As a result, theranks of lawyers in the GeneralAssembly have been decimated . . .Lawyers are trained in civility. It ispart of their professionalism . . .That civility has declined somewhat.You also miss that training in manyinstances relative to lawmaking.Partly as a result of this, I think thecaliber of the average legislator hasdeclined.

There was a time when the legisla-ture drew more of the state’s

The good news: Information technology gives citizens easier access to legislativeinformation and faster ways to reach their representatives. The bad news: Information technology speeds up legislative work and puts moredemands on staff and legislators.

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 7 13

talented leadership than it doesnow. Several decades ago, you had,in general, more impressive peopleserving than now.

Decline in Institutional EffectivenessSome lawmakers believe that a variety ofrelated and independent factors have ledto a decline in the relative power of theGeneral Assembly and its institutionaleffectiveness. They say that increased

membership turnover has damaged institutional memory. They fear thatcontinuation of the partisanship trendmay eventually lead to the replacementof nonpartisan staff with partisan staff. General Assembly staffers are aprofessionally trained and politicallyneutral group of analysts—focusing, for example, on research, fiscal re-search, or bill drafting—who are man-aged by staff directors employed by the

legislature. In recent years the speaker ofthe House and the president pro tem-pore of the Senate have hired their ownstaff assistants.

There is more turnover, and long-time legislators are leaving due toretirement.

We . . . have staff aging out as well.So we are getting younger peoplewith strong credentials but littleexperience.

I think we may be headed for a full-time legislature and partisan staff. I am not in favor of the partisanstaff because the nonpartisan staffwe have does such a good job stay-ing neutral.

Another trend is increased turnover.We have more new members thanpreviously. We have three newchairs on the Senate side and eighton the House side. So institutionalmemory is lost.

Right now the legislature and stategovernment in general are some-what weaker because we do nothave people in charge who reallyunderstand the budget process. We have a whole new crew.

Many also think that the balance ofpower has shifted against the legislature.In 1977 the constitution was changed sothat the governor could succeed himselfor herself. James B. Hunt Jr. was thefirst governor to be reelected, in 1980.In 1997 the constitution was changed togive the governor veto power over mosttypes of legislation. (For a timeline ofthese and other structural changes thathave affected the legislative culture, seethe sidebar on this page.)

Thirty years ago the legislature wasthe dominant branch. The leaders ofthe legislature, especially the Senate,were very influential in setting statepolicies. Now you have a governorwho can succeed himself and has aveto and considers himself the chiefState policy leader.

Institutionally, the legislature, with 170 members, is at a disad-vantage relative to the executive,which can be much more focused on specific situations.

Events Relating to the Concentration of Power and the Growth of Two-Party Competitiveness in the General Assembly1977 Constitution is amended to allow governor to succeed himself or

herself for second term.

1977– 80 James B. Hunt Jr. serves first term as governor.

1980 Carl J. Stewart becomes first speaker to serve more than one term(1977–78, 1979 – 80).1

1981– 84 Hunt serves second term as governor, succeeding himself.

1985– 88 James G. Martin serves first term as governor (second Republicansince 1901).

1988 Liston B. Ramsey becomes longest-serving speaker (1980 – 88).

1989 Senate president pro tempore is empowered to make all committee appointments.

Democrat Josephus L. Mavretic defeats Speaker Ramsey with Republican support. Republicans share in leadership ofcommittees (1989 –90).

1989 –92 Martin serves second term as governor.

1993 –96 Hunt serves unprecedented third term as governor.

1995–98 Republicans control House for first time since 1894.

1997 Governor receives power to veto most types of legislation.

1997–2000 Hunt serves fourth term as governor.

2002 Single-member districts are established.

2003 House elects Democratic and Republican co-speakers for first time.

2006 Speaker James B. Black completes tenure equaling Ramsey’s inlength (1998 –2006).

General Assembly passes lobbying and ethics reforms, limitinglobbyists’ campaign contributions, entertaining.

2007 Marc Basnight begins eighth term as Senate president protempore, remaining longest-serving state senate president protempore in country (1992–2007).

Black, no longer speaker, resigns House seat.

House changes rules, limiting methods previously used to insertlast-minute changes in bills.

Note1. Presidents pro tempore of the Senate had been serving two terms for several years to

“balance” the Lt. Governor’s four-year term as president of the Senate.


Summary and Conclusion: The General Assembly at aCritical Crossroads

Our study suggests that the North Car-olina legislature, like the legislatures ofmany other states, is undergoing changeand stress. Furthermore, members andstaffers of the General Assembly ex-perience this stress on an individuallevel. The change and the stress make itharder for the General Assembly to planfor the long term, to solve specific prob-lems, to maintain a membership that—occupationally, at least—mirrors NorthCarolinians generally, and to act moreindependently of influences from lobby-ists, monied special-interest groups, andthe executive branch.

These are not judgments of the legis-lature from some outside, uninformedgroup. These are the judgments oflegislators themselves. The symptomsare problematic and serious and deservethoughtful attention. Former StateTreasurer Edwin Gill used to observe,“Good government is a habit in NorthCarolina.” Do these current habits (ornorms) of the North Carolina GeneralAssembly identified by lawmakers inour study represent good government?

What can be done? There is a quan-dary. The legislature is a sovereign branchof North Carolina Government: nooutside force can change it, short of amajor revision of the constitution. So it may be time for the North Carolinalegislature to take a fresh look at itselfas an institution.

The General Assembly, we think, is at acrossroads. Will it be business as usual orrenewal? If the opinions and the concernsof the lawmakers we interviewed are anyindication, renewal is the strong prefer-ence. Renewal in this case means doingall the things that lawmakers told us makeour legislature an effective institution.To recap, these include the following:

• Enact complete, comprehensive, stra-tegic statutes that contain solutions tospecific situations and needs insteadof offering an expedient, politicalquick fix

• Create strong initiatives for legislativeoversight and program evaluation toensure that legislative solutions areeffectively implemented

• Enact statutes (especially spending andfinancing laws) that ensure the highestlevels of fiscal responsibility, account-ability, and integrity in the face of apolitical process that is increasinglycompetitive and money driven

• Set new standards for Senate andHouse floor and committee debateand discussion, and build in practicesthat result in more informed decisionsand creative solutions and substan-tially reduce partisan bickering

• Exercise the legislature’s consti-tutional prerogatives with respect tothe executive branch consistently,clearly, and unambiguously

• Ensure that programs and servicescontaining essential administrativeand technical support are availableto members to minimize stressassociated with their work

• Consider how to remove the barriersthat, in effect, currently narrow the range of those who can serve inthe legislature, by reviewing thesalary and the compensation pro-vided, the level of staff support, thedemands of the session calendar,each legislator’s full- or part-timestatus, and other issues

Effecting this renewal and redirectionwill require a healthy serving of an attri-bute of effectiveness that lawmakers toldus they admire: political courage.

As an institution, the legislature hasshown that it can change with new ex-pectations and demands. Over the lasttwenty years, it has authorized significantincreases in professional staffing andprovided greater access to new technol-ogies for all members. It has institutedits own orientation for new legislators,and some members participate in anexpanded orientation program spon-sored by the Institute of Government. In2006 it adopted campaign finance re-form, restricted lobbyists’ activities, andestablished a committee to audit govern-ment performance. In 2007 the House

reformed its rules to correct some pastpractices.6

It remains to be seen whether theseadaptations will keep pace with thepressures that concern the lawmakerswe interviewed, such as the norm ofquick-fix, run-on legislation; the declinein decorum and comity among members;the increase in partisanship; the concen-tration of power; and the unremittingdemands and influence of perpetualfund-raising.

From our interviews with a cross-section of past and present lawmakers,we learned not only of these concernsbut of their genuine interest in restoringthe conditions and the norms that pro-moted “doing the right things.” Perhapsanother study should survey all law-makers to determine if similar opinions,today, extend to the whole group. Clearly,continuing business as usual will notpromote renewal in the direction of in-creased effectiveness of the North Caro-lina General Assembly. This is why wefind the lines of Robert Burns’s poem asrelevant today as in 1796. We hope thatthe members of the General Assemblywill see themselves as others see themand act decisively and effectively.

We are convinced that if the legislatorsseriously undertake a renewal initiativeand follow through on it diligently, theymight improve their deliberative pro-cesses, strengthen the legislature’s abilityto address contemporary challenges, andrestore a sense of pride in the institutionamong lawmakers themselves.

To achieve this goal, we join with thefifty-three legislators, staffers, andlobbyists we interviewed, who wouldinvite all lawmakers to consider theadmonition of the North Carolina Statemotto: “To be, rather than to seem.”

Notes

1. See Alan Rosenthal, “The GoodLegislature,” State Legislatures, July/August1999. Available at www.ncsl.org /programs/pubs/799good.htm. Long a leading scholaron U.S. state legislatures, Rosenthal arguesthat good legislatures exhibit the followingcharacteristics: effective sharing of powerwith the governor; reasonable representationof, accessibility to, and responsiveness to thepopulation they serve; an absence of destruc-tive partisanship; reasonable norms ofparticipation for minority and lower-status

Change is needed to put the citizenback in citizen-legislator.

s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 7 15

and what kind of training and support wasneeded to promote better legislative leadershipfor new and experienced legislators. However,the three opening questions produced suchstriking responses that they have become thefocus of this article:

• When were you most proud of the legislature? What do you see as thehigh points of your time with thelegislature?

• When were you least proud of thelegislature? What do you see as the lowpoints of your time with the legislature?

• What are the major trends affectinglegislative performance?

Either an executive summary (18 pages) orthe entire study (194 pages) may be obtainedby e-mailing [email protected]. Thisarticle is being published with the permissionof the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, TomRoss, executive director. However, there hasbeen no prior review by the foundation, andwe take full responsibility for the informationand conclusions provided.

4. See “Spending Change,” Editorial, Greens-boro News & Record, November 10, 2006.

5. The General Assembly created single-member districts partly in response to courtdecisions holding that multimember districtstended to discriminate against minority voters.

6. In 2006 the General Assembly passedthe State Government Legislative Ethics Act(SL 2006-201), which among other things sets limits on how lobbyists can contribute toand entertain legislators. For a full descrip-tion, see www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2005&BillID=H1843.Also in 2006, the General Assembly author-ized a general audit of all state governmentagencies and established a committee to carrythe audit out by February 1, 2008. For details,see www.ncga.state.nc.us/committeefrontpages/gpacii/index.html. Early in 2007, the Housepassed changes in its rules, reforming keyprocesses such as making committee appoint-ments by an explicit deadline; eliminating thepractice of assigning key members (“floaters”)to any committee, at any time; requiringconference committee reports to be held overto the next legislative day; eliminating sub-stantive “special provisions” in appropria-tions bills; and ensuring that any amendmentthat clearly is unconstitutional is ruled “out of order.” See H.R. 423, 2007 Gen. Assem.,Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2007), available at www.ncleg.net/house/documents/HouseRulesHB423.pdf.

Taka

akiI

wab

u/R

alei

ghN

ews

&O

bser

ver

Rushing to push bills through as alegislative session ends, committeemembers congregate on the Senatefloor. Will the General Assemblycontinue doing business as usual, orwill it opt for renewal?

legislators; effective deliberative processes thatallow for influence, negotiation, and compro-mise among a variety of interests; an effectivebudget process; and monitoring of the effectsof the laws they pass. These are precisely thecharacteristics that lawmakers in our studyreport as being under pressure in recent ses-sions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

In his well-received 1997 book The De-cline of Representative Democracy (CQ Press),Rosenthal argues that a national transforma-tion is occurring in legislative cultures, char-acterized by the following trends:

• Legislators are expected to processmore information and respond morequickly to the public.

• Politics has become more partisan, andmore legislators are looking beyond thestate legislature to higher office. Theseand other factors make compromiseand problem solving more difficult.The trend is exacerbated by redistrict-ing to strengthen homogenous, narrowinterests and maintain politically safedistricts for incumbents.

• Legislators must spend more and moretime in fund-raising for expensivemedia campaigns. This increases theirdependence on special interests andlegislative leaders who are effective atraising campaign funds.

These trends track closely those named bythe sample in our study. That suggests strongly

that changes in the North Carolina GeneralAssembly are part of a national pattern af-flicting state legislatures.

2. See Jim Morrill and Mark Johnson,“N.C. House, Senate Approve Ethics Reform:Some Say Sweeping Bill Sparked by ScandalsDoesn’t Go Far Enough,” Charlotte Observer,July 28, 2006.

3. We conducted the study on behalf of theZ. Smith Reynolds Foundation in fall 2003and winter and spring 2004. We made detailedsummaries of all interviews and sent them tothose interviewed for verification. The samplewas designed to represent a cross-section oflegislators in terms of race, gender, politicalaffiliation, and length of time in the legislature,and to include past and present leaders as wellas new members. We also included interviewswith knowledgeable staffers and lobbyistsand, in one case, a well-respected independentobserver of the legislature. We have used theterm “lawmakers” to describe those inter-viewed. Occasionally, when the reference is tolegislators specifically, we have used “legisla-tors” or “members” to describe those whoseviews are being described or quoted.

One of us, Tom Covington, proposed thestudy to the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation inorder to conduct an assessment of legislators’needs and interests in leadership trainingbeyond the orientations already provided bythe General Assembly itself and the Instituteof Government. Most of the nine questionswe asked had to do with determining how therespondents defined legislative effectiveness

the state of the legislature: a self-assessment by north carolina …€¦ · the state of the...

Documents