Good governance is not a part-time job

The 2024 session of the Minnesota Legislature ended in chaos. Despite a cacophony of objections from Republicans in both chambers and just minutes before the May 19 11:59 p.m. deadline, the DFL majority plowed through the 1,430-page mega-omnibus that combined nine committee reports into one massive bill.

Despite exaggerated cries of the decline of democracy, the 11th-hour strategy is nothing new: GOP social media accounts are here to stay prepared on the basis of previous quotes With Democratscondemning similar last-minute tactics used by Republicans in 2018.

While the alleged hypocrisy was intended as a trap, it only proves that the problem is bigger than either side: a five-month legislative session (even a shorter one in a non-budget year) is simply not enough time to complete the state’s legal affairs. Moreover, legislators’ part-time work limits their ability to oversee policy implementation and creates many potential conflicts of interest.

When we talk about government funding, our thoughts turn to the classrooms, hospitals and roads that make up our basic public infrastructure. However, recent events remind us of the importance of having a system in place to oversee these systems. Here are three reasons why Minnesota should commit to a full-time Legislature.

Managing a country is a huge task.

Minnesota, like most U.S. states, is the size of a large country, with an economy ranked among the 50 largest in the world and a population roughly the size of Norway or Finland.

Although state legislatures share power with federal and local governments, the most intensive governance, administration, and finances occur at the state level. Here is a short list of the state’s key responsibilities:

Over 2,000 schools with over 800,000 students and almost 50,000 teachers.

National health service systems covering 1.4 million Minnesotans.

A higher education system consisting of over 200,000 students on 59 campuses.

AND carceral system including 11 correctional facilities that house 8,000 incarcerated people and 97,000 Minnesotans under community supervision.

Communication infrastructure, including 13 thousand bridges133 airportsand over 30,000 miles of state-managed roads and highways.

A network of parks and more public lands covering 6 million acres, or 11% of the state.

3629 Support, Guidance and Regulations local government units.

About 40 thousand government employees oversees everything from the $3 billion unemployment insurance system to 13,742 miles of power lines.

$75 billion pension system covering over 500,000 beneficiaries.

Overseeing these complex systems is a full-time job. However, lawmakers currently have a very narrow window of time to meet. This contributes to the backlog that brought the session to a frantic end last week, but more importantly, it limits legislators’ ability to act as effective connectors to their communities and specialized stewards of the public good.

Despite the folk charm of citizen legislators arriving on Capitol Hill months before returning to the office, hospital or classroom, the reality is that becoming an expert in any policy area takes years of effort and experience. A 3- or 5-month session is barely enough time to assemble, consider, and approve a reform package, let alone monitor how past policies are implemented, engage with voters, or plan for the long term.

This lack of competence not only hinders the effectiveness of legislation, but constitutes a major threat to the public interest.

Lawmakers should work for us (and only us).

In his 2019 book “State capture,” Columbia University political scientist Alex Hertel-Fernandez describes the rise of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed conservative network tasked with disseminating conservative policies to state governments. The book argues persuasively that ALEC’s success was largely due to the limited capabilities and expertise of state legislators.

Instead of coming up with their own ideas, resource-poor and time-strapped legislators turned to proposals for ready-made legislation that would help demonstrate their effectiveness while in office. And while ALEC focuses on conservative legislators, it’s no secret that lobbyists representing interest groups on both sides of the aisle are perhaps the most common source of ideas and expertise in St. Paul.

The influence of unelected actors poses a significant threat to democracy, and these conflicts are greatly intensified by the economic reality of serving as a state legislator.

The Minnesota legislator’s salary of approximately $50,000 per year plus expenses is approximately equal to the average per capita income in Minnesota, which is not commensurate with the skill, experience and effort required to perform the job successfully. While lawmakers are in session, they work much more than they would normally do in a full-time job, but outside of session, they still perform many year-round responsibilities, including campaigning and preparing for the next session. Not to mention the uncompensated effort and expense of running for re-election.

On an hourly basis, lawmakers earn less than many of their constituents in retail and restaurant jobs, and much less than the business owners and lobbyists who seek to influence them. This poses a problem in recruiting and retaining hard-working legislators without independent wealth.

As a result, the Legislature is skewed toward older and wealthier lawmakers who have more time and personal resources to devote to their work. Less affluent legislators (more likely to be people of color) work multiple jobs and are therefore at greater risk of burnout, which leads to higher staff turnover and less effective representation.

Leaving aside the personal burdens of legislators, the need for additional employment creates a significant risk of conflict of interest. Whether you work in private business or public service, personal dependence naturally skews the priorities of politicians who should ideally remain impartial. Lawmakers will never be free from biases based on personal experience, but ensuring economic independence would at least alleviate this dynamic.

Paying legislators a full-time salary would increase the time they have to devote to their work and significantly reduce employer conflicts of interest. Allowing them more time to work would slow down the reckless pace of each session and make it more bearable for those selected and their staff. Ultimately, this would help ensure that policies are conducted in the best interests of all Minnesotans.

A more responsive and effective state government.

As the primary feedback mechanism for state policy and most accountable to each individual voter, the Legislature acts as Minnesota’s political nervous system, receiving feedback from communities across the state and relaying necessary messages to implementing agencies. The stronger the legislature, the more effective our policies will become and the more they will reflect legislative intent and voter desires.

Right now, the Legislature passes laws and executive agencies are largely left to their own devices when it comes to implementing them. This creates an imbalance between the branches of government and leaves an oversight gap. For example, last fall, federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspectors found. hazardous emissions and insufficient pollution controls at the Smith Foundry in the East Phillips neighborhood of south Minneapolis. How could the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, with an annual operating budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, fail to fulfill such a fundamental function of its mission? In such cases, state lawmakers are the natural investigators, and many of them have increased their outrage. However, limited opportunities limit their ability to stay engaged throughout the year.

Perhaps the most common argument against a full-time legislature is the additional costs. But if your goal is to limit the size of government, the state legislature would be a very stupid place to save. The Legislature’s budget of $120 million a year – or about 0.3% of the general fund – is small compared to its revenues.

In other words: If we are going to spend tens of billions on public programs, it would make sense to spend tens of millions to ensure that those spendings are accountable to Minnesotans.

A bipartisan idea?

Fortunately, Minnesota already has strong legislative power: according to the University of Missouri’s Squire Index, we rank in the top half of states for legislative professionalization and invest in significant government accountability infrastructure, including Office of the Legislative Auditor, regular legislative committees and other executive offices concerned with performance management. OLA is completing comprehensive studies of government programs and they have been key collaborators in an ongoing Funding Our Future fraud case.

Creating a full-time legislature would take us further to the bipartisan goal of government accountability, but it would require a constitutional amendment. The solution of placing a required referendum on the ballot was not implemented this year despite the efforts of House Majority Leader Jamie Long, who told me via email:

“The current legislative timeline makes it very difficult to recruit and retain legislators from diverse backgrounds and experiences. The constitutional amendment I am proposing would give future legislatures the flexibility to set their own schedule, without restrictions imposed in the 1880s that do not meet the modern needs of the Legislature.”

While the idea of a full-time Legislature is typically associated with left-wing politics, there is at least one Minnesota Republican who is sympathetic to the idea. Rep. Walter Hudson of Albertville County does not support Long’s current proposal, but he shared his general interests in a direct message:

“Working in the Legislature requires sacrifices for anyone who has a moderately successful career in the private sector… I would like to see thoughtful legislative pay reform and interim expectations that take into account the full-time commitment that working in the Legislature requires.”

For supporters and skeptics alike, there is value in doing the job of state government properly.