Part-Time Michigan Legislature Ballot Drive Moves Ahead

[t-pain]

Also, how many of you have actually read the bills that are voted on?  Ya have no clue what is actually going on, yet ya wanna vote on bills you have never read in your life. hahaha.

the legislature doesnt read many of the bills either.

 

also, its unwise to call people stupid.

[+Malamute]

Term limits were a mistake as well. It has created a staff bureaucracy because legislators are there for so short a time, by the time they understand what is going on, they have to leave.  So the staff, political parties and lobbyists run the show. 

[+Malamute]

Hmm, I do not see the word stupid in my posting.

[+Malamute]

btw, I am not a paid lobbyist.  I would love to accept money though. :-)

[t-pain]

ok, i just wanted to make sure i wasnt arguing with someone whos job was dependent upon a full time legislature.

[cristinew]

 Representative form of government  is failing 

[Restorium2]

Also, how many of you have actually read the bills that are voted on?  Ya have no clue what is actually going on, yet ya wanna vote on bills you have never read in your life. hahaha.

You never know how these things will turn out so I just look at the sponsor. Agema is one of the very worst in our legisture. He's one of the worst in America.

 

Other than that all you can do is whack a mole of lergislators. It's like a thistle field out there. There's so much whacking to do we will be at this forever. Pack a lunch and take names. Agema is on the list to WHACK. Whack means 'show them the door' Don't let it hit ya Dave.

[cristinew]

I am for something New  and that works,  No idea what , but i see  nothing much good coming from my  representative, State or Federal,.  The  representatives  seem to always  disregard our bill of rights 

[Restorium2]

Representative form of government  is failing

No. WE are being lazy and it shows.

[cristinew]

Also, how many of you have actually read the bills that are voted on?   

 

Is that a question to the Public  or the Representative   LOL  

[+Malamute]

It seems like an easy question: Which legislatures are full-time and which ones are part-time? But with 50 different formulas for designing a state legislature, it's difficult to paint this issue in black and white. So we've done it in Red, White and Blue.

Being a legislator doesn't just mean attending legislative sessions and voting on proposed laws. State legislators also spend large amounts of time assisting constituents, studying state issues during the interim and campaigning for election. These activities go on throughout the year. Any assessment of the time requirements of the job should include all of these elements of legislative life.

Beyond that point, NCSL prefers to look more broadly at the capacity of legislatures to function as independent branches of government, capable of balancing the power of the executive branch and having the information necessary to make independent, informed policy decisions. To measure the capacity of legislatures, it's important to consider the amount of time legislators spend on the job, the amount they are compensated and the size of the legislature's staff.

NCSL has grouped the 50 state legislatures into three major categories: Red, White and Blue-and for those who want to know more, NCSL has provided some shading within those categories.

Red Legislatures

Red legislatures require the most time of legislators, usually 80 percent or more of a full-time job. They have large staffs. In most Red states, legislators are paid enough to make a living without requiring outside income. These legislatures are more similar to Congress than are the other state legislatures. Most of the nation's largest population states fall in this category. Because there are marked differences within the category, we have subdivided the Red states. Those in Red generally spend more time on the job because their sessions are longer and their districts larger than those in Red Lite. As a result, they tend to have more staff and are compensated at a higher rate. Within subcategories, states are listed alphabetically.

White Legislatures

Legislatures in the White category are hybrids. Legislatures in these states typically say that they spend more than two-thirds of a full time job being legislators. Although their income from legislative work is greater than that in the Blue states, it's usually not enough to allow them to make a living without having other sources of income. Legislatures in the White category have intermediate sized staff. States in the middle of the population range tend to have White legislatures.

Blue Legislatures

In the Blue states, on average lawmakers spend the equivalent of half of a full-time job doing legislative work. The compensation they receive for this work is quite low and requires them to have other sources of income in order to make a living. The blue states have relatively small staffs. They are often called traditional or citizen legislatures and they are most often found in the smallest population, more rural states. Again, NCSL has divided these states into two groups. The legislatures in Blue are the most traditional or citizen legislatures. The legislatures in Blue Lite are slightly less traditional. States are listed alphabetically within subcategories.

Table 1 shows the breakdown of states by category. Table 2 shows the average scores for the Red, White and Blue states for time on the job, compensation and staff size. For 2009 legislator compensation figures, take a look at the latest figures.

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx

[+Malamute]

Just so people can understand the differences.  The bigger the State, the More constituents per district and the more work to do.

[+Malamute]

http://ncsl.typepad.com/the_thicket/2013/02/full-time-or-part-time-legislature-which-is-better.html

 

 

Full- or Part-Time Legislature: Which is Better?

 

That's a question I get all the time when I speak to groups, both inside and outside of state capitols, about American legislatures. A recent magazine article featuring my categorization of legislatures as "professionalized," "hybrid" and "citizen" has generated several recent inquiries about which type of legislature is better.

I have an answer to this question, but first a few words about terminology. "Full-" and "part-time" are the common phrases that most people use to differentiate the operations of state legislatures. Political scientists have a fancier term, "professionalization," which measures not only the amount of time that legislators spend on the job but also the compensation of legislators and the number of staff working for the legislature. Professionalization is the concept that I have used to create the categories of legislatures.

The concept of legislative professionalization is designed to measure the capacity of legislatures and legislators to make policy decisions. Capacity, though, does not necessarily mean performance. A legislature with high capacity can perform poorly (Congress being an example), while legislatures with low capacity can perform at high levels.

It's also important to note that the policy-making capacity of a legislature (professionalization) is only one value among others that legislators and voters may set store by when they make decisions about the resources that they provide to their state legislature. One value that might conflict with increasing the capacity of legislatures might be public views about the appropriate scale and cost of state government. A second might be a desire to be governed by citizen legislators who spend most of their lives living and working in their local communities. Like the legendary Roman leader Cincinnatus, who left his farm to fight a war but returned to the plow when the war was over, citizen legislators go to the capitol to legislate for a few months but then return to their home towns.

All of this leads to my answer to the question: Neither one is necessarily better. I believe that the principal goal should be to have a legislature that is an independent and coequal branch of government, able effectively to represent the views of constituents, pass laws, and balance the power of the executive. Different legislatures with different levels of professionalization can accomplish these goals. Each state needs to choose the level of resources (compensation, time and staff) that allows them to meet these goals, within the context of their state's culture, size, complexity and values about government.

I will say, though, that the larger population states that are more socially complex and have necessarily large executive branches are more likely to need greater capacity in order for their legislature to be an independent and coequal branch of government. In other words, to represent its fairly homogenous population of half a million people effectively, Wyoming may not need California's full-time legislators, who are paid close to $100,000 a year and have a staff of more than 2,000 to help govern a state of 38 million people. But Wyoming's citizen legislature, which meets two months of the year, pays its members $12,000 and has a staff of about 40, would find it hard effectively to balance the power of the executive in a state as large and complex as California.

And indeed, that is the path that most states have taken in building the capacity of their legislatures. With only a very few exceptions the states that have the most professionalized legislatures have the largest populations, and the citizen legislatures are in the smallest population states. The hybrid legislatures are in-between, mostly in the medium population states.

Building on a table that appears in Peverill Squire and Gary Moncrief, State Legislatures Today: Politics Under the Domes, here is a summary of the implications of the two extreme levels of professionalization, incorporating some values other than policymaking capacity. The middle column of this table is adapted from Squire and Moncrief's book; the right column is my summary of qualities associated with citizen legislatures (click to enlarge).

 

chart

 

 

Many political scientists have studied the concept of professionalization. Squire and Moncrief provide a useful inventory of findings from the political science literature comparing more professionalized legislatures to less professionalized (citizen) legislatures. In more professionalized legislatures:

• The rates of membership turnover are lower.
• Members pay more attention to their constituents and are more representative of their constituents’ views.
• A higher percentage of bills introduced are passed and the number of bills enacted per session day is higher.
• There is a greater tendency to enact government personnel practice reforms, more complex and technical regulatory policies and income tax systems, anti-smoking measures, and more economic enterprise zones.
• There are fewer citizen initiatives because the legislature is better able to resolve policy disputes among interest groups. (Footnotes showing the sources of these findings are in the book.)

Finally, for legislative junkies who want to know more about the methods used to produce the categories of legislatures (I know you're out there because you send me e-mails): There are various measures of professionalization (mine are somewhat different from those of other scholars), but almost all analysts use a method pioneered by the leading scholar on the subject, University of Missouri Prof. Peverill Squire. The "Squire index" defines Congress as the most professionalized of all legislatures in the United States and converts each state's score on compensation, time on the job and staffing into a ratio of Congress' score on the same measures. For example, in the 2011-12 biennium, the annual salary of members of Congress was $174,000. A state that pays its legislators $35,000 would score 0.23 (35,000/174,000) on the compensation portion of the index. This ratio would then be averaged with the ratios for the other two measures to produce a total score for the legislature.

[t-pain]

assisting constituents?

 

what do they do to help constituents?

 

do you have any kind of example of a senator or rep helping a constituent?

this should be a slam dunk question to answer. it should be very easy to pull 20 news articles about senators helping people. or blog posts from people who got help, or facebook posts, twitter, anything like that.

Edited February 8, 2014 by t-pain

[Restorium2]

Thank you for contacting me about House Bill 4271, which would allow municipalities to license medical marijuana dispensaries in their jurisdictions. I apologize for the delay in answering your letter. I received a great deal of correspondence on this topic, and I want to take time to make sure that everyone gets the thoughtful reply they deserve.

 

 

 

HB 4271 was introduced in response to a Michigan appeals court decision that prohibited patient-to-patient sales and authorized municipalities to shut down dispensaries as public nuisances. The medical marijuana amendment to the Michigan constitution does not explicitly provide for dispensaries.

 

I support the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers, as guaranteed under the state constitution. That is the main reason I co-sponsored this bill. Many witnesses have given moving testimony at recent hearings as to why they need dispensaries. They need a reliable supply of lab-tested marijuana medications, and many of them are too sick or inexperienced to produce their own medications. Even established providers can suffer crop failures that interrupt the supply of needed medication. Dispensaries fill a vital need for these patients, and HB 4271 would provide some protection for dispensaries under state law.

 

I understand that you and many others in the medical marijuana community are concerned about protecting the autonomy of home growers, worrying that vertical integration (dispensaries controlling marijuana production from seed to sale) will put caregivers at a competitive disadvantage. My colleagues and I will continue to work during the committee process to ensure that the bill is narrowly written and does not impair the constitutionally protected role of caregivers. Nothing in the current bill would prevent caregivers from growing marijuana as they do now, nor would it force patients to buy from dispensaries. If, as you fear, dispensaries raise prices to unaffordable levels, then customers will go elsewhere. If caregivers are producing better marijuana at better prices, they will be able to compete with dispensaries for patients. Patients will have more options, not fewer.

 

 

 

HB 4271 is currently in the House Judiciary Committee, and I will support it unless I receive compelling new information to the contrary. If you know of any specific way in which HB 4271 would harm home growers of medical marijuana, I would like to know about it so that I have the full picture. I always take constituent opinions into account when considering legislation.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to advocate on this issue.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jeff Irwin

[+Malamute]

Just as one quick example that pertains to our mutual topic of concern,  my Rep. called the CC to refer a constituent to us to help them find a caregiver.

 

:-)

[t-pain]

yes thats a nice form letter from irwin. now do you have examples of him helping someone?

 

ok, mal, thats an interesting example

(also, it doesnt have to be marijuana related, i mean any help at all...)

Edited February 8, 2014 by t-pain

[Restorium2]

yes thats a nice form letter from irwin. now do you have examples of him helping someone?

 

ok, mal, thats an interesting example

(also, it doesnt have to be marijuana related, i mean any help at all...)

Why don't you go look for yourself? You know the accounts are out there but you want us to show you.

[Norby]

yeah, thats really how my thought process went.

 

do they do anything for michigan now? no, they only help special interests now.

 

would this harm michigan in any meaningful way? unknown.

 

would cutting their pay be good? yes.

 

have any of you watched the house or senate on tv? they start each day by praying. its like a making whoopee church!

then they introduce some kids from some school and clap

then they introduce some other group or random people who came to see them in person.

 

seriously, go watch a few hours of this nonsense they do all day.

its not on right now. they arent in session

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/default.html

http://house.michigan.gov/MHRTV/mhrtvwin_channel3.html

Then they pat each other on the back for like 15 minutes.  They thank each other for how much they've done.  At least in NYS they did.  Then they tell personal stories of why the bill should pass or not.  I rarely heard them say their constituency has been mostly in favor of this or that.  Then cable cut that channel from basic and I couldn't watch anymore.

[Norby]

Millions of people do not use the internet. 

 

And I guess if ya go by internet voting, we would spend 17 million to save a cute cats life and 100 million to build a statue to Kid rock.....

 

Pure democracy does not work.  We cant even elect one representative very well, let alone make 3000 votes on something every year.

Wouldn't pure democracy be us voting ourselves?  Aren't we more of a republic?  No one is actually "represented" by who they vote for on everything, seemingly hardly anything.

[BirdHunter]

Too many laws. Maybe if they work less, we will have less new laws.

[t-pain]

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/04/michigan_campaign_finance_see.html#incart_river

 

 

PART-TIME LEGISLATURE push gets check from Dave Agema

The Committee to Restore Michigan's Part-Time Legislature reported $18,315 in contributions for the period and $48,790 for the cycle. The group, which is seeking to cap lawmakers salaries at $35,000 and limit them to 60 regular session days, ended the period with $10,264 on hand.


Key spending: The committee, which got the go ahead to begin collecting signatures in February, has spent very little on the effort and has not turned in petitions. The group paid $5,000 for consulting services and reported spending $5,000 for "contact services" with the Patriot Communication Network of Atrium.


Key donors: Most of the committee's largest contributions came from its tea party organizers and two big names in the Republican party: Michael Kuras of Spring lake ($10,000), former Michigan GOP chairman Ron Weiser ($5,000), RNC Chairman Dave Agema ($2,000), Norm Kamaraad of Hudsonville ($500) and Dr. Rob Steele of Ann Arbor ($500). The group reported a total of just 18 contributions.

[Wild Bill]

When you lower the pay you end up with crooked rich folks in all the seats.

 

Is this different from what we have now?

 

I would support not only part time but a unicameral legislature like they have in Nebraska.

 

When our country was founded the national legislature was not only part time, it was volunteer. They had to leave their farms and businesses to travel and conduct the business of the nation for free.

 

They apparently did it because they cared about the nation, not because it was their job.

 

While they were assuredly wealthy landowners they did not owe political favors to the highest bidder. This seems to be the norm today.

 

If we look at what they did then and compare it to what is being done now it's hard to believe that our current system is an improvement.

[pergamum362]

^^^^what he sAid. I was not aware that our early system was voluntary. I was never taught that in school.

[Highlander]

Is this different from what we have now?

 

I would support not only part time but a unicameral legislature like they have in Nebraska.

 

When our country was founded the national legislature was not only part time, it was volunteer. They had to leave their farms and businesses to travel and conduct the business of the nation for free.

 

They apparently did it because they cared about the nation, not because it was their job.

 

While they were assuredly wealthy landowners they did not owe political favors to the highest bidder. This seems to be the norm today.

 

If we look at what they did then and compare it to what is being done now it's hard to believe that our current system is an improvement.

 

Don't you think that just about anyone who could afford to leave the farm in the late 1700s maybe had some other agenda..other than supporting the farm and other than just caring for a new nation?  Can you see how some/most volunteers saw an opportunity to push an agenda forward that would support their wealth? 

 

Be real.  Poor farmers didn't have the option/opportunity to volunteer to participate in lawmaking.  Rich folks could afford to leave the farm to participate in the new government.  Isn't it kinda obvious that the rich land-owners would favor legislation that supported their elevated status?  So the poor farmers stayed home to care for crops and livestock, while the rich landowners who maybe never knew a day of physical labor went to Washington to support laws that supported their way of life.

 

As such, our laws have favored the wealthy from day one.