Unlike Neal Obermeyer, I generally support Sen. Mike Friend's proposal to shorten the Unicameral session. Currently, sessions are 90 days in odd-numbered years, and 60 days in even years. Friend would knock that down to 60/40.
I don't know if 100 days over two years is the right number, but I like the basic idea. The less time the Unicameral is in session, the fewer opportunities they have to get themselves in trouble. But that idea is subject to diminishing returns as sessions get shorter. At some point the sessions get "too short". I don't know where that point lies.
One of my primary concerns with regard to session length is preserving opportunities for public input and reaction. If the sessions are cut too short, we risk creating an atmosphere that encourages rushing, and when rushing occurs lots of problems develop: laws are less carefully crafted; the public has less opportunity to track the legislative process; lawmakers vote on legislation they aren't familiar with; and so on.
Neal's cartoon mocks the notion that State Senators might have a life outside the legislature. Intentionally or not, his cartoon makes an argument for the professionalization of the Unicameral. Nebraskans, however, have long supported "citizen legislators". Indeed, anti-professionalism sentiment is largely what drove the push for term limits in the Unicameral. The same sentiment has kept Nebraska's legislative pay low for so many years.
There are many benefits to professionalization, not least of which is the build-up of institutional knowledge and expertise within the legislative body. There are also many pitfalls: look to Congress for myriad examples of how professionalization can breed corruption. The ideal body would be professionalized and corruption-free. Good luck finding one of those.
I wonder what proportion of Nebraskans applaud Neal's cartoon. It is logically inconsistent to demand our legislators be citizen legislators while simultaneously applauding a cartoon that mocks their desire to do just that. How many Nebraskans realize that by laughing with Neal they are laughing at themselves?
Again, that's not to say that Sen. Friend's 60/40 proposal is great. I'm just saying that it wouldn't make sense for a state in which the "citizen legislator" is king to mock a proposal on the grounds that it will make it easier for legislators to also be citizens. On the other hand, the mockery may make perfect sense for a guy like Neal; I don't know him personally, but I doubt he would put himself forth as an example of the prototypical Nebraskan on this or pert near any other issue.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
It pains me to say this, but I totally agree with Neal on this one. What a stupid thing to try to shorten the session based on the reasons given. Did these people NOT understand this when they ran for legislature?
If we found that every year, the legislature spent the last few weeks doing nothing because all of their business was taken care of, then I could see it.
Do we think they would have done a better job, for example, with the Safe Haven law if they would have had less time? Hardly. They embarass themselves plenty and go to the wire even in 90-day sessions. I can’t fathom what they’d do to us in only 40 days.
If anything, I think the sessions should be longer. I think they should get paid more to do it, as well.
For what it’s worth, the Safe Haven bill isn’t a good example in this case. They passed LB157 in the first half of a 60-day session. Additionally, the removal of the age limit was proposed all the way back in January. In other words, that disaster wasn’t the result of legislators being rushed. Had they chosen to, they could have taken much more time to think about their options.
The concept of a ‘citizen legislature’ is theoretically noble, but unrealistic. I don’t want some Average Joe representing me, I want someone who’s going to be able to do what’s best for my district and my state. In fact, Average Jane (Amanda McGill) represents me, and it shows.
If State Senators have a life outside of the Senate, that’s news to me. Except Danielle Nantkes, we know she likes to party.
We pay our legislators crap and then expect them to spend half their time away from their job. Then we add term limits to (sarcasm) make sure we don’t keep anyone long enough to get good at their job as a senator.
It seems to me that we are doing things against our own best interests. We should pay senators at a level commensurate with the amount of work and time they are committing to the job.
The way things exist, few can afford to walk away from their jobs for two or three months to serve as a senator.
I think we ought to wait and see how this session goes without Ernie. I have some respect for him, but it’s been a long time since he hasn’t been in office. Maybe the senators will be a surprise?
I agree with Foxspit on this one. Although having lawmakers with limited exposure to lobbyists is a good thing, I do feel that they need to be paid a suitable level.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.