Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
36 YEARS ON JONES STREETLEGISLATIVE REFORM IN NORTH CAROLINA 1971-2007
TRACKING ACTION ON 23 REFORM RECOMMENDATIONSMADE IN "THE SOMETIME GOVERNMENTS":
A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE 50 AMERICAN LEGISLATURES
Gerry F. CohenDirector of Bill Drafting
North Carolina General AssemblySeptember 14, 2007
PREFACE
In 1971, the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures (CCSL) released The Sometime Governments, which was viewed as a scathing attack on the 50 state legislatures. The book made specific recommendations on reform and modernization of each state's legislative body. In North Carolina, the 23 recommendations were met with general disdain by legislative leaders, but general support from newspapers and academics. Over the next three decades, 11 of the recommendations were implemented, 10 partially implemented, and two not implemented. The two not implemented were technical in nature, those partially implemented in some cases impinged on the flexibility of legislative leadership. Those totally implemented dealt primarily with staffing, modernization, and the ability of the public to be informed about legislative action. The Sometime Governments clearly was the catalyst for these actions. This paper tracks the implementation of the recommendations in North Carolina. It updates my 2004 Masters Thesis at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, "LEGISLATIVE REFORM IN NORTH CAROLINA, CASE STUDY 1971-2004 OF ACTIONS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE SOMETIME GOVERNMENTS: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE 50 AMERICAN LEGISLATURES"
Of course, one person's definition of reform may not be shared by others. The notion of legislative reform in 1971 may be viewed skeptically in 20-20 hindsight. Nevertheless, The Sometime Governments was the catalyst for significant change in the legislative process and in the legislative institution in North Carolina.
In 2004, I was assisted by my thesis readers, Professors Thad Beyle and Judith Wegner at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Ferrel Guillory, Director of the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 2007, I was assisted in updating statistics by Seth Wells of the Legislative Intern Program and by Bill Drafting Division summer interns Jennifer Garcia, a law student at the University of North Carolina and Travis Wherry, graduate student at North Carolina State University. Walker Reagan, an attorney in the Research Division, reviewed the ethics information. This paper is written in academic rather than legal style, with parenthetical citations taking the reader to the references at the end of the paper. Hyperlinks go within the document as well as to the web.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1
CHAPTER II THE NORTH CAROLINA RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWED BY IMPLEMENTATION 1971-2007....................................................................5
CHAPTER III PRESS RESPONSE, NORTH CAROLINA AND NATIONAL...................48
CHAPTER IV OTHER REFORMERS AT WORK FOR THE STATES.............................52
CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................58
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................64
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
In August of 1971, The Sometime Governments (CCSL 1971b), the first
comprehensive published study of individual American legislatures (New York Times 1971:
70), was released by the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures (CCSL), showing the
state of those institutions at the close of the 1960s. That study ranked North Carolina 47 th
among the 50 State Legislatures (CCSL 1971b: 49) and made 23 recommendation for
legislative reform (CCSL 1971b: 272-276.). I first read The Sometime Governments just
after its release in the fall of 1971, during my first semester in graduate school, piquing my
interest in the subject of legislative politics. The study was begun in 1969 and completed in
1970 (New York Times 1971: 70), spanning fourteen months and ranked state legislatures
according to their decision-making capabilities (Herzberg and Rosenthal 1971: 184). The
preliminary was released on February 3, 1971. (New York Times 1971: 70)
A bad legislature is pretty much like those found in most American states in the
1950s and '60s (Ehrenhalt 2004). Textbooks on State government have for years depicted
legislatures as inept organizations (Stuart 1975). The Ford Foundation funded an influential
crusade to improve the quality of state legislatures, including The Sometime Governments
with its 1st to 50th ranking (Ehrenhalt 2004, Rosenthal 2004).
After the release of the initial recommendations in 1971, the CCSL noted in 1972
that "A few of the Citizens Conference recommendations have been put into effect, such as
the reprinting of amended bills and the further use of interim committees. One of the North
Carolina respondents said, however, that 'very few recommendations have been
implemented and the prospects are dim for much improvement.'" (CCSL 1972: 39). (The
two respondents were House Speaker Phil Godwin and Senate Minority Leader Harry
Bagnal)
A review of the recommendations and their implementation over 35 years shows that
North Carolina legislators paid attention to the recommendations. In Chapter II, the North
Carolina recommendations are set out, followed by a report on the implementation of those
recommendations by the North Carolina General Assembly from 1971 to 2007. A list of the
recommendations with a short summary appears later in this Chapter.
The preface to the Second Edition of The Sometime Governments notes:
"In 1965, the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures was formed for the specific purposes of finding out what was wrong with legislatures and what could be done about them. The Conference worked with legislatures, citizens groups, the news media and universities, studying legislative conditions, making recommendations, advising in their implementation and helping to inform the public on the issues of legislative capability.Improvements in various phases of the legislative operation came about – sporadically – in numerous states and in varying degrees. What the movement needed and did not have was a yardstick – a way to measure what each of the 50 state legislatures had and what each lacked in terms of practical tools to do its job. Among the crucial questions were: What structural and operational forms and conditions are required to enable a legislature to do its work? How does each state legislature measure up to this standard? In 1969, with a grant from the Ford Foundation for basic research on state legislatures, the Citizens Conference launched a study that was to provide such a yardstick. This book is one of the results of that landmark study. It is a standard reference tool in many libraries and newsrooms" (CCSL 1971b).
Jack Fleer noted in 1994:
"Although there are no widely agreed-on standards for assessing the
effectiveness of state legislatures, the criteria set forth by the report of the
Citizens Conference on State Legislatures are useful … On most measures, the
North Carolina legislature has made important progress since the early 1970s"
(Fleer 1994: 89).
My own analysis of the 23 recommendations of the (CCSL 1971b: 272-276) shows
that in North Carolina 11 were fully implemented, nine partially implemented, one
implemented in the House but not the Senate, and two not implemented, as follows (with the
year of implementation in parentheses):
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. REMOVE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON SESSION AND INTERIM TIME
Implemented. (1974)
2. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEES. Partially implemented. (Senate 1995,
House 1989)
3. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. Partially
implemented. (Senate 1989 and 2003, House 2003)
4. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION. Partially implemented. (1971)
5. NOTICE OF MEETINGS. Implemented. (Senate 1969, House 1979)
6. OPEN COMMITTEES. Implemented. (1971)
7. COMMITTEE HEARINGS. Partially implemented. (House 1979, general language in
both houses predates the study)
8. RECORD AND PUBLISH PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES. Implemented.
(Senate 1979, House 1985)
9. PUBLISH COMMITTEE ROLL CALLS. Implemented in House, Not implemented in
Senate. (House 1977)
10. INTERIM COMMITTEES. Partially implemented. (1973)
11. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT. Implemented. (1971)
12. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT (LEADERS). Implemented. (1977)
13. STRENGTHEN STAFF (RANK - AND - FILE). Partially implemented. (1974)
14. REQUIRE ROLL CALL ON PASSAGE OF BILLS. Partially implemented. (Senate
1975, House 1977)
15. ELECTRIC ROLL CALL RECORDER. Implemented. (Senate 1975, House 1977)
16. STATEMENT OF INTENT BY AUTHOR OF A BILL. Not implemented.
17. BILL SUMMARY BY BILL - DRAFTING SERVICE. Not implemented
18. IMPROVE PRESS FACILITIES. Implemented. (1993)
19. JOINT RULES. Partially implemented. (1979)
20. REPRINT AMENDED BILLS. Implemented. (1971)
21. PROVIDE SINGLE - MEMBER DISTRICTS . Implemented. (2003)
22. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. (Ethics) Partially implemented. (1975)
23. DISCONTINUE ROTATING LEADERSHIP. Implemented. (Senate 1977, House
1979)
CHAPTER IITHE NORTH CAROLINA RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWED BY
IMPLEMENTATION 1971-2007
INTRODUCTION TO THE CCSL RECOMMENDATIONSCCSL made 23 recommendations for action to reform the North Carolina General
Assembly (CCSL 1971a: 265-270; CCSL 1971b: 272-276). In this Chapter each individual
recommendation is set out verbatim in italics (CCSL 1971a), followed by actions on those
recommendations through August 2, 2007. Quotations are reproduced with permission of
Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., Westport, CT. The parentheticals cite to page numbers
from the full recommendations in the Praeger publication (CCSL 1971a), and the Bantam
print (CCSL 1971b)
GENERAL COMMENTS BY CCSL CCSL prefaced its recommendations with general comments about the State of the North
Carolina General Assembly as the 1960s came to an end. Those introductory remarks were
largely positive in tone, but set the stage for extensive criticism in the 23 recommendations.
GENERAL: (Part A) The North Carolina General Assembly, in recognition of
its own shortcomings, has created a citizens' commission to study the legislature's
operations and procedures in order to recommend specific improvements. The
commission has assigned task forces according to subject matter to pursue
independent courses of study. The commission intends to issue at least an interim,
if not a final, report to the 1970 session of the General Assembly. While it can be
expected that the caliber of the commission's recommendations will be of the
highest order, it is unfortunate that they have not yet drawn more public
awareness to their efforts. (CCSL 1971a: 265; CCSL 1971b: 272)
This commission was established by Joint Resolution 100 of the 1969 Regular
Session. The Commission was to have 30 members plus the House Speaker and Lieutenant
Governor. The preamble to the resolution clearly recognized that CCSL was undertaking its
study:
"WHEREAS, The North Carolina General Assembly is facing ever-increasing problems in fulfilling its responsibilities to the people of the State of North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, The declared policy of the General Assembly of North Carolina is to improve its legislative process to the end that it may truly become, in the fullest sense, an equal and coordinate branch of the government of this State; and
WHEREAS, The effective pursuit of these goals will require a comprehensive study over an extended period of time to determine and define the problems and develop solutions for them; and
WHEREAS, National Organizations and foundations headed by outstanding citizens from all walks of life have been formed to encourage and assist in this endeavor, and other established national organizations have made the improvement of legislatures one of their major objectives, indicating that substantial improvements will be forthcoming on a national scale …"
The Commission was given a lofty goal: "Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the Committee to study the legislative needs, organization, facilities, and functions with the goal of improving and strengthening the ability of the General Assembly to fulfill its responsibilities in our representative democracy. The study will be broad and comprehensive in scope. In order to make its findings known to the Legislature and the citizens of the State, the Committee shall submit interim reports as it deems necessary; and a final report which will set out the problems as it has found them to exist, together with its proposals and recommendations to resolve those problems and improve the General Assembly."
No record can be found in the North Carolina Legislative Library of the committee having met or issued a report.
(Part B) The North Carolina General Assembly has one of the newest and in
some ways most attractive state legislative buildings. The chambers of the Senate
and House are superior in most regards. There are three auditorium hearing
rooms, one for each house and a shared room which seats almost 300 people.
There are numerous committee rooms for each house (eleven in the House, nine
in the Senate and eight shared between the houses) of superior quality. All
members have individual, private offices. The only apparent limitation in the
legislative building is that there are no news conference rooms available for the
news media, and there is a lack of space for future expansion of staff assigned to
leaders and members.
In 1982, the Legislative Office Building was constructed behind the Legislative
Building. This six-story structure originally had three floors used by the General Assembly
and the remaining three floors used by other state agencies, but is now entirely occupied by
the Legislative Branch. A press conference room was added in the 1993 renovations to the
Legislative Building.
While members had individual private offices at the time of the 1971 report, addition
of clerical staff for the members beginning with the 1973 session (see Recommendation 13)
forced sharing of the private office by the member and staff. With the opening of the
Legislative Office Building in 1982, a member's clerical staff was located in a separate
private office either connecting to or adjacent to the member's office.
(Part C) In 1969, the statutory provision limiting the number of days legislators
could be paid during regular session (120 days) was removed. The General
Assembly is, therefore, less encumbered in the odd-year sessions each biennium.
The most recent innovation in legislative operations occurred at the 1970 general
election, when voters approved a constitutional amendment to permit the General
Assembly's presiding officers to convene the legislature in special sessions when
petitioned by two-thirds of the number of each house. (CCSL 1971a: 265-266;
CCSL 1971b: 272-273)
The petition requirement cited by CCSL was erroneous, and is in fact three-fifths of all
the members, rather than two-thirds as they indicated.
RECOMMENDATION 1. REMOVE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON SESSION AND INTERIM TIME.
The legislature should have authority to function throughout a two-year term;
ideally, this authority should provide a flexible biennial session pattern that
permits the legislature to convene, recess, and reconvene as it deems desirable.
The legislature should be able to meet in general session or conduct interim work
as it deems necessary at any time throughout the period.
Permit annual general sessions, limited to no fewer than ninety legislative days
(CCSL 1971a: 266; CCSL 1971b: 273).
In fact there were no constitutional limitations on session and interim time. There
was, however, a long-standing custom of meeting only in the odd-numbered years, and until
approval of a constitutional amendment by the General Assembly in 1967 were limited to
120 days of per diem allowances (Duke University Assembly on State
Legislatures. 1967: 40). The 1955 House of Representatives had actually passed a
constitutional amendment affirmatively requiring annual sessions, but no Senate action was
taken. (Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures 1967: 43).
The Legislative Research Commission noted in a 1967 report recommending against
annual sessions that the General Assembly already could adjourn to meet in the even-
numbered year (North Carolina General Assembly. 1967: 5). While the 1971 legislative
session passed a resolution providing for adjournment from July 21, 1971 until October 26,
1971 "to consider only those matters relating to the restructuring of higher education"
(Resolution 112, 1971 Session) and met for five days until adjourning sine die, it was the
1973 session that first provided for the regular session to meet again in the even-numbered
year. The 1973 Session adjourned from May 24, 1973 until January 16, 1974 (Resolution
116, 1973 Session) and met for almost 90 days adjourning sine die on April 13, 1974. That
was the only experiment with a so-called "short session" with no limits on subject matter.
The 1975 session adjourned on June 26, 1975 to meet again on May 3, 1976 "…for a
session not to exceed 30 calendar days … [to] consider only bills and resolutions directly
affecting the budget" (Resolution 121, 1975 Session), or other matters authorized by a
resolution adopted by a two-thirds vote. The 1976 short session met just 11 calendar days.
The "short" session grew over the years, generally convening in May after the
primary, in 1998 finally adjourning the day before Halloween. North Carolina was
approaching a full-time legislature without admitting it. Tables 1 and 2 are condensations of
data from Legislative Statistics 1965-2006, North Carolina General Assembly, Legislative
Library.
TABLE 1. LEGISLATIVE/CALENDAR DAYS OF SHORT SESSIONS 1974-2006
YEAR LEG DAYS LEG DAYS CALENDARHOUSE SENATE DAYS
1974 64 64 881976 10 10 121978 13 13 171980 15 15 211982 17 15 221984 23 22 311986 29 30 421988 28 28 411990 46 42 691992 42 41 61
1994 32 31 471996 46 45 671998 100 101 1722000 41 41 672002 78 70 1302004 44 44 802006 48 49 81
The odd-numbered year session has become known as the "long session". Since
1971, the long session span has varied from a low of 135 calendar days in 1973 to 317
calendar days in 2001. Actual days in which one House met in session (a legislative day)
has been as low as 97 in the 1973 session to as high as 179 days for in the 2001 Session.
TABLE 2. LEGISLATIVE/CALENDAR DAYS OF LONG SESSIONS 1971-2007YEAR LEG DAYS LEG DAYS CALENDAR HOUSE SENATE DAYS1971 160 160 1901973 97 97 1351975 117 117 1631977 123 123 1701979 108 107 1501981 127 126 1781983 138 37 1921985 118 118 1641987 134 135 1871989 137 128 2141991 106 99 1681993 110 109 1791995 108 109 1861997 123 123 2121999 103 101 1762001 179 173 3172003 102 102 1732005 125 126 2202007 113 111 190
Fleer examined the same trends toward longer legislative session,
noting:
"Since 1973, after the election of the first Republican governor in the state in this century, the General Assembly has been meeting in annual sessions. Beginning in 1975-76, the pattern of a "regular" session about seven months long in odd-numbered years and a "short" session of approximately four to six weeks in even-numbered years has been followed. This pattern, along with an increase in the number of interim legislative study commission meetings between sessions, has given the legislature a more continuing presence in Raleigh and in state politics" (Fleer 1994: 70).
The trend toward longer and longer legislative sessions has brought
a response from some legislators wanting to put a constitutional limit on
the length of the session, The Senate passed a proposed Constitutional
amendment every session from 1995 to 2003 to limit the length of the
legislative session (Hoyle 2002) but none of those measures was
approved by the House of Representatives. The most recent Senate-
passed effort in 2003 (Senate Bill 3) would have limited the session to
135 calendar days in the odd-numbered year and 60 calendar days in the
even-numbered year.
Recommendation #1 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 2. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEES Ideally, there should be from ten to fifteen committees in each house parallel in
jurisdiction. This would reduce the general complexity of the legislature and
would permit reducing the number of committee assignments per member.
With thirty-seven committees in the House and thirty in the Senate, there are more
committees than should be necessary for the effective organization of the work.
This overage is more severe in relation to the House than it is to the Senate
(CCSL 1971a: 266; CCSL 1971b: 273).
This was not the first recommendation to reduce the number of legislative
committees. In 1967, a Legislative Research Commission subcommittee recommended
cutting the number of committees in half. (North Carolina General Assembly. 1967 27) but
the final report of the commission dropped any mention of this goal. (North Carolina
General Assembly. 1967) Since the recommendations, the number of Senate Committees
has varied from as few as 12 in 1997 to as many as 32 in 1971 and 1981 (see Table 3). In
the House, it has varied from as few as 12 in 1989 to as many as 48 in the 1981 session.
These totals do not include select committees, nor do they include subcommittees. (In some
sessions, there have been a pair of budget committees, such as Appropriations and Base
Budget, but these were really the same committee and I have counted each pair as one
committee.) Interestingly, in the 1981 Senate Session with 41 Democratic members, Lt.
Governor Jimmy Green appointed 38 committees and subcommittees, leaving just three
Democratic members without a chairmanship. The number of House committees took its
steepest decline from 1987 to 1989, dropping from 47 to 12 after the Mavretic revolution,
when Democratic Representative Joe Mavretic was elected Speaker of the House on a
reform platform with a coalition of Republicans and Democrats.
A countervailing pressure keeping the number of committees high is using the
position of committee chair to reward supporting leadership. This pressure is not as high as
it once was because of the increasing trend of appointing multiple chairs for a committee.
For example, in 1971, the House Appropriations Committee had a single chair, with the
same still true in 1987. By 1999 there were three co-chairs, with four in 2001 and eight in
2007.
TABLE 3. NUMBER OF STANDING COMMITTEES, 1971-2007
Year Senate House
1971 32 39
1973 27 38
1975 24 40
1977 28 28
1979 29 42
1981 32 48
1983 30 47
1985 23 47
1987 29 47
1989 28 12
1991 26 24
1993 21 24
1995 13 21
1997 12 24
1999 16 39
2001 18 37
2003 14 31
2005 16 32
2007 16 34
Fleer commented in 1994 on the trends in the number of legislative
committees:
"The importance of the committee system to the organization of the legislature is made clear by the fact that committee structure and composition were at the center of the controversies in the 1989 sessions of the House and the Senate. Standing committees and subcommittees have been sites of decision making in the legislative body because of the need for division of labor and the development of expertise. In 1993, there were 23 Senate committees and 6 appropriations subcommittees. In the House, there was an average of 53 committees in the period 1957-87. The dramatic leadership change in 1989 was accompanied by a drastic reduction of the number of standing committees and the creation of many subcommittees. In the 1989 session, 13 committees and 50 subcommittees handled the business of the House. The figures changed to 24 committee and 33 subcommittees in 1991 and 24 committees and 20 subcommittees in 1993. Before the house reform, North Carolina had the largest number of standing committees among the fifty state legislatures" (Fleer 1994 74-75).
Recommendation #2 has been partially implemented. The reduction of Senate
committees from 32 in 1971 to 16 in 2007 falls just outside the recommended range of 10 to
15 committees. The House has dropped from 39 to 34 committees.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 3. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
In order to make it possible for members to concentrate their attention and
contribute effectively, there should be no more than three committee assignments
for each member of the lower house and four committee assignments for each
member of the Senate. The multiplicity of assignments introduces problems of
scheduling, strains the focus of attention on the part of members, and creates an
inordinately heavy workload for members if committees are as active as they
should be. At present, ninety-nine percent of the members of the House have
more than three committee assignments each, and 100 percent of the members of
the Senate have more than four committee assignments each (CCSL 1971a: 266-
267; CCSL 1971b: 273).
Except during the 1989 Mavretic revolution, the number of committee
assignments per House member has remained high. In the Senate, the
number of committee assignments per member has dropped over the three
decades from nine to between six and seven per member. A spot check of average
committee assignments per member is shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4. STANDING COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS PER MEMBER 1971-2007
YEAR House Senate
1971 7.0 9.0
1973 7.0 9.0
1975 6.0 6.0
1977 6.6 8.1
1987 8.8 8.1
1989 4.0 8.2
2001 6.5 7.1
2003 5.0 6.0
2005 5.1 6.8
2007 5.8 6.8
Instead of cutting the number of committee assignments per member from 7 to 3 as
recommended by CCSL, the number rose to nine. After the Mavretic revolution, it dropped
to four, then gradually rose until the 6.5 level of the 2001 session, about where it started 30
years before.
In the 2003 session, when there was a dual speakership between Democrat Jim Black
and Republican Richard Morgan, the number of assignments dropped to five per member,
and not just on an average basis. While a handful of members had four or six assignments,
over 100 members had five. This unusual situation likely resulted from the mathematics
required by the House Resolution 2 implementing the power sharing arrangement. The
resolution required each committee to have an equal number of members from each party.
With the House of Representatives having 60 members from each party, an equal number of
assignments per member enabled the math to work.
Fleer talked of the effect of the Mavretic revolution on the workload
of members:
"Led by a core of experienced but unhappy Democrats, a coalition of forty-five of forty-six Republicans and twenty dissident Democrats was organized to bring change to the house and to support a new Speaker. The effort was supported by Republican governor James G. Martin, Jr., who had been reelected in November 1988. The goal was election of a new Speaker who would make organizational reforms possible. The coalition was bipartisan, nonideological, and not motivated by particular issues. It was united by its dissatisfaction with the
leadership of the incumbent Speaker and his allies. The dissidents' "Statement of Intent" set forth three goals: limiting the tenure of the Speaker to no more than two terms, permitting more members to participate in house business, and reorganizing the house committee structure to increase power sharing. While the majority Democratic Party would continue to control major standing committees, the minority Republican Party would have members appointed as chairpeople of permanent subcommittees to reflect their number in the house membership. Committee and subcommittee membership was to be apportioned in accordance with the sizes of the two party delegations in the house. Fair representation of the minority was to be guaranteed in other legislative decisionmaking groups such as study commissions, research commissions, and legislative services commissions. The absence of such representation for Republicans had been their major criticism of the house Democratic leadership" (Fleer 1994: 73).
Recommendation #3 has been partially implemented. Average House per member
committee assignments dropped from seven to 5.8, with a goal of three. Average Senate per
member committee assignments dropped from nine to 6.8, with a goal of four.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 4. COMMITTEE JURISDICTIONA description of the jurisdiction of committees should be contained in the rules of
both houses, and assignment of bills should be made in accord with the
jurisdiction of committees as described in the rule. (CCSL 1971a: 267; CCSL
1971b: 273).
In 1971, the House and Senate Rules set out the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations and Finance Committees, but no others. That has not
changed except for creation of the Pensions and Retirement Committees
which handles all legislation relating to that area. House Rule 38 as of
the 2007 Session provides that the House Appropriations Committee
handles all bills that carry "an appropriation from the State … [or]
[r]equires or will require in the future substantial additional State monies
from the General Fund or Highway Fund to implement its provisions. The
House Finance committee considers all bills "which in any way or manner
raises revenue, reduces revenue, levies a tax, authorizes the levying of a
tax, an assessment, or a fee, or authorizes the issue of bonds or notes,
whether public, public-local, or private". Senate Rule 42 is similar. House
Rule 36.2 and Senate Rule 42.2 require bills changing state and local
government retirement or employee benefit bills to go to a committee
specifically charged with those matters).
Recommendation #4 has been partially implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 5. NOTICE OF MEETINGS The rules should require a minimum notice of five legislative days for committee
meetings and hearings, with widely disseminated announcement of schedule,
location, agenda, and availability of public participation (CCSL 1971a: 267;
CCSL 1971b: 273).
Senate rules were amended in 1969 to provide for five days notice of public hearings
by committees. The House adopted a similar rule in 1979 The House adopted a rule in 1969
requiring a schedule of committee meetings for the session to be promulgated by the Rules
Committee. In 1993, the Senate adopted a rule requiring committee meetings to be
announced on the floor and listed on the calendar for the day. Until 1997, calendars
appeared the morning of the day's session, since that time, they have been sent by electronic
mail to members and other interested parties late in the day before. Calendars including
committee meetings also appear at the General Assembly website at http://www.ncleg.net at
the time they are released. Committee agendas began to appear on the Senate calendar in
the early 1990's, in the House in the late 1990's.
For the 2007 Session, the General Assembly began to publish both the House and
Senate calendars on the General Assembly website using an RSS (Really Simple
Syndication) feed. An RSS feed automatically updates subscribing websites with
information.
The House and Senate Principal Clerks’ office create calendars daily during session.
The document is saved as a .pdf file and a coded (scripts) system browses the directory and
creates an XML document, which can be read as an RSS feed through a feed reader. The
agendas are also updated on the General Assembly’s website.
Recommendation #5 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 6. OPEN COMMITTEES. The rules of each house should prohibit secret meetings except in matters
affecting the security of the state, or which could unnecessarily damage the
reputation of individuals in personnel matters. Such exceptions should be
sparingly and responsibly employed (CCSL 1971a: 267; CCSL 1971b: 27).
Since at least 1955, the House rules have required committee meetings to be open except
in unusual circumstances. The current House rules do not allow any closed meetings.
Senate Rule 36 currently bars closed meetings, except as allowed by the
Open meetings Law. Similar rules have been in effect at least since
1955.
Enacted in 1971, the Open Meetings Law requires ALL meetings of government bodies
to be open. Now repealed G.S. 143-318.4(1) originally stated: "Any committee or
subcommittee of the General Assembly has the inherent right to hold an executive session
when it determines that it is absolutely necessary to prevent personal embarrassment or
when it is in the best interest of the State; and in no event shall any final action be taken by
any committee or subcommittee except in open session." This specific exemption for
legislative committees was repealed in 1979. The 1991 session codified for legislative
entities the general requirement of openness, with some narrow exceptions. While
conference committees are exempt from the Open Meetings Law, many conference reports
are negotiated by the conference committee chairs from each house without the formality of
a meeting. As noted above, these exceptions would apply only in the Senate, as the House
has an absolute prohibition on closed meetings.
In 1989, the House adopted rules to put some more teeth into enforcement of
the Open Meetings Law for meetings of committees by allowing the
Ethics Committee to investigate alleged violations.
While the rules and procedures adopted by the House and Senate
resulted in the legislative process being generally accessible and open,
(Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 2001) the General
Assembly for many years had a tradition that a small group of powerful
legislators known as the "supersub" met in secret to formulate key
details of the state budget (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press 2001). Since this was not an official committee, the literal wording
of the Open Meetings law did not apply to it.
Recommendation #6 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGSThere is no justification for permitting any major piece of legislation to become
law without having been subjected to extensive, thorough, well-planned, and
well-prepared public hearings, in which representatives of the public, civic
organizations, and interest groups are not only invited but encouraged to
participate (CCSL 1971a: 267; CCSL 1971b: 273).
There are not now nor have there ever been any requirements in
either chamber mandating public hearings. Senate and House rules do
provide a structure for allowing public hearings. The Senate puts the
decision on allowing public hearings in the discretion of the committee
chair to which the bill is assigned, while the House allows the chair's
decision to be appealed to the Speaker. This language allowing the
decision of the chair to be appealed to the Speaker was added in 1979.
Recommendation #7 has been partially implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 8. RECORD AND PUBLISH PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES.
Record and publish the record of committee hearings, proceedings, and vote
(CCSL 1971a: 267; CCSL 1971b: 274).
In 1979, the Senate adopted a rule that requires each committee to keep and compile
written minutes and file them in the Legislative Library after each session. The House
adopted a similar rule in 1985.
The Legislative Library has nearly complete Senate committee minutes beginning in
1975 with scattered holdings back to 1969 and House committee minutes beginning in 1977
with scattered holdings back to 1971. There is a separate minute book or books for each
committee for each session. These catalogued the proceedings of the committee (not
transcripts) with copies of substitutes and amendment presented, sign-in lists of those in
attendance, copies of hand-outs provided to the committee, and if allowed or required by the
rules, copies of the sheets where roll-call votes are recorded. Some of these minutes are on
paper and some on film. Legislative Library holdings of minutes of interim studies begin in
the early 1970s. The issue of publishing committee roll-call votes is discussed at greater
length in recommendation 9.
Recommendation #8 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 9. PUBLISH COMMITTEE ROLL CALLS The committee report of action on bills to the respective houses should include
those roll calls which are taken, showing how each member voted. These
committee reports should be available to the press and public. Published roll calls
should apply to those bills recommended for approval as well as those killed
(CCSL 1971a: 267; CCSL 1971b: 274).
The usefulness of these rules has varied over time. In 1969, the Senate added a rule
forbidding roll-call votes in committee. That rule was replaced in 1977 by a rule allowing
committee roll-call votes if 1/3 of the committee membership requested. In 1981, this rule
was dropped entirely, to be replaced in 1983 with reinstatement of the roll banning roll-call
votes.
House rules require a roll call vote in House committees at the request of 1/5 of the
members. Up until 1975, House rules forbade roll-call votes in committee, although that
rule was amended in 1975 to give the committee chair the option of allowing roll-call votes.
The current rule was adopted in 1977. Committee roll call votes in the House can be found
in the minutes of each committee, which are filed in the Legislative Library (see
Recommendation 8).
Recommendation #9 has been implemented in the House of Representatives, but not
in the Senate.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 10. INTERIM COMMITTEES. (Part A) When the legislature is not in session, the standing committees should
become the interim committees for the purpose of conducting long-range studies
of state policy issues. The Legislative Council or some similarly constituted,
bi-partisan committee should serve as the supervising agency for interim
committees and their studies, budgets, and personnel. The major committees
should be staffed on a year-round basis (CCSL 1971a: 267; CCSL 1971b: 274).
This was contemplated in the early 1970s. The 1973 Session enacted a structure for
standing committees to meet during the interim between sessions. The 1973 session
adjourned to reconvene in 1974 for an unrestricted annual session. Dissatisfaction about the
length of the second year session let to the abandonment of this experiment after the 1974
session. Since that time, the only standing committees to meet during the interim has been
the appropriations committee, which typically will convene in the even numbered year a
week or two prior to reconvening of the regular session. The Legislative Research
Commission and independent studies have continued as the norm in the interim.
(Part B) In the past, two kinds of activity have taken place during the interim;
studies commissioned or undertaken personally by the Legislative Research
Commission, and independent (interim) study commissions. Recognizing the
problems resulting from such a discontinuous approach, a partial solution has
been evolving due to the lack of coordination, planning, scheduling, budgeting,
reviewing, and evaluating of interim activity. The Legislative Services
Commission and the Legislative Research Commission have been attempting to
fill the void to the degree possible. While these ad hoc efforts are admirable in
intent, we recommend a more rational approach (CCSL 1971a: 268; CCSL
1971b: 274).
There have been no successful attempts at rationality. There has, however, been a
continual increase in funding for legislative studies. Table 5 shows the level of funding for
the Legislative Research Commission. Table 6 also shows funding for independent studies
within the Legislative Branch as well as the Legislative Research Commission. An
independent study is one conducted by an ad hoc or permanent commission within the
Legislative branch, other than the Legislative Research Commission.
The General Assembly passes an annual studies act, assigning some topics to the
Legislative Research Commission, and others to independent studies within the Legislative
Branch. The studies act is an attempt to have a one-stop shop for keeping up with studies.
TABLE 5. LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION (LRC) BUDGETS.
FISCAL YEAR ACTUAL EXPENDITURES
1975-76 $139,256
1979-80 $140,239
1989-90 $449,998
TABLE 6. BUDGETS FOR LRC AND INDEPENDENT LEGISLATIVE STUDIESFISCAL YEAR LRC INDEPENDENT TOTAL
1997-99 $450,000 $ 898,091 $1,348,091
1999-2001 $450,000 $ 870,653 $1,320,653
2001-2003 $450,000 $1,146,037 $1,596,037
2003-2004 $381,426 $1,196,037 $1,577,463
2005-2006 $450,000 $1,240,939 $1,690,939
Fleer noted the increasing influence of formal legislative study commissions:
"Between sessions of the General Assembly, members frequently serve
on interim groups called legislative study commissions. These groups
have be come significant participants in investigating public policy issues
and framing legislative proposals. They do not replace committees but
complement their work" (Fleer 1994. 76-77).
Generally, commissions have authority to hold public hearings, to
hear expert testimony, and to make recommendations for legislation to
the General Assembly. They may be composed entirely of legislators or
they may include other public officials or private citizens. Normally,
professional and clerical staff is provided. Frequently, the commissions
operate under the direction of the Legislative Research Commission
(LRC), composed of the leader and five members from each house.
Subjects for study may be determined by the LRC or authorized by a
resolution adopted by the legislature. Independent study commissions
vary in form from other commissions in that they may exist over several
terms; for example, the Governmental Evaluation Commission,
established in 1977, continued its work until 1981; the Mental Health
Study Commission, created in 1973, continued to operate until 2000.
The Joint Legislative Utility Review Committee was established in 1985,
and the Environmental Review Commission in 1988, both still actively
functioned in 2007.
Legislative studies are largely established for three reasons or
combinations of reasons: (i) to achieve a consensus on a legislative
solution; (ii) to solve highly technical issues; or (iii) to delay action on
controversial issues.
The numbers and topics of study commissions vary from session to
session. In 1981-82, fifty-three interim study commissions operated,
examining such issues as aging, children with special needs, teacher
tenure, campaign finance, and midwifery. The 1991 General Assembly
authorized the LRC to study seventy topics, and seventeen independent
study commissions were created or modified. Topics included services for
the aging, voter participation, public education policies, homelessness,
and access to health care. The use of legislative study commissions is
likely to continue as the range and number of policy subjects grow and
the legislature remains a part-time body (Fleer 1994. 76-77).
During 2005 there were 76 studies authorized or directed,
encompassing 123 different subjects and a total of 84 different study
commissioners, committees, and task forces.
Recommendation #10 has been partially implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 11. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT
(Part A) Legislative research, fiscal, legal, and planning agencies should be
adequately staffed to full utility and at suitable salary levels for professional
qualification. Professional staffing should be at a level to enable the legislature to
conduct continuous, year-round examination of state resources and expenditures
as well as program review and evaluation of state agencies. Staff agencies should
be upgraded to the level at which competent and timely service can be provided to
every member of the legislature (CCSL 1971a: 268; CCSL 1971b: 274).
The General Assembly began upgrading its professional staff with the creation of the
Fiscal Research Division in 1971, the Research Division in 1974, and the Bill Drafting
Division in 1977 (Coble 1987). The first legal analyst was authorized by the Legislative
Services Commission on August 11, 1971, and a second research position was authorized on
September 24, 1971. According to minutes of the May 10, 192 meeting, the Commission
received 123 applications for that position.
North Carolina was the last state to have its own Bill Drafting staff. Salaries became
competitive with the remainder of state government after implementation in the mid 1990's
of recommendations made by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Fiscal notes are
now prepared on a systematic basis.
Fleer noted the increased staffing levels:
"Since 1970, trained, full-time, professional personnel have provided research and analytical support to the General Assembly through the Legislative Services Office (described later). In the 1990s, major legislative committees and interim commissions have professional staffs. All legislators have clerical staffs and private offices. The presence of professional staffs and facilities has changed the character and capacity of the legislature" (Fleer 1994 66).
Coble posited that with new staff came better accountability and even new leadership
patterns (Coble 1987). Fleer detailed the chronology of the first two decades of reform:
"As noted earlier, a major change in the organization and operation of the General Assembly has been the increased availability of professional research and clerical staff. In 1971, the General Assembly created the Legislative Services Office, which has divisions for general research, fiscal research, legislative drafting, automated systems, and administration. In 1991, this 151-person staff of lawyers, political scientists, economists, and other experts provided assistance to the officers, committees, and commissions of the legislature. In addition, the legislature may call on other agencies (such as the Institute of Government), executive offices, and interest groups for expert consultation and professional services. Clerical assistance is also available. Some of these experts work on a fairly permanent basis with committees…" (Fleer 1994: 77-78).
Fleer also noted the rapid progress North Carolina was making:
"The resurgence of state legislatures across the nation is attributed in part to the dramatic growth and increased professionalization of staffs. But the process of improving the assistance to North Carolina legislators is, according to some participants, not over. The issue of whether a larger staff is needed and whether it should extend to a wider range of
legislative activities continues to be discussed. Questions are raised about the professionalism of staff and whether persons are hired on the basis of merit or as patronage. This concern focuses on several aspects of the legislative professionalism debate. During the 1980s, the permanent legislative staff in North Carolina grew approximately 56 percent, from 80 positions to 139 positions by May 1989. Nationally during the period, legislative staff increased 24 percent overall and 65 percent for professional personnel. Thus, although the state appears to have been leading the way, it is likely that North Carolina was catching up. A survey of legislative staffs in 1979 showed that North Carolina was in the bottom fourth of states in professional staff size, with fewer than fifty persons. Indeed, almost half the states had professional staffs that were double the size of that in North Carolina. A 1988 survey concluded that the state remains "conservative" in staff development. An upgrading of legislative staff in the state could take several directions, based on patterns and activities existing in other states. A more assertive body might want to improve its capacity for legislative oversight and thus add staff to help meet that objective. With the legislature not in session during about two-thirds of every biennium and with current staff being used primarily to support interim commissions while the legislature is not in session, additional personnel would be needed to enhance oversight. An auditing arm and investigative unit could assess the fiscal responsibility and legislative fidelity of administrative departments and agencies to determine if the legislature's will is being fulfilled. This function might be especially important with the perpetuation of competitive elections for governor, more frequent Republican victories in executive offices, and repeated divided government in the state. As members of the General Assembly become inundated with increasingly complex and technical legislation and devote more time to their legislative responsibilities, they may need individual professional staff to bolster their substantive knowledge on the broad range of issues on which decisions must be made." (Fleer 1994 88).
(Part B) This staff should also prepare fiscal notes accompanying all
appropriation bills, evaluating their fiscal impact over the short and long term
(CCSL 1971a: 268; CCSL 1971b: 274).
Senate Rules adopted in 1979 were the first requirement for fiscal notes, while similar
House action did not occur until 1989.
(Part C) COMMITTEE STAFFING. Standing committees should be staffed on a
permanent, year-round basis (CCSL 1971a: 268; CCSL 1971b: 274).
The Research Division operates year round providing staff to standing and interim
committees, although as explained above the standing committees operate only during
session.
(Part D) The Institute of Government at the University of North Carolina has, in
the past, provided research and bill-drafting services to the General Assembly. The
Legislative Services Office is now in the process of taking over all of the duties
performed by the institute and, in addition, plans an expansion of services -
especially to major committees. The General Assembly has been operating, in spite
of this service, with a level of professional staff services below minimally
acceptable standards. It appears the Legislative Services Office will fulfill the need
for a central research bureau. It should be completely staffed with bill drafters,
fiscal analysts, and subject matter (research) specialists. All committees (reduced
in total number) should be assigned professional staff assistants. The major
committees should be so equipped immediately, and all committees should have
permanent, full-time staff as soon as possible (CCSL 1971a: 268; CCSL 1971b:
274).
While the School of Government still provides ad hoc research assistance, this
recommendation has been completely implemented. All standing committees have
professional staff assistance assigned to them supplied by permanent employees. Budgeting
and permanent staff positions for the various staff divisions have increased as follows
(number of positions in parentheses). All totals are actual expenditures, with information
gleaned from the Governor's budget documents on file in the legislative library. Creation of
full-time permanent legislative staffing was the first recommendation implemented by the
General Assembly (Coble 1987).
TABLE 7. BUDGET OF FISCAL RESEARCH DIVISION
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET POSITIONS
1975-76 $ 296,354 (17)
1979-80 $ 531,468 (26)
1989-90 $1,742,318 (30)
1999-2000 $3,411,859 (36)
2001-2002 $3,386,654 (36)
2005-2006 $3,828,117 (38)
2007-2008 $4,258,362* (38)
*Governor's recommended budget
TABLE 8. BUDGET OF RESEARCH DIVISION
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET POSITIONS
1979-80 $ 309,326 (17)
1989-90 $1,336,731 (29)
1999-2000 $2,849,088 (38)
2001-2002 $3,094,990 (42)
2005-2006 $3,842,079 (45)
2007-2008 $4,475,349* (45)
*Governor's recommended budget
TABLE 9. BUDGET OF BILL DRAFTING DIVISION
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET POSITIONS
1979-80 $ 191,668 (9)
1989-90 $ 656,279 (12)
1999-2000 $1,494,405 (16)
2001-2002 $2,094,944 (18)
2005-2006 $2,253,342 (18)
2007-2008 $2,690,192* 18)
*Governor's recommended budget
Recommendation #11 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 12. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT - LEADERS Staff assistance should be provided to all leaders of both the majority and
minority parties. Such assistance should include a secretary and an administrative
assistant at the professional level, with space to work reasonably adjacent to the
offices of members and leaders.
No legislative leader now has a professional staff assistant. Every leader should be
provided a professional staff member immediately (CCSL 1971a: 268-269; CCSL
1971b: 274-275).
Much of the obtainable information here is oral history. Dot Barber was administrative
assistant for Representative Liston Ramsey before, during, and after his four terms as
Speaker of the House of Representatives. Ms. Barber told me in a July 16, 2002 e-mail:
"When I came to work at the General Assembly in January 1965, when the General Assembly was not in session the Speaker's Office did not have anyone working there. The same was true for 1967-68. In the 1969-70 Session, Earl Vaughan was Speaker and Sally Allen was his Secretary/Assistant and she did work some in the interim as I remember. There was not a Speaker Pro Tem then. That office was created by Jim Ramsey in 1973-74 and he appointed Billy Watkins Speaker Pro Tem. In 1975-76 Jimmy Green was Speaker and he appointed Kitch Josey as Speaker Pro Tem. Both Kitch and Billy had part time assistants (3 days a week if I remember correctly). The Speaker's Office had full time assistants starting with Jimmy Green's 1975 Session. By then I am sure the President Pro Tempore of the Senate was having some interim assistants. Jean Mims worked part-time for Horton Roundtree who was Speaker Pro Tempore in the House in 1979-80 session. I feel that they started having them in the early 70's. They did not have clerks back in those days work during the interim on state payroll. I think the Republican Party paid for part-time workers for the leaders. Most of the Speakers were lawyers themselves (Jim Ramsey, Phil Godwin, David Britt, Pat Taylor, Earl Vaughn). As I remember Jimmy Green was the first Speaker who wasn't a lawyer and Liston suggested to him that he ought to hire a lawyer to work on his staff. He hired Sam Johnson. Later, Carl Stewart hired Larry Pollard and Sid Eagles to work with him. Liston B. had Jim Long and then went to two former members who were not attorneys -- Sam Beam and Roger Bone. Liston said he had plenty of good lawyers in the General Assembly and on our General Assembly Staff if he needed legal advice."
The State Budget provides little detail. The proposed budget for
1977-79 proposed for the first time a line item of $50,333 for
professional staff in the Speaker's Office. Actual expenditures under this
line item were $32,580 in 1977-78, $42,800 in 1979-80, $39,599 in 1981-
82 (North Carolina, Governor 1983-85), and $53,047 in 1989-90. By the
1997-99 budget (North Carolina, Governor 1997-99), this line item
vanishes entirely.
By 2004, leadership staff had been significantly strengthened. The 2004-2005
Certified Budget for the Senate leadership was $502,085 and for the
House Leadership was $501,217. Table 10 shows the number of
permanent and temporary staff assigned to leadership in 2006
TABLE 10. LEADERSHIP STAFF POSITIONS 2006
OFFICE POSITIONS
President Pro
Tempore
11 permanent, 0
temporary
House Speaker 8 permanent, 3
temporary
Recommendation #12 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 13. STRENGTHEN STAFF (RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS) Rank-and-file members (majority and minority party on an equal basis) should
be provided with individual staff assistance consisting of a minimum of an
administrative assistant at the professional level and a secretary. Eventually, this
should increase to the stated level of support both in the capital and in a district
office.
No professional staff assistance is available to rank-and-file members either. For
the short-term future, it would appear their needs will continue to grow as even
more basic requirements are met. Ultimately, each legislator should be provided a
professional-level staff assistant. For the immediate future, secretarial assistance
should be provided during the interim for the use of the general membership
(CCSL 1971a: 269; CCSL 1971b: 275).
The Legislative Services Commission took up this issue on May 10, 1972. The
Commission had established a "Committee on Secretarial Service and Dictating
Equipment". The committee recommendation approved that day was "Every member of the
General Assembly who has served at least one full term should be provided with a personal
secretary if he desires one. … new members … should have one secretary assigned to each
two members … the maximum increase in secretarial personnel under our recommendation
is 28 persons for the 1973 session …"
By the end of the 1973 Session, the number of secretaries was such that 46 of the 50
Senators and 98 of the 120 House members had secretaries. The Legislative Services
Commission voted to authorize all members to have a private secretary effective for the
1974 Session.
Fleer noted, "Individual members of the General Assembly are
provided clerical staff to assist in constituent visits and mail, to handle
telephone calls and requests for conferences, and to perform other office
services during the session. No clerical staff is provided for district offices
or between sessions" (Fleer 1994 78).
By 2006, every member had one five-day-per-week staff person
during the session. During the 2006 interim, 32 Senators were allotted a
total of 33 temporary staff, ten working five days per week, the other 23
working 14 days per month. In the House all members had interim
assistance from a total of 123 staff, 16 of those permanent, eight
temporary five-day per week, 96 working 12 days per month, and three
working 16 days per month. No district offices have been established.
Recommendation #13 has been partially implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 14. REQUIRE ROLL CALL ON PASSAGE OF BILLS A recorded roll call should be required on final passage of any legislative
measure, and it should require a constitutional majority to pass any bill on final
action by either house (CCSL 1971a: 269; CCSL 1971b: 275).
Article II, Section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution requires roll-
call votes when requested by one-fifth of the members, when the bill
raises revenue or provides for a bond issue secured by the full faith and
credit of the State, or when the vote is on overriding a gubernatorial
veto. Those roll-call votes are printed in the journals. The first two
provisions were in effect when the CCSL report was issued, the third was
added as part of the gubernatorial veto by the 1995 General Assembly.
The Senate rules were amended in 1975 to require recorded votes
on all public bills, and the House rules were amended in 1977 to require
recorded votes on all bills.
The requirement for passage has not been increased from a
majority of those present to a majority of all the members (a so called
'constitutional majority').
Recommendation #14 has been partially implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 15. ELECTRIC ROLL CALL RECORDER There should be an electric roll call recorder in each house. This is
recommended not simply because it would speed up the proceedings (worthwhile
as this may be), but because it is an efficient method of producing an error-free
record of roll call votes (CCSL 1971a: 269; CCSL 1971b: 275).
This was one of the earliest recommendations implemented. The 1973 Session in
Chapter 488 of that year's Session Laws enacted "AN ACT TO IMPROVE THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY AND MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE" The two `whereas' clauses, clearly
written in the context of the then recently released `Sometime Governments', stated:
"Whereas, the General Assembly of North Carolina has long endeavored to performs
its functions in a responsible, efficient and economical fashion, and
Whereas, the acquisition, installation and use of electronic voting apparatus which can
quickly and accurately record the vote on any issue, as provided for in the rules
adopted by the House of Representatives or the Senate, is consistent with the goal of a
more efficient and responsive General Assembly;"
The 1973 law called for the installation of electronic voting by the 1975 Session, and
is currently codified as G.S. 120-11.2.
Electronic voting was implemented in the Senate in the 1975
Session, and is regulated by Senate Rule 25 requiring electronic votes on
all but local bills. Electronic votes can be had on all issues by request of
1/5 of the membership. Electronic voting was implemented in the House
of Representatives two years later in the 1977 Session, and is regulated
by House Rule 20, which is nearly identical to the Senate rule.
Prior to the CCSL recommendations, roll-call votes were carried in the journal of the
house when required by the Constitution or when the ayes and noes were called by 1/5 of
the membership (see recommendation 14 above). After electronic voting was adopted, the
roll-calls require solely by the House and Senate rules were recorded on paper printouts later
kept on file in the legislative library, usually filed in the bill book along with the bill, rather
than in any database. An electronic database of roll-call votes, now searchable on the
Internet, became available in 1997.
Recommendation #15 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 16. STATEMENT OF INTENT BY AUTHOR OF A BILL. The form in which a bill is introduced should include a statement by the author
describing, in laymen's language, what the bill is intended to accomplish. (CCSL
1971a: 269; CCSL 1971b: 275).
Recommendation #16 has not been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 17. BILL SUMMARY BY BILL-DRAFTING SERVICEThe form in which bills are introduced should include a more extensive summary
of the provisions of the bill, prepared by the bill-drafting service (CCSL 1971a:
269; CCSL 1971b: 275).
This has not been implemented. The Institute of Government (part of the School of
Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) in its daily bulletin
continues to digest all introduced bills, but the bill itself does not contain an internal
summary. The digest is released after the bill receives first reading. According to long time
Institute of Government faculty member Joe Ferrell in a July 9, 2002 email:
"The Legislative Reporting Service dates back to 1933. It was one of the very first services offered by Mr. Coates. Henry Brandis was the first editor. In the early days, it was impossible to digest every bill, but Brandis made an attempt to summarize everything of more than routine interest. There was more editorializing in digests back then. My first exposure to LRS was in the 1965 session. By that time, we were digesting every bill. The format in use then is essentially unchanged today. I think Clyde Ball is the "father" of our current style and practice of digesting. We first began to digest every special provision in the budget bill in 1986 or 1987. As far as I know, we made no change in LRS practice in response to the 1971 report to which you refer."
There has been no move to have a bill summary contained in the bill
itself. Bill summaries are prepared by the General Assembly's Research
Division for all bills heard in committee.
Recommendation #17 has not been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 18. IMPROVE PRESS FACILITIESImproved press facilities aid in the coverage of the work of the legislature.
Committee rooms, and both chambers or galleries, should provide adequate space
for the news media as well as lighting and electrical power connections for their
equipment. Conference or interview rooms and office space should also be
provided for the news media.
Although the chambers of North Carolina's new legislative building are generally
superior, they do not provide the type of lighting and electrical power connections
that facilitate coverage by the electronic media. That can be rectified immediately.
No space has been designated as a news conference room for use by press and
broadcast media representatives. Conference or interview rooms should be made
available to the media (CCSL 1971a: 269-270; CCSL 1971b: 275.)
An expanded and renovated press room was provided in the 1993 renovations of the
Legislative Building. An individual carrel was provided for each member of the Capitol
Press Corps with power and connection for a phone line and a data line. Larger rooms were
provided for wire services and public television. The first press conference room was added
at the same time. In the chamber, seats are available for members of the press. Committee
rooms, chambers or galleries, now have electrical power connections for television camera.
Recommendation #18 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 19. JOINT RULES. There should be joint rules governing the relationship and the flow of legislation
between the two houses of the legislature (CCSL 1971a: 270; CCSL 1971b: 275).
An attempt was made to adopt joint rules in the 1979 session. In 1977, Senate Joint
Resolution 879 was passed setting up a committee to study the possibility of joint rules.
That committee met and proposed to the 1979 session 13 joint rules
(North Carolina General Assembly, Special Interim Joint Committee. 1979).
Although the joint rules were never adopted, many of them were
incorporated in the House and Senate Rules between 1979 and 1989.
The committee recommendations appear in bold.
1) Allows sponsorship of bills of one house by members of
the other house. This was designed to cut down on companion or
identical bills being filed in each house. This rule was never adopted in
either house.
2) Banning celebratory, commendation and commemorative
resolutions, other than those honoring the memory of deceased
persons. This now appears in House Rule 31 and Senate Rule 40. and
was designed to cut down on the plethora of resolutions honoring high
school football teams and the like.
3) Requiring copies of all public bills, and upon request of
any one member a local bill to be provided to all members. This
is now required under House Rule 35 and Senate Rule 39.1
4) Bills and resolutions, except those making
appropriations, shall be engrossed before being sent to the
other house. After the Joint Rules failed, this was added in the 1979
Session as House Rule 43.1 and Senate Rule 59.1.
5) If a bill is amended in committee and re-referred to
Appropriations or Finance Committee, engross the amendment
before re-referral. This is now required under House Rule 38(c), and
Senate Rule 45.1.
6) Allow chairs of the appropriations and finance
committees to request a fiscal note on a bill. This was added to as
Senate Rule 42.1 in 1979, but did not appear in the House until House
Rule 36.1 in 1989.
7) Require actuarial notes on bills proposing changes in
retirement or health benefits programs. After the Joint Rules failed,
this was added by Chapter 1250 of the 1979 Session Laws (G.S. 120-
114).
8) Have a rule on the effect of a defeated bill. The House and
Senate had slightly different rules on this subject at the time. Those rules
remain slightly different. House Rule 42 allows earlier House bills to stay
alive, while Senate Rule 53 does not allow further consideration of this
subject.
9) All bills originating in one house must be reported out of
committee in the other house unless the sponsor requests that
the bill not be considered. House rules had required the same in the
House Rule 36 for House bills only (not for Senate bills). The Senate had
no rule on this subject. The situation remains the same.
10) When the second house has adopted a committee
substitute for a bill of the first house, it may not be considered
in the first house on concurrence until the next day. The issue
before the first house is concurrence, and the committee
substitute may not be amended in the first house. This
represented a major change from the previous practice. Through the
1977 session, if the second house adopted a committee substitute to the
bill of the first house, the first house treated it as if the bill had originated
in the second house, and it went on the calendar just like any other bill of
the first house, and could be amended. This procedure was similar in
effect to that in Congress, where a bill can go back and forth between the
houses on the issue of concurrence with amendments. After the joint
rules failed, this recommendation was put in both the Senate and House
Rules for the 1979 session, forcing all such bills to be concurred in, go to
conference, or die. This now appears in House Rule 43.3 and Senate
Rule 56.1. The practical effect of this procedural change is that it moved
the initial power to resolve disputes away from the floor and to the
leadership.
11) Require committees to keep written minutes, and that
they be filed in the legislative library within 60 days of sine die
adjournment. As noted in CCSL Recommendation 8, language requiring
filing within 20 days of adjournment was added as Senate Rule 36.1 in
1979. but not in the House until House Rule 29.2 in 1985.
12) After each decennial census, a redistricting committee
shall be appointed. This was added as House Rule 27 and Senate Rule
32 in the 1979 session.
13) Provided that the joint rules could only be suspended or
amended by a 2/3 vote in each house. This was not implemented as the Joint
Rules were never adopted.
The Committee's report was introduced in the 1979 session as
House Joint Resolution 14, and with handful of stylistic changes, the
passed the House on January 13, 1979 by a vote of 110-0. The Senate
passed the joint resolution by a vote of 45-0, after adopting eight
amendments, the only significant one of which deleted Rule 9, which
required the second house to report out of committee all bills sent over
by the first house. The House voted against concurrence, and a
conference committee was appointed. Conferees went with the House
position on Rule 9 with a few stylistic changes in the rules, and agreed to
the Senate's other amendments. The conference was adopted in the
House February 16, 1979 by a 109-1 vote, but was rejected in the Senate
February 21, 1979 by an 18-27 vote. The Senate took the unusual step
of appointing new conferees that day, and by a 37-9 vote instructing
them not to adopt the House position on Rule 9. On February 23, 1979,
the House voted by voice vote to reject appointment of new conferees,
and the joint resolution died.
Recommendation #19 has been partially implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 20. REPRINT AMENDED BILLS
When a bill is amended substantially, it should be reprinted and returned to the
legislature with no more than an overnight delay. The reprint should show clearly
the original text of the bill as well as the change created by the amendment (CCSL
1971a: 270; CCSL 1971b: 275).
Much of the research for the CCSL recommendations was done during 1969. North
Carolina partially implemented this recommendation during the 1969 Session, and it was
fully implemented for the 1971 session (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1972). In
1987, the coded style of bill drafting was introduced, where the existing statute is set out,
showing how the bill changes the law. This was facilitated by the acquisition of a
computerized database of the existing law. When this was introduced, the bill no longer
showed changes from earlier versions of the bill itself.
Recommendation #20 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 21. PROVIDE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS Legislative districts in both houses should be single-member (CCSL 1971a: 270;
CCSL 1971b: 275).
In the 1971 round of redistricting, there were 35 multi-member districts in the
House and 18 multi-member districts in the Senate. In the 1981 round of redistricting,
there were 29 multi-member districts in the House and 15 in the Senate. By the 1991
round of redistricting, the total had dropped to 17 multi-member districts in the House
and 8 in the Senate. The court imposed interim redistricting plan in 2002 provides for all
single-member districts, the North Carolina Supreme Court having found in its 2002
opinion in Stephenson v Bartlett (335 NC 354, 562 S.E. 2d 377, 381-83) that single-
member districts are required unless it is established that inclusion of multi-member districts advances a compelling state interest."
When the General Assembly enacted redistricting plans in 2003 to
apply to the remainder of that decade, all districts were single-member.
Recommendation #21 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 22. ETHICS
(Part A) SPECIAL PROVISIONS. In addition to standard laws governing
criminal behavior, there should be special provisions regulating legislative
conflicts of interest (CCSL 1971a: 270; CCSL 1971b: 275).
A comprehensive Legislative Ethics Act was enacted by Chapter 564 of the 1975
Session Laws. That act redefined the legislative bribery statutes, forbade legislators from
using confidential information they obtained in the legislative process for financial gain, set
standards for members disqualifying themselves from voting, required legislators to file
statements of economic interest to inform the public of conflicts of interest, and established
a Legislative Ethics Committee with power among other things to prepare ethical principles
and guidelines, to propose rules of legislative ethics and conduct and, to investigate
violations of the ethics law.
In 2006, a new 47-page State Government Ethics Act was passed, Session Law 2006-
201, defining conflicts of interest in detail. For instance, if a legislator receives a reward or
betterment in return for helping pass legislation then that would be a violation of the ethics
act. However under new G.S.138A-38, legislators are allowed to vote on legislation that
will help an entire occupation, even if he is a member of that class so long as an entire class
gains from the legislation. A legislator may not help pass a bill that would help either that
member's regulated business or a client unless the benefit to the business or client is no
greater than the benefits to others in the same class. Associations with non-profit
corporations are also covered.
(Part B) PRACTICE BEFORE REGULATORY AGENCIES. Legislators or their
firms should be prohibited from practicing before state regulatory agencies or in
matters concerning state agencies for a fee (CCSL 1971a: 270; CCSL 1971b:
275).
No legislation has been enacted in this area. House Bill 735 of the
1997 Session proposed that no legislator, business associate, or spouse
should represent another person before state agency. It also would have
forbidden a former legislator to represent any for-profit entity before any
state agency or the General Assembly until the member had been out of
the legislature for two years. G.S. 138A-31 in the new State
Government Ethics Act passed in 2006 does prohibit legislators from
using their public position for private gain of themselves or businesses
with which associated, and G.S. 120-87 prevents a legislator from
disclosing confidential information gained in the member's official activity for financial gain
for the member, or a business or nonprofit that the member is associated with. G.S. 120C-
304 prevents a legislator from registering as a lobbyist while in office. While a legislator can
represent a client before the State, iot can not advocate on behalf of that client on policy
issues.
(Part C) PROHIBIT DOING BUSINESS WITH THE STATE. There should be a
prohibition against legislators or the firms in which they own a major interest
doing business with state agencies (CCSL 1971a: 270; CCSL 1971b: 275).
No legislation has been enacted in this area. House Bill 735 of
the 1997 Session (mentioned above) would have provided that no
legislator could participate in any legislative action if that member, a
family member, or a business with which the legislator is associated
could reasonably be foreseen to obtain a monetary benefit. Some Ethics
Opinions have touched in this area. The Legislative Ethics Committee has
held it to be unethical for a legislator who is a CPA to have the CPA firm
enter into a contract with the State Auditor to do audits of state agencies
but another opinion says there is no prohibition on an auctioneer
legislator from contracting with a state agency to sell surplus property at
auction (North Carolina, Legislative Ethics Committee 1996: 4-5).
Recommendation #22 has been partially implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 23. DISCONTINUE ROTATING LEADERSHIP. The practice of limiting presiding officers to a single, two-year term in that
position weakens the legislature in its capacity to confront other branches and
levels of government as a partner of equal stature and diffuses and disrupts the
continuity of leadership within the legislative bodies. Although it is extremely
difficult to change a practice such as this, because of its profoundly adverse
effects on many aspects of legislative performance, it should be discontinued.
The Speaker of the House should not be limited, by tradition, to serving no more
than one term (CCSL 1971a: 270; CCSL 1971b: 276).
This tradition ended in the House with the election of Carl Stewart as Speaker in the
1977 and 1979 sessions (Christensen and Bonner 2001). Stewart was a modernizing leader
in the legislative branch. Prior to 1977 not only was the Speaker limited to one term, it was
expected that the Speaker would leave the House at the end of that term. Stewart's second
term occurred perhaps as a ripple effect just after voters in 1997 approved a constitutional
amendment allowing the Governor to serve a second term. Liston Ramsey served four terms
as Speaker, during the 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1987 Sessions. Earlier, in the Senate John
Henley was elected President Pro Tempore for both the 1975 and 1977 Sessions, but this
position at that time held little power. Marc Basnight was elected President Pro Tempore in
1993 and in the 2007 Session was serving his eighth consecutive term in that position.
Prior to Stewart's election as Speaker, it was common for members to gather before
one session of the legislature to decide who would be Speaker in the next session, thus
freezing out freshman in the following session from having any influence in that process.
Fleer discussed this issue at length, noting "… increased
professionalism comes through greater continuity and tenure of
leadership and membership. The Speaker of the House, President of the
Senate, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate have, with some
exceptions, served longer terms than before. Committee chairs in
numerous instances have held their positions for several terms" (Fleer
1994).
Recommendation #23 has been implemented.
Go back to list of recommendations.
CHAPTER IIIPRESS RESPONSE, NORTH CAROLINA AND NATIONAL
The New York Times reported on the state-by-state rankings and recommendations
the day after the February 3, 1971 release of the CCSL study, listing the top 10 and bottom
10 states. (New York Times 1971: 70).
While the study was making national news, North Carolina newspapers also gave the
study prominent coverage on February 4, 1971 as well, with state officials in various levels
of denial (Childs 1971, Jablow 1971). The Raleigh based News & Observer gave the study
front page treatment, the headline blaring "Assembly's Low Ranking Irks N.C. Legislators".
(Childs 1971). The Charlotte Observer, the State's largest daily, headlined "U.S. Citizens
Group rates N.C. Assembly a Poor 47th" (Jablow 1971). The News & Observer reported that
the study's 47th ranking for North Carolina "…triggered shock and indignation in the State
House … 'We have a lot of stargazers who've never served a day in the legislature or run for
public office', said House Speaker Phil Godwin" (Childs 1971). Lieutenant Governor Pat
Taylor, who presided over the State Senate, was even more blunt "I haven't seen [the report]
But I rate whoever did it 47th in their ability to evaluate legislatures" (Childs 1971). After the
initial quoted barrage, the News & Observer article later went on to emphasize that
"Assembly leaders generally agreed the legislature does need much more staff and research
capability of its own" (Childs 1971). At first there was little sentiment to adopt the CCSL
recommendations, but many of them were later implemented (Coble 1987).
Rosenthal later recognized that "… a number of legislative leaders (some of whom
served in states with lower rankings) pointed out publicly that the CCSL rankings made
little sense … like evaluating a football team by the condition of its uniforms and locker
rooms … rather than by its performance on the field" (Rosenthal 2004: 8). North Carolina
Legislative Services Officer Clyde Ball questioned the findings right after their release,
saying they may have been based on misleading criteria, noting that it appeared biased
towards states with full time and highly-staffed legislative bodies (Jablow 1971). Rosenthal
agreed with this analyis, noting that "[T]he states that ranked at the top … were those that
devoted the most resources to the legislature … salaries, staff and facilities were relatively
plentiful" (Rosenthal 2004: 8). Ball did note that the CCSL was "not an irresponsible
organization or some screwball outfit" (Jablow 1971).
Two North Carolina newspaper stories at the time of release of The
Sometime Governments showed the North Carolina press view. The
Charlotte Observer noted:
"According to the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures, North Carolina's General Assembly ranks 47th in the 50 states. The legislatures of Alabama, Wyoming and Delaware were the only ones considered less effective than North Carolina's. Larry Margolis, executive director of the Citizens' Committee, said … there were a variety of reasons North Carolina ranked so low. It is apparent from the rankings that the two major considerations were legislative staff and salary, two categories where North Carolina ranked near the bottom. The two top states, California and New York, ranked high in staff and salary… Margolis recommended that the North Carolina legislature needed reform of its committee system, electronic voting, bill summaries, representatives from single-member districts and to allow the Speaker of the House to serve more than one term. All of these recommendations are now being considered by a legislative reform committee … [a]nd reform must come if the states are to cope with their major social and environmental problems…" (Tarleton 1971)
The News & Observer in Raleigh opined, "North Carolina needs several basic
legislative reforms. The assembly's research staff, despite improvements in recent years,
remain obviously inadequate. The amount and weight of legislative business demands
annual sessions. Changing the committee system so that major panels could meet at regular
intervals between session would be a significant prelude to such major reforms" (News &
Observer 1971).
A year later, the New York Times noted that:
"The state legislature is the Lazarus of American governmental structures. Once vital and alive and a focus of activity, then dead, it rises now across the country to tackle a backlog of unmet public needs …the pendulum has begin a reverse swing … Changes in the last few years have seen state constitutional reform almost everywhere and the enactment of statutes that provide for better staffing of legislative committees, improved procedures for making laws, increased legislative pay and more frequent sessions... some of the reforms reflect the earnest efforts of the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures" (Hamilton 1972).
Ferrel Guillory in the News & Observer reviewed progress in 1993:
"The Citizens Conference ranked the North Carolina General Assembly 47th in effectiveness. To a degree the low ranking may have been unfair, but it stung. Since then, the state legislature has made huge strides in opening meetings, computerizing, recording votes electronically, assembling a professional staff and strengthening its own leadership. The North Carolina General Assembly has become what the Citizens Conference sought: a legislature with 20th century structures. But now the 21st century approaches, and the question arises as to whether this state's legislature will be ready for the tasks ahead. From conversations in recent days with lawmakers, staffers, lobbyists and veteran state-government watchers, I detect a pervasive worry about the General Assembly. Some of this reflects, to be sure, the weariness that sets in at the end of a long session, but it's difficult to discount the genuine concerns of experienced people who have a deep respect or even affection for the legislative branch of government. It should not surprise anyone that a two-decade-long process of change and reform would begin to fade. Even a strengthened legislature needs, from time to time, a reassessment and a fresh burst of energy. The time,
therefore, seems ripe for a North Carolina version of a "citizens conference" on the state's legislature" (Guillory 1993).Academics and others had also been critical of the North Carolina
General Assembly while understanding of the pressures it faced (see the
next Chapter) and pressure from both press and scholars helped set the
stage for action on the recommendations.
CHAPTER IVOTHER REFORMERS AT WORK FOR THE STATES
The state legislature is one of the anomalies of the American political system. It has
few public supporters (Heard 1966: 37). Literature on state legislatures is full of authors
exhorting legislatures to advance (Wissel 1976: 252). Textbooks on State government have
for years depicted legislatures as inept organizations (Stuart 1975). In 1971, the North
Carolina General Assembly, largely because of low pay for members and lack of staff was
known as the most cheaply operated legislature on a per capita basis (Barnes 1993).
Legislative action in response to the CCSL report was strong. Fundamental change
in the way the legislature goes about its business began in 1971. One of the key events
causing this reform movement was the CCSL study that had branded North Carolina's
General Assembly the fourth worst in the country (Coble 1987).
Even before release of The Sometime Governments, (CCSL 1971b) reactions to North
Carolina's lack of legislative modernity were common. In 1967, former North Carolina
Governor Terry Sanford presaged the report at length, first quoting muckraker
Frank Trippett:
"Finding fault with state government is nothing new. . . Anyone writing of the state as an instrument of government must write of the legislature. To indict the states is to indict the legislatures ... legislatures are inefficient and corrupt, … they procrastinate on public business while habitually kowtowing to private economic interests, … legislators get drunk and disorderly and consort with ladies procured by avaricious lobbyists, … they line their own pockets, scratch their own backs and roll their own logs-all the while stamping out progressive
legislation in the name of protecting their constituents" (Sanford 1967: 39, Trippett 1967).
Sanford's work largely paralleled the CCSL effort. According to a
September 19, 2004 e-mail to me from UNC political science professor
Thad Beyle, Sanford had received funding from the Ford Foundation for
general work in improving the states, and from the Carnegie Foundation
to assist in establishing a 50-state educational reform effort. Sanford's
response to the problem (quoted in part below) was more tempered than
Trippett's:
"My experiences do not bear out these harsh observations. I suppose this kind of muckraking serves a purpose. It may stir to action those who have not had much concern for taking part in state government. But while these charges might have a good effect, they are simply not an accurate report. They are strong and the culprit is named. But does the total implication constitute a true bill? First, it assumes that the ills of one branch of state government, the legislature, even if the charges are true, visit upon the whole of state government an aura of negligence or neglect, if not evil. Second, it generalizes from the particular; drunken legislators indict all legislators; corruption in one means all are corrupt; one inefficient and backward legislature stands for forty-nine other similar legislatures…Nor is it a fact that legislative corruption is widespread. It is easy to repeat an old cliche', grasping at every individual infraction to reinforce its truth; but the ancient cliche' that legislators are more corrupt than other men doesn't apply to the vast majority of state legislators ….The state legislatures are democracy's voice. The members frequently stand for election or re-election. They are seen and visited in their home communities at least on weekends during sessions, and daily in the months prior to the beginning of sessions. There cannot be many state legislators who have not been waited on by endless delegations either in support of or in opposition to some bill, seeking his assistance in getting a neighbor admitted to the state hospital, or soliciting his intervention with the governor on the matter of a bridge or a parole; who have not been telephoned by individuals, drunk or sober, at all hours of the night or early morning, written to by all manner of people, banded all assortments of brochures and
briefs propounding some special project or program, and deluged with legislative bills and official documents. Most of them have little help in dealing with clerical matters, and even less help in studying the legislative matters. That they are frustrated is understandable …I contend that the legislatures of the states have the capacity to move into greater responsibility, and that they are in a position to play an important part in strengthening their executives, streamlining their governmental structures, reforming their constitutions, improving their personnel procedures, and providing the funds for adequate state services and aid to urban and other local governments. We have so much riding on state legislatures that they are going to have to rise to their challenges … the citizens, counting heavily on the state legislatures, as they must, would do well to give them all the support they will need. They have left themselves short of the tools they must have, and they do need citizens' backing now. John Anderson … now director of the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures, has pointed out the issues of salaries, staff, research, and offices, for example, are not minor matters. Research done by the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures indicates that the cost of operating the United States Congress is more than twice that of operating all 50 legislatures combined….. California House Speaker Jesse Unruh has demonstrated how better pay, modern procedures, and adequate clerical, research, and office facilities can improve legislative effectiveness. So have other states. (Sanford 1967: 181).
The national perspective on state legislators in the mid 1960s
recognized the institutional problems. The average state legislator was
without staff assistance to conduct research and investigations, or even
to answer constituent mail (Heard 1966: 114).
In 1967, Duke University and the American Assembly cosponsored
the Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. That group of 45
representatives met at Quail Roost north of Durham to discuss conditions
in and prospects for the legislatures of Virginia, West Virginia, and North
Carolina (Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. 1967: iv).
North Carolina State University Political Science Department Chair
Preston Edsall presented the group with a paper on the state of the North
Carolina General Assembly in 1967 (Duke University Assembly on State
Legislatures. 1967: 33-67) Edsall asked whether the General Assembly
should meet annually, restrictions on its members' pay be removed from
the State Constitution, and whether the number of standing committees
should be reduced, as well as suggesting electronic voting and better
record keeping of records of committee action and floor debate. Edsall's
paper included detailed statistics on length of legislative sessions and
member compensation.
The Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures issued several
recommendations in 1967 for the Virginia, West Virginia, and North
Carolina legislatures, among them:
"3. The working conditions of state legislatures should be dramatically improved. This action should enable state legislatures to perform their duties more effectively and contribute to making legislative service more attractive. Legislatures should be provided with: a. Better facilities, such as those of the North Carolina legislature. b. Increased competent, professional staff. c. Adequate compensation for state legislatures … 4. Important substantive committees should be continuing committees, with continuing staffs and operating budgets. 5. legislatures should meet annually and they should decide the length of legislative sessions… 8. Require disclosure of information adequate for public appraisal of possible conflict of interest of legislators…" (Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. 1967: 148-49).
In 1994, Jack Fleer weighed in with his opinion on the North Carolina
General Assembly:
"During the twentieth century, two characterizations of North Carolina's General Assembly have been widely publicized and debated. One is that the assembly has been, is, and should continue to be a "citizens' legislature." This view holds that the legislature should be composed of members who reflect and represent the state's citizenry. Frequently, this outlook sees state representatives and senators as citizens who are regularly and permanently engaged in professions and occupations but who take some time from their normal activities to go to Raleigh to serve part time, for short tenure, and with nominal pay to debate and enact laws for the state. Such persons think of themselves first as teachers, professors, lawyers, doctors, bankers, business people, and private citizens and second as legislators and public officials. According to this perspective, a legislature would better reflect and be sensitive to the everyday problems and concerns of North Carolinians if it were composed of citizens and not career officials. Through the 1960s and early 1970s, reform proposals were often measured against this view so as not to undermine the "citizens' legislature" model … Regardless of the veracity of these characterizations of the state legislature, they have had great influence on the development of the institution and its relationship to other components of the state government in the last half-century. In the nation and in the state, however, another vision of the legislature and legislators has emerged. This is the concept of the 'professional' legislature composed of a new breed of legislator who is full time, well paid, experienced through extended tenure, and professionally trained with a career orientation to public service. The concept of the professional legislature was highlighted in a 1971 report of the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures. The study called for reforms so that a legislature would meet five objectives: 'To function effectively, to account to the public for its actions, to gather and use information, to avoid undue outside influence, and to represent its people.' The report assessed every state legislature and recommended many reforms and improvements to meet the objectives. The North Carolina General Assembly was ranked forty-seventh out of the fifty states, falling far short of the report's standards and objectives" (Fleer 1994: 64-5).
By 2004, a longer perspective on the Citizens Conference
recommendations was available. Rosenthal noted:
"If the institution and the process are what matter most, then assessment has to focus on the legislature itself. Such a focus
ordinarily has led to an assessment tied to the legislature's structure … Structural features range widely, and they include elements that might also be categorized as capacity … Led by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, and the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures (CCSL), the reform movement represented a sustained national effort to modernize State Legislatures" (Rosenthal 2004: 7).
Rosenthal recognized that by ranking the states from 1 to 50, CCSL
was wanting lower-ranked states to reform themselves to more resemble
the higher-ranked states, which already had devoted substantial
resources to their legislative branch (Rosenthal 2004: 7-8). Rosenthal
understood that the criteria and scoring used by CCSL were "arbitrary, at
best". (Rosenthal 2004: 8). The assumption of the CCSL study was that
the greater the capacity, the better the legislature, and that using a
quantifiable social science methodology with hundreds of data elements
and rankings would satisfy a political objective of encouraging reform
(Rosenthal 2004: 8).
Legislatures are durable, fascinating, complex and very human
institutions (Rosenthal 1981: xi). Studying the CCSL recommendations
themselves, along with reaction from the press and the academic
community helps provide a framework for understanding the details of
legislative actions on the reforms, discussed in Chapter II.
CHAPTER VANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
CCSL noted in The Sometime Governments that as of 1971:
"State legislatures would undoubtedly rank low on most Americans' lists of governmental institutions that make a difference in dealing with the issues and problems that bother us. The legislatures are the least visible of those institutions, commanding neither the national attention that the Congress does nor the local attention that the city council or board of supervisors gets. The legislatures meet infrequently – many of them for only a few months every other year. And when they do meet, their deliberations and decisions generally take place behind a pall of public ignorance, and indifference" (CCSL 1971b: 4).
The North Carolina General Assembly was hit by CCSL with stinging
criticism as were most other state legislatures. Initial reaction in North
Carolina was hostile, but in the over one-third century since publication
North Carolina has totally implemented 11 of the 23 recommendations,
and partially implemented another 10. While other factors certainly have
influenced the growing professionalism of the legislative branch, such as
a reaction to gubernatorial succession approved in 1977, the growth of
the Internet as a means for public access to documents, and a strong
two-party system in both houses, it is clear that The Sometime
Governments was a catalyst for change.
By setting out a seemingly objective rating system the study became
much more easily understood by the press, academics and legislators,
garnering substantially more press coverage. North Carolina's 47th place
ranking clearly stung North Carolina legislators. Once the article made
the front page of North Carolina's daily newspapers and became the
subject of editorials, it got a place on the legislative agenda in North
Carolina. Of the 21 recommendations implemented or partially
implemented in North Carolina, 17 received action in the 1970s alone.
The only two recommendations not implemented at all concerned the
internal details of bills and other legislative documents – the North
Carolina General Assembly still neither includes a statement of intent by
the sponsor in the body of the bill nor a bill summary prepared by the
professional bill drafters. The School of Government of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill still prepares a bill summary that is
published the day after introduction, and bill summaries are prepared by
professional analysts in the Research Division for all bills heard in
committee.
Four of the recommendations that have been partially implemented
relate directly or indirectly to the ability of leadership to manage the
legislative process:
1) Reduce the number of committees – while progress has been made
in this area, there is a countervailing force to reward leadership
supporters with positions as committee chairs, and the fewer the number
of committees the harder this is to do.
2) Reduce the number of committee assignments per member. This
goal by its nature correlates statistically with the total number of
committee and progress in it tracks the reduction in the number of
committees.
3) Standardize jurisdiction of committees – Jurisdiction is standardized
only for the Appropriations, Finance, and Pensions and Retirement
Committees. Having strict rules on the jurisdiction of committees reduces
the ability of leadership to steer bills to favorable or unfavorable climates
based on the committee chair and committee membership. The Rules
committees in both houses are often used for referral of controversial or
last minute legislation irrespective of subject matter.
4) Require committee hearings – a requirement of public hearings
would also reduce the flexibility in handling bills.
The other partially implemented recommendations can not be so
easily categorized:
1) Publish committee roll calls – this recommendation has been
implemented in the House but not the Senate.
2) Interim committees - The General Assembly has chosen not to
have its standing committees meet year round, and has instead adopted
a model of interim committees specializing in a specific topic or topics,
and with membership including a substantial number of lay members.
3) Require roll call on passage of bills - The part of this
recommendation not implemented would require a constitutional
majority to pass legislation (61 votes in the House and 26 in the Senate)
and there has been no move from leadership to make it harder to pass
legislation, although the gubernatorial veto was implemented beginning
in 1997.
4) Joint rules - An attempt in 1979 to pass joint rules foundered over
one difference in the proposal, but many rules were standardized after
that and the short session does operate under joint rules in the
adjournment resolution.
5) Ethics – while a Legislative Ethics Act and a State Governnment
Ethics Act were passed, there has been little substantive regulation of
legislators practicing before State agencies or doing business with the
State.
6) Staffing for rank-and-file members – While one of the two staff
positions recommended by CCSL is available per member, there are no
district offices.
Ferrel Guillory had some suggestions in 1993:
"The North Carolina General Assembly has become what the Citizens Conference sought: a legislature with 20th century structures. But now the 21st century approaches, and the question arises as to whether this state's legislature will be ready for the tasks ahead. From conversations in recent days with lawmakers, staffers, lobbyists and veteran state-government watchers, I detect a pervasive worry about the General Assembly. Some of this reflects, to be sure, the weariness that sets in at the end of a long session, but it's difficult to discount the genuine concerns of experienced people who have a deep respect or even affection for the legislative branch of government. It should not surprise anyone that a two-decade-long process of change and reform would begin to fade. Even a strengthened legislature needs, from time to time, a reassessment and a fresh burst of energy. The time, therefore, seems ripe for a North
Carolina version of a "citizens conference" on the state's legislature. The national Citizens Conference was formed in 1965 and organized as a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. It may not be appropriate simply to duplicate it on the state level. And yet, it would take something other than a traditional legislative study commission. For its recommendations to have a strong chance of being adopted, a working conference on the General Assembly would need the participation of designated lawmakers and staff. But for its recommendations to be regarded as independent and not self-serving, the conference would require substantial participation by an array of thoughtful and influential citizen-representatives. Though it is not the only option, the mixed composition of the recent government performance audit committee, known as GPAC, suggests a potential model for a legislative performance conference. Whatever its composition, the conference ought to have its own staff and perhaps spin-off working groups to develop independent analyses of specific topics on the agenda. Here are some, but certainly not all, of the potential agenda items: Can a part-time "citizens' legislature" be maintained in the nation's 10th largest state, or will the General Assembly continue to evolve, without a guiding plan, into a full-time legislature? What should be done about the scheduling and pace of legislative action so as to curtail the grueling grind that threatens to drive away capable lawmakers? What should be done about compensation to promote diversity in legislative membership? In addition to the five professional staff divisions that serve both chambers and their committees, should legislators have more personal staffs, in Raleigh and in their districts? Should Democrats and Republicans have partisan staffs? Is the legislature developing a new accountability problem from a relative dearth of regular, meaningful, major-issue roll-call votes in the House and Senate? With so many key issues lately being negotiated before floor action, wrapped into omnibus budget bills or inserted as special provisions, are there now so few roll-calls on major issues as to make it difficult for voters to assess the records of their representatives? For democracy to flourish within its borders, North Carolina surely needs a strong, responsive, creative legislature. The state can't afford a legislature that fails to face pervasive worries and drifts back toward 'sometime government'" (Guillory 1993).
While there has been no move to follow Guillory's suggestion of a
North Carolina Citizens Conference to evaluate the General Assembly,
the in depth look in this paper at the progress since 1971 documents the
substantial reforms that have taken place. The North Carolina General
Assembly has come a long way along the path of modernization, clearly
propelled by the publication of The Sometime Governments (Fleer 1994).
Change can be adaptation resulting from external pressure. (Rosenthal
1996) Whether or not the final few recommendations are followed, the
path towards a professional legislature is unlikely to be reversed.
Much of the focus of The Sometime Governments was on the ability
of the public and the media to follow legislative actions. At the time of
publication of that book, most internal publication of documents in the
legislatures consisted of notebooks and reports housed in a legislative
library. Now with the Internet becoming the major research tool, the
General Assembly is challenged to publish new materials online in a
manner that the media, interest groups, academic researchers and the
press can access and analyze. The General Assembly's main web page at
http://www.ncleg.net contains the ability to look up statutes, texts of bills
whether enacted or not, bill histories back several sessions, House and
Senate rules, maps of districts, links to hear live audio of sessions,
numerous memoranda and reports on the budget and other major
legislation, calendars for floor action, calendars of interim meetings,
items suitable for school research projects, and links to send e-mail to
legislators and staff. Public access to these items go far beyond what
now appear to be relatively modest recommendations by the CCSL.
If Guillory's suggestions for a North Carolina working conference on
the legislative branch are followed, the next generation of researchers,
decision makers and implementers can look back at the 1971
recommendations as well as examine the legislative branch in the 21st
Century.
Items such as electronic access to legislative records, the relationship
of the executive and legislative branches, the role of leadership staff and
party caucuses in the legislative process, lobbying reform, and campaign
finance laws all are relevant to the General Assembly of the 21st Century.
REFERENCES
Barnes, Henson. 1993. Work In Progress: The North Carolina Legislature. [Raleigh]: North Carolina Legislature.
Childs, Jack, "Assembly's Low Ranking Irks N.C. Legislatures", News and Observer, 4 February 1971.
Christensen, Rob and Lynne Bonner, "Constituents Came First for Ramsey", News and Observer, 4 September 2001.
Citizens Conference on State Legislatures (CCSL). 1971a. State Legislatures: An Evaluation of Their Effectiveness. New York: Praeger.
__________ (written by John Burns). 1971b: 1973. The Sometime Governments A Critical Study of the 50 American Legislatures. New York: Bantam Books.
__________. 1972. Legislatures Move to Improve Their Effectiveness. Research Memorandum 15. New York: Citizens Conference on State Legislatures.
Coble, Ran. 1987. "Three Key Trends Shaping the General Assembly Since 1971." North Carolina Insight, June, 35-39.
Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. 1967. State Legislatures in American Politics. Durham: Duke University.
Ehrenhalt, Alan. 2004. "In Search of the Ideal Legislature." Governing, September, 4-6.
Fleer, Jack. D, North Carolina Government & Politics. 1994. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Guillory, Ferrel, "Worries Arise over Future Legislative Vitality", News & Observer, 9 July 1993, Final, A12.
Hamilton, John A, "Back from the Dead," New York Times, 17 January 1972, 31.
Heard, Alexander. 1966. State Legislatures in American Politics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jablow, Paul, "U.S. Citizens Group Rates N.C. Assembly A Poor 47th", Charlotte Observer, 4 October 1971.
Herzberg, Donald G. and Alan Rosenthal. 1971. Strengthening the States: Essays on Legislative Reform. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Hoyle, David. 2002. "Session Limits. We Need this Vital Reform to Save our Citizen Legislature". North Carolina Magazine. (January).
News & Observer, "Legislature Needs More Continuity", Raleigh, 21 October 1971.
New York Times, "California is Rated Best in Wide Study of 50 Legislatures ," 4 February 1971, 1, 70.
North Carolina, Legislative Ethics Committee. 1996. "Legislative Ethics: Ethical Principles and Guidelines and Opinions of the Legislative Ethics Committee 1975-1996".
___________ Legislative Research Commission. 1967. "Report No. 1. Report on the General Assembly of North Carolina".
____________ Legislative Library. 2004. Legislative Statistics 1965-2004
____________ Special Interim Joint Committee. 1979. "Rules of the General Assembly"
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Tapping Officials' Secrets. 2001. Arlington, VA: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Rosenthal, Alan. 2004. Heavy Lifting: The Job of the American Legislature. Washington: CQ Press.
____________ 1996. "State Legislative Development: Observations from Three Perspectives" Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. XXI No. 2 (May) 169.
_____________ 1981. Legislative Life: People, process and Performance in the States. New York: Harper & Row.
Sanford, Terry. 1967. Storm Over The States. New York: McGraw Hill.
Stuart, Clay. 1975. North Carolina Atlas: Portrait of a Changing Southern State. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Tarleton, Larry, "State Government Must Reform in Order to Survive", Charlotte Observer, October 17, 1971.
Trippett, Frank. 1967. The States: United They Fell. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
Wissel, Peter, Robert O'Connor, and Michael King. 1976. The Hunting of the Legislative Snark: Information Searches and Reforms in U.S. State Legislatures" Legislative Studies Quarterly Vol. 1, No 2 (May): 251-267.
