A loud wake-up call to Legislature

A loud wake-up call to Legislature
Shape up or prepare to get shipped out

http://www.arizonarepublic.com:80/opinions/articles/1121tue1-21.html
Nov. 21, 2000 12:00:00

Perhaps at this very moment, some fed-up Arizonan may be reaffirming a vow to do something about the state Legislature and its hare-brained, money-burning schemes such as the alternative-fuels debacle.

Perhaps it's someone like political alchemist John Kromko in Tucson: someone skilled at whipping together one of those bubbling beakers of acid known as a statewide ballot initiative.

If the incoming batch of state lawmakers need to fear anything, they need to fear just that: a grass-roots, initiative-based movement to dictate the rules governing how the Legislature does its business.

Yes, Arizonans are outraged over the astonishing cost of the alternative-fuels program - perhaps a half-billion dollars. And they should be just as outraged that it's the lobbyists for the alternative-fuel industry who are now writing the "fix" legislation, aimed, of course, at minimizing their own discomfort with whatever remedy emerges.

But that's just half the picture. What has really got taxpayers mad is the manner in which the system - their system - has been manipulated to accommodate the personal agenda of one or two powerful lawmakers. Letter writers to this newspaper have spent their darkest fury thundering over the bypassed committees, the ham-fisted political muscling and the shameless insider dealing that appeared last spring - and appears to still fuel the alternative-fuels legislation.

A satisfying - if wildly misdirected - public response to this scandal very well may be an initiative that attempts to collar self-indulgent legislators.

Why would such an initiative be bad? Because the initiative process by definition encourages heavy-handed, immutable reforms, which certain clever legislators invariably turn to their advantage. In a nutshell, that is how the alternative-fuels mess came to be - well-intentioned rules were bent severely by one bright, savvy, cynical guy.

A better solution would be for lawmakers to take action themselves to reform their manner of making laws before the public recognizes how much like sausage-making it really is. We have some suggestions, as it happens:

* Assure that bills get a fair public hearing.

In retrospect, it is perfectly obvious why the sponsor of the alternative-fuels legislation, former House Speaker Jeff Groscost, "aired" his bill in the House only in the unlikely Government Reform Committee, which (coincidentally, you suppose?) was stacked with unblinking Groscost amigos. Had it been vetted in appropriate committees like Environment, Commerce, Transportation or Ways and Means, and had testimony been heard from the tax pros at the Revenue Department, things may have turned out differently.

* Find a way to regulate the flow of bills. Controlling the raw number of bills introduced each session is like squeezing a balloon - wherever you squeeze, they invariably pop out the other side. But legislative leaders can and should control the flow of bills. Perhaps they can limit the number of bills introduced each day. Or limit the number of bills any one committee can hear in one day.

* Relax the deadline for bill hearings. Legislative leaders mistakenly believe placing a deadline for hearing bills limits action on those bills. On the contrary, it causes action - panicked action in which harried committee chairs spend 5 or 10 minutes on bills that should be considered for hours.

* Quit obsessing on a "100-day session." A wholly arbitrary standard to begin with, the 100-day notion invariably causes a whirlwind of bills to blow up at session's end.

* Have House-Senate conference committees comply with state Open Meetings law. As it is, conferees typically hammer out deals in private, then blow into their respective chambers with a fistful of amendments - and little else - to show their fellow lawmakers. Then, 20 minutes later, they vote. This is sausage-making, not legislating. Post 24-hour notice of conference committees, then allow another 24 hours to pore over the changes before voting.

* Severely limit, or ban altogether, the use of "strike-all" amendments. These notorious "vehicle" bills - once-abandoned measures that are revived with completely new language, very often on subjects that have nothing to do with the original bill - are the poison mushrooms of late-session chaos. The alternative-fuels measure arose on a "striker." This must stop.

There are other possible solutions. Currently, for example, the majority party holds a majority of positions on important research committees like the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the Legislative Council. The workings of these committees are supposed to be impartial, so let's make it so with an even split between both parties.

To his credit (and our acknowledged surprise), recently elected House Speaker Jim Weiers has voiced what appears to be a sincere interest in ferreting some of these solutions out. Senate President-elect Randall Gnant seems likewise inclined.

Those are encouraging indications of what may be the most desperately needed reform, which is more sober, less calculating leadership.

These newly elected leaders would do well to approach their reforms with some haste. Either they reform their legislative process quickly, or somebody else is likely going to reform it for them at the next election.

The Arizona Republic

Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper whose editorial board consists of Keven Ann Willey, Phil Boas, Jennifer Dokes, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, O. Ricardo Pimentel, Robert Robb, Laurie Roberts, Linda Valdez, Ken Western and Steve Benson.