COMMITTEE RESTRUCTURING BRINGS POSITIVE CHANGES TO THE VIRGINIA HOUSE

Transcription

1 COMMITTEE RESTRUCTURING BRINGS POSITIVE CHANGES TO THE VIRGINIA HOUSE By B. Scott Maddrea Deputy Clerk, Committee Operations The Virginia House of Delegates looks a little less like a 12 -ring circus these days. Several organizational changes mean that delegates less often have to perform the Houdini -like trick of being in four places at once. In recent years, as the House grew to depend more and more on subcommittees to winnow and polish legislation, it has not been unusual for a member to have a committee meeting, two subcommittee meetings, and an appearance before yet another subcommittee to present a bill, all at the same time. 1 In the 2000 National Conference of State Legislatures Study of the Legislative Process in Virginia, and the accompanying report of the SJR 243 Citizen Advisory Board on Improving the Legislative Process and Maintaining the Citizen Legislature, it was apparent that the existing structure and uses of the committee and subcommittees, particularly in the Virginia House of Delegates, were in need of reform. Editorial Note: This is a follow up to an article by John T. Whelan entitled A New Majority Takes Its Turn At Improving the Process in Virginia that appeared in the Fall 2001 edition of the Journal of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries. At the conclusion of his article, A New Majority Takes Its Turn At Improving the Process in Virginia, Dr. John Whelan of the University of Richmond noted, House republicans have already begun making plans to revamp the chamber s committee system 2 and that major changes in the committee system are expected to be forthcoming in the house when it organizes for the 2002 session. 3 During the 2001 interim the leadership of the House, at the behest of House Speaker S. Vance Wilkins, Jr., undertook a comprehensive analysis of the structure of the committee system. As a result, on the opening day of the 2002 Session of the Virginia General Assembly, Speaker Wilkins announced major changes in both the structure and operations of the standing committees of the House of Delegates. Some of these changes were embodied in the rules of the House and adopted by majority vote of the body; others were accomplished through his appointive authority. Among the major changes, the number of standing committees was reduced from 20 to 14, the number of standing subcommittees was lowered by more than 25% (from 60 the previous session to 44), and the size of most committees was reduced from 25 members (or more) to twenty -two. Moreover, the meeting schedule was dramatically altered in an attempt to further reduce member conflicts. (Wilkins) maximized the legislative day by forcing some committees to begin work right away in the morning and some to meet late in the day, and he has sought to unclog the logjams by redistributing workloads in the chamber. 4 Instead of having meetings split between the State Capitol and legislative office building, all standing committee meetings were moved into the legislative office building. To eliminate time -consuming and disruptive treks across the Capitol grounds, Wilkins ordered that all panels, whether full or partial committees, meet in the General Assembly Building across the square from the state Capitol. 5 Subcommittees were required to meet early Fall 2002 E JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LEGISLATIVE CLERKS AND SECRETARIES Page 1

2 in the morning or late in the afternoon so as not to conflict with meetings of the standing committees. The morning -to -dusk scheduling leaves more time for House floor sessions and for meetings of full committees. 6 In other words, he tried to bring order where there had been confusion. 7 Despite the fact that the new schedule lengthened the legislative day, forcing delegates to routinely face 12 -to 14 -hour workdays, the changes have received positive reviews from members, lobbyists, and the editorial boards across the state. The Richmond Times -Dispatch noted that the changes give members more time to consider legislation and far fewer occasions when lawmakers had to be in two or more places at once. 8 Minority Leader Franklin P. Hall noted the new procedure gives more time for mature consideration and deliberation. 9 Delegate Johnny S. Joannou, a twenty -year veteran of the House, indicates, I had to be in three places or more at the same time in the past. It s a lot better now. 10 Delegate Jerrauld C. Jones likewise concluded, Before, it was a helter -skelter situation. Now it s less helter -skelter. 11 Dick Pulley, chief lobbyist for the Virginia School Boards Association, said Wilkins changes have simplified the process. A fixture at the Capitol for 33 years, Pulley said the new system gives lobbyists and local officials a better idea of when committees and subcommittees are meeting on key legislation. Also, it s easier to find times to buttonhole lawmakers. It used to be very difficult to contact legislators when they were spread out over the Capitol and throughout the working day, Pulley said. It s much easier now to see and talk with legislators after committee meetings. The day isn t shorter but it is more predictable and manageable. 12 I ve been very pleased Wilkins said last week, adding that the consolidated committee structure has helped better spread the work. What people are telling me is that they have more time to consider bills, he said, and there aren t as many conflicts. 13 While the result has been fairly uniform rave reviews, most of the evidence was anecdotal. What the new leadership sought was more than anecdotal acknowledgment of the success of their efforts. Their challenge was to quantify the effects of the changes in a way that allowed the leadership to measure the results in a more meaningful way. Research indicated that during the 2001 Session the regular meeting schedule resulted in 131 member conflicts every week involving 76 of the body s 100 members. Over the course of an 8 -week session this amounted to nearly 1,048 member conflicts. The changes implemented during the 2002 session did not completely eliminate member conflicts, but the reductions were substantial. The total number of conflicts was reduced from 131 per week to just 32 - a reduction of better than 75 percent. Instead of 76 members of the House experiencing weekly conflicts, just 28 members had conflicts under the new schedule and structure. Overall, the changes resulted in 68 fewer members experiencing 99 fewer conflicts each week. Over the course of an 8 -week session, this amounted to the elimination of nearly 800 member conflicts! As the anecdotal reports appeared to indicate, these changes were also having a dramatic impact on the efficiency of the body in conducting its business. The standing committees began their work sooner, moving bills out of committee and onto the floor for deliberation by the entire body. Historically, the first week of session has tended to be slow -moving and few committees acted upon the legislation before them. In recent years the first bills were rarely reported from committee before Day 7 or 8 of the 60 -day session. This year the first measures were reported from committee on Day 3. Whereas in previous sessions it was rare for more than ten measures to come out of committee within the first week, this year more than 75 measures were communicated to the floor in the first week. Page 2 E JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LEGISLATIVE CLERKS AND SECRETARIES Fall 2002

3 Session Day Bills Reported from Committee Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday TOTAL As a result of the enhanced effectiveness of the committees, the level of activity on the floor of the House increased, and legislation began moving through the process much quicker than in previous years. This was evident in the level of floor activity that transpired during the first 15 days of the legislative session. House Floor Activity (First 15 Days) Year Legislation Total Legislation Percentage Considered % % % Compared to the first 15 days of the two previous even -year sessions, there was a dramatic increase in the level of floor activity. By Day 15 of the 2002 Session the House had already disposed of nearly ten percent of its workload (272 bills), whereas in two previous sessions the House had acted upon just 2.5 percent of its workload. The real impact of this five -fold increase in efficiency would become increasingly apparent as the deadline for action in the house of origin (Crossover) approached. By handling more legislation earlier in the session, the House gave itself more time to deliberate on those frequently more -controversial matters remaining on Fall 2002 E JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LEGISLATIVE CLERKS AND SECRETARIES Page 3

4 the agenda prior to Crossover. Whereas a year earlier nearly two -thirds of all assigned legislation remained in committee just ten days prior to Crossover, this year it was less than half; and whereas in 2001 half of all measures were still in committee the week before Crossover, this year more than 70 percent of measures had already been dealt with at the committee level. Friday (10 days before Crossover) Wednesday (one week prior) % of workload completed by committees Difference 36.8% 50.2% 13.4% 50.3% 70.1% 19.8% Thursday prior 62.2% 75.8% 13.6% Friday prior 71.3% 82.2% 10.9% At no time was the enhanced efficiency more pronounced than on Crossover Day itself. In recent years the final legislative session on the last day for action in the house of origin has crept into the early evening and, in 1998 and 1999, went well past midnight. This year, for the first time in anyone s memory, the House completed it s calendar by mid -afternoon (2:36 p.m.). Crossover Adjournment Time :36 p.m :39 p.m :05 p.m :45 a.m :43 p.m.* *the following calendar day Virtually all of the anecdotal evidence was encouraging and suggested the changes implemented were having the desired effects. The reduction in the number of meeting conflicts and the number of individual members affected by meeting conflicts was pronounced. The efficiencies in the processing of legislation were evident at both the committee level and on the floor. Although not all members anticipated the degree to which these changes would have an impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the institution, one of the unintended consequences came as a surprise. As a result of the enhanced efficiency of the body, the demands of staff were in some cases reduced significantly over the previous sessions. Employees of the House Clerk s office logged more than 1,036 hours in overtime during the This is significant in that full -time employees do not even begin accruing overtime until they exceed 55 hours in a given work week. It is also a dramatic improvement over the four previous sessions when employees accrued 1,682 (1999); 1,240 (2000); and 1,434 (2001) hours in overtime. This reduction translated into thousands of dollars in savings during a period when the economy was faltering and the need to reduce costs incumbent on all state agencies. Page 4 E JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LEGISLATIVE CLERKS AND SECRETARIES Fall 2002

5 By virtually every statistical measure the changes in the structure and operations of the committees and subcommittees of the House of Delegates were positive and enhanced the overall effectiveness of the institution. 1 A New Order by Wilkins Improves the House, The Virginian-Pilot, February 15, John T. Whelan, A New Majority Takes Its Turn At Improving the Process in Virginia, Journal of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries, Fall 2001, page Ibid. 4 Michael Hardy and Pamela Stallsmith, Simplifying the 5 Michael Hardy and Pamela Stallsmith, Simplifying the 6 Michael Hardy and Pamela Stallsmith, Simplifying the 7 A New Order by Wilkins Improves the House, The Virginian-Pilot, February 15, Michael Hardy and Jeff Shapiro, Bipartisanship in Short Supply, Richmond Times-Dispatch, March 10, 2002, page A10. 9 Editorial, Week s End, Richmond Times-Dispatch, February 23, 2002, page A10 10 Michael Hardy and Pamela Stallsmith, Simplifying the 2002, page A1. 11 Michael Hardy and Pamela Stallsmith, Simplifying the 12 Michael Hardy and Pamela Stallsmith, Simplifying the 13 Michael Hardy and Pamela Stallsmith, Simplifying the 14 Ibid. Fall 2002 E JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LEGISLATIVE CLERKS AND SECRETARIES Page 5