Riley’s deal with the AEA?
Posted by BrianTell me if I’m crazy, but I think Bob Riley might be horse trading with the AEA. First two year college chancellor Bradley Byrne, who was of course appointed by Riley, pushes to reform legislative double dipping. This of course infuriates the AEA and they are tying to kill the plan. Even steadfast liberal editorial boards, like the Decatur Daily’s, support reform. But I’m sure even the governor feels some trepidation about taking on the AEA. I just realized that it was the day before Byrne’s op-ed in the Mobile Register that Riley called for a massive expansion of government schooling in Alabama.
Coincidence or attempt to placate the AEA?
Related content:
August 16th, 2007 at 5:13 am
For one way to get rid of double-dippers altogether, and not just in the 2 year college system see http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20070816/NEWS/708160318/1028/TL04
August 16th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Full time and part time each have issues. The problem with a full time legislature? It gives them more opportunity to raise taxes, increase government, and pass intrusive legislation. They certainly won’t use that extra time looking for ways to increase our freedom or decrease their revenue.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I prefer the idea of a full-time benefited legislature because it: might encourage ‘regular’ people to run, removes conflicts of interest, and allows legislators time to fully explore issues (maybe even read the bills on which they vote).
My reservations echo yours, plus full-time might just give them more time to steal (I don’t have a very high opinion of our legislature).
August 16th, 2007 at 9:04 am
It would be difficult to find anyone who has a lower opinion of our legislature than I do, but that’s because of how miserably it has performed — working for the benefit of its members and the large deep-pocketed special interest groups that control so many of its members — rather than for “we the people” who own it and finance it.
While a full time legislature could allow more time for members to look for ways to raise taxes and increase revenues and the size of government, I don’t see how things could get worse than they are now. I believe just the opposite is more likely because the influence of lobbyists and union leaders would be diminished if not eliminated with the “double-dippers gone, and for other reasons.
I believe that by paying legislators a livable wage for their only job, we could elect a more professional group of members from more diverse backgrounds, making the legislature more reflective of average Alabamians, rather than being weighted toward attorneys and educators, or whatever.
With only the one job to concentrate on and more time to give thoughtful study to the issues, whatever legislation it passes should be of a higher quality. It would eliminate those bills that are rushed through in the final hours of a session without members having time to read them, much less really study them.
Should the need arise at any time to address a new issue, it could be done right a way rather than having to either wait several months for the next session to start or else calling a special session.
The legislature staff workers (who are not part-time workers) would be able to assist the members with their duties much more than they do now, because if the legislature were about half or less its present size the 50 to 70 members would have more access to the staff members for the entire year rather than just on the basis of 30 legislative work days each year with 140 legislators trying to get help. That would make the permanent staff more cost effective.
If we changed to a unicameral legislature patterned after Nebraska’s, members would be elected on a non-partisan basis, eliminating the bitter partisanship that cripples our legislature now. It’s difficult for anyone to understand how that would work if they haven’t given some study to how the Nebraska legislature operates. It works on legislation in a much more transparent way – out in the open for media and the public to observe, rather than cutting back room deals in committees.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
“Should the need arise at any time to address a new issue, it could be done right a way rather than having to either wait several months for the next session to start or else calling a special session.”
Don, that’s particularly important given our crappy constitution. Centralization of power in Montgomery means some communities can wait through several legislative cycles for consideration of local bills. Of course, a new constitution would be even better.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Kathy, it’s more likely that Mobile will have sub-freezing temperatures with a snow blizzard tomorrow than it is that we get either a new constitution or a unicameral full-time legislature. I think the only hope for either of those rests on cleaning out our state house, or else scaring enough legislators into making Alabama the 25th Initiative and Referendum state so voters can initiate legislation to make the needed reforms in state government.