UPCOMING SHOWS:
RECENT SHOWS:
TAGS:
Legislating from Home
- LATEST COMMENTS
- There seems to be some misconceptions on how current video ... - gzaharie
- Having worked in the Oregon Senate for six years, I ... - sean cruz
- Just to clarify a couple of points: This proposed amendment ... - StuRasmussen
Stu Rasmussen, the mayor of Silverton, has launched a voter initiative that he says would give Oregonians greater access to their legislators. This proposed Constitutional amendment would require state politicians to vote from their home districts, instead of from Salem. Rasmussen is spearheading this because of difficulties he's had meeting with legislators during session. But there is obvious interest from some state senators and representatives who, under the current system, have to give up their "day jobs" and essentially move to Salem for each legislative session.
What do you think? Should legislators be mandated to vote from home? Should they at least have the option? Have you tried to access your local politician when the legislature is in session? How did that go for you?
And what issues does this bring to mind for you about our citizen legislature as a whole? What would decentralized state politics mean for our brand of democracy?
GUESTS:
- Stu Rasmussen, Mayor of Silverton
- Jefferson Smith (D-Portland), Oregon District 47 state representative and director of the Bus Project
- Peter Buckley (D-Ashland), Oregon District 5 state representative
- Jim Davis, Associate professor of Human Sciences at Marylhurst University and the Executive Director of the Oregon State Council for Retired Citizens
Tagged as: legislature · rural-urban divide
Photo credit: Gmeador
COMMENTS: (33 total)
-
This is from our listener Fred Greatorex, who reached us by email on his iPhone but couldn't comment on the site this morning:
Having legistators voting from their home districts is the most BRILLIANT IDEA for Oregon since we adopted the "Oregon System" of voter initiatives.
Set up each district with an office with video confrencing and BANG we're off to show the rest of the country how to run a state fir the people by the people!!!
Voters win with better access to their representitives.
Legistators win because they don't have to move to Salem or take a
leave of absense from their jobs.The way I see it is that the only losers would be the lobbyists who wouldn't have the convinience of all the law makers in one spot.
Now all we have to do is amend the state constitution so that it and all laws are written in plain English, and we the people can vote on new laws, taxes and amendments by popular vote!
David Miller — Wed Oct. 28th 8:16a.m.
-
I think this idea is insidious. With our political climate becoming increasingly hostle, isolating our legislators to their own constituents will only serve to slow the debate by further retarding their interpersonal skills with opposing parties. I think it is better to encourage the public to engage their congressmen- write letters, make phone calls, get petitions or other campaign means. This idea will only make us all more lazy!
-
I think this ideas is insidious--face to face conversations could not happen under this proposal. I will not sign the petition or vote for it and here is why.
In one election, the challenger was going door to door in the incumbent's neighborhood and discovered many of the neighbors did not know they lived near their state rep.
I live in S. Salem. I have had state reps. who were very open to conversation with the public incl. one who famously would talk with anyone encountered in the grocery store. My current state rep. in a face to face conversation did not want to discuss the merits of the Jan. tax measures beyond saying THESE ARE BAD TAXES.
Proposed solution? "I'm not on Ways and Means...". and "we will see what is available". Pushed for further details on proposed solution, not much in the way of details. Smaller ending fund balances and public employees paying more of their health care. Guess how many public employees live in a Salem district? And even if there were 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate for such a proposal, would courts allow that legislative changing of a negotiated contract? Or would the contract be upheld? Debate publicly the value of ending fund balances vs. the value of living by "at least we didn't raise your taxes? St Rep. was skeptical that such a debate among the public would have any value. This is someone who votes caucus party line over 90% of the time.On the other hand, I have had intelligent conversations with Rep. Buckley, Rep. J. Smith and others, along with intelligent email dialogues.
There must be a better way to break up the closed caucus system than this.
Under this proposal, members would never meet each other or have face to face conversations. And the public would never be able to face committee members or watch others face them on Legislative video or the Oregon Channel.
This is a flawed proposal.
-
Glad this is being discussed. It needs to be planned out carefully, but it's past time to make some kind of change. I like Mr. Rasmussen's use of the terms "employers" (citizens) and "employees" (legislators).
The need to travel to Salem on ridiculously short notice and participate in a really unusual choreography prevents many well-intentioned citizens from participating in their government.
The lack of quality input into important decisions damages our state.
-
I think that the mayor's proposal is great: hard to bomb a legislation when they are all in different places, and the access to your legislator would be wonderful. The legislator contributing mentioned that his contact in the hallway regarding autism wouldn't have happened had he been telecommuting. Perhaps not with that contact, but just imagine how many "hallway" contacts he could have with his public! There is a difference between having your legislator bring great ideas to the floor, and having him/her bring great ideas that help his own district to the floor.
-
It is certainly half-baked and kooky, which you have to like. But what is the point really? Fifteen minutes of something for someone? Legislators sitting around in slippers and housecoats? They are already slouchy layabouts. Do we really need homeschooling for politicians? I kind of think this might be what is best for Stu, but not was is best for our legislators. There is something about going into the office which is often beneficial in its own right.
-
If you've ever attempted to testify at a Committee Hearing in Salem, particularly on controversial matters, you know that Lobbyists typically end up taking most of the slots reserved for "Public Testimony."
This happens because the Lobbyists are permanently ensconced at the Capitol building and have early access to upcoming hearings. Consequently, the lobbyists absorb most or all of the time allotted for public testimony, effectively blocking any opposition.
Simultaneously, the paid lobbyists hover just outside the rope which separates the house and senate floor from the public. The lobbyists hover as close as possible to the legislators, doing what lobbyists do.
While the Mayor's suggestion has a few kinks to work out, his basic idea is good because it holds the more blatant abuses of the lobbyists at some distance.
The mayor is correct. We cannot limit the free speech rights of the Lobbyists. However, by performing more of their work from their home districts, the influence of lobbyists could be equalized a bit more.
-
Good points. I think this is a matter of bringing legislators back to the real world that elected them. To be honest, I don't see how they CAN avoid being unduly influenced by the parade of lobbyists, no matter what they say.
-
Regarding the civility issue, we are not talking about five year olds. These are mature people, and, if they do not have open minds by now, good luck trying to teach them nursery school lessons in legislation.
-
1. The telecommuting plan would make it difficult for us, the people, to observe the process in action.
2. When I have been present in committee meetings in Salem I have observed the difficulty of conducting an ongoing conversation when one or more of the participants weren't actually present, but taking part by phone.
-
Yes, I think your number one is the crux of the problem with this idea.
-
This may not be the stupidest idea I have heard discussed on TOL, but it is in the top 5.
I am writing from Malheur County, the part of Oregon that is really part of Idaho. As a voter, i have hired, along with my fellow citizens, Mr Bentz to represent my interests in Salem, and I do not believe that he can do that from Ontario. His job is done face to face, not over the electronic ether.
-
I'm glad we cracked the top five!
David Miller — Wed Oct. 28th 9:53a.m.
-
what about the drives from eastern oregon? for rep. bentz and sen. ferrioli? who come from the other side of the state and have by far the longest drive? i think that it would be smarter for these two gentlemen to stay put and do the teleconferencing than driving to salem. they have enough miles to cover.
-
I work for a large multi-national company, and I live in this “virtual” world every day. Although video conferencing is more useful than just talking on the phone, it is still in no way a replacement for meeting face to face. Travel budgets are very tight in the current economy, but in a recent trip to Singapore, my colleagues and I were able to address many issues in a one hour, face to face, meeting. These were things we had been struggling with for months via teleconferences. The more contentious an issue, the more difficult it is to discuss it through virtual forums… our legislators need to meet face to face!
-
I have two comments:
Frankly, I think it is a good idea--but change moves slowly. Recommend adding this but advertising the idea to the public BEFORE introducing it. When people think about it, I believe they will like the idea. If/when implemented, also suggest it be done so that public has access to free downloadable software to follow all meetings and votes.
Second comment: I have recently used the software Elluminate for a couple of conferences across statelines. I was able to participate fully in the discussion plus add extra thoughts by text. This allowed me to do quick searches regarding current topic and stay on task. Several people added enormously useful comments that helped everyone's thinking. Some people who were invited to just attend had interesting enough questions that they were invited to share their thoughts with the entire group. This would not be possible in a standard meeting, where observers would just have to whisper their thoughts to their neighbors. A lot of expertise is wasted that way.
A tremendous amount was done in a very short time. If this kind of software is already easily available, we should be able to purchase or develop our own software.
If I could follow a committee meeting and text my concerns and questions to an aide of my congressman during the meeting, that would be great. I would feel I was a real part of the process. I would KNOW my questions at least reached the aides taking down the comments. During the so-called town meetings, a few people always hijack the meetings and dominate them. No quieter person has the opportunity to interact. Some would say to that quiet person they he should send in phone comments and letters prior to the meeting, but (1)I would have to be aware of upcoming committee meetings far enough ahead of time in order to send such a letter and (2) I really doubt these are ever read by the legislator unless there are dozens of similar ones .
-
If you hire someone to paint your house, do you expect him to stay in his shop where the paints are? Or do you want him to come to your house where the job is?
-
As a citizen of Salem, I like legislators coming here. They pay rent, buy food, go to an occaisional movie, in short, help the local economy.
Actually, Mayor Rasmussen's idea has a lot going for it.
Nicki Merrell
-
Rather than have 2 part-time legislators (House and Senate), why not have 1 legislative body with full-time legislators for better efficiency? If the Senate were eliminated, for example, House members could get more involved with their constituents.
-
The answer to that question is that the Public Comm. on the Legislature http://landru.leg.state.or.us/pcol discussed that issue, and if you want to search that site you will likely find the minutes of the meeting where they discussed it. Meetings were once available on video, but whether they still are I don't know.
This group did much good work, but the meetings were in person most of the time. I do believe they did some work with people calling in, but whether that was logistically easy is another question.
And where would the money come from to have meetings by phone or Internet? From basic services?
-
Social Pyschology experiments that show the importance of face to face communications were conducted when telecommunincation was still a relatively new thing- before people were able to adapt to ways of compensating for the lack of non verbal communication for example through emphasizing and awareness of voice tone.
-
Why not keep legislature in Salem and expand virtual discussion options for voters?
Drive to Salem when needed, watch streaming from home, maybe even send them an online message or question. Good access for all and they could still meet face to face.
-
Surrounding legislators by their voters sounds like a step back toward the true democracy that the ancient Greeks did. Back then every citizen could directly vote on every issue. Government by the people.
-
As a college student first at Mt. Hood Community College and now at Portland State University living on campus, I'm quite frustrated by the required travel to Salem to talk to my representatives about tuition costs. I think that all the students of PSU would have a lot easier time accessing their representatives if they were at home during the legislative session. I know that the student government on campus would definitely take advantage of the savings in travel costs and ease of access.
-
I think there is some merit to this suggestion in that state representatives need to more in touch with needs of their constituents. With some experience on a state board, I would suggest that representatives of districts are also legislators. I believe that new legislators, just elected, can especially benefit from the experience of more seasoned peers.
Also, legislators also form committees and need to come to some consensus on positions on bills. Also, being a representative can be a lonely spot and commiserating and being to consult with peers can be helpful. That said, Stu Rasmussen's concern about a "private club" has some basis, and it is often necessary for state boards to hire lobbyists in order to get important state rules passed. It took a lot of work to obtain state licensure for mental health counselors in Oregon. I think that more presence at a very local level would help to ideas and needs of constituents to be considered by our representatives at state and even federal levels.
-
After Listening to the show, I have a couple more thoughts.
I like the idea of a disbursed legislative body more, especially if it was some combination of:
- Legislators telecomutting Most of the time.
- Some face time for committies in Salem (maybe quarterly for a week)
- And some way for citizens to be come more involved with state government.
I apoligize to Jim Davis. In my original post I used the word "Lobbyists" in the most disreputable sense of the word, I was thinking of corporate "Lobbyists". From what Mr. Davis said, he sounds like he's doing an important job for people who may not have access to government.
I'm interested though, if a legislator was local, and had an office in a county or other municiple building and held "office hours" on a regular schedule, or like Mr. Buckley, met with contsituants at a coffee shop, would citizens need lobbying groups as much as they do now?
I still think the idea of Legistators working from their districts most of the time is stlll a great idea and perhaps another downside from them not being in a spot where citizen advocates and EVIL CORPORATE LOBBYISTS can have easy access is that it requires us to be more active as citizens in our government.
Yep, the "ancient" ideas in the Oregon Constitution from 1879 made sense back then, but now with the advent of technology, we could go back to the even more ancient ideas of Classic Greek Democoracy (as in government by the "Deme" or Neighborhood) and have a much higher participation from citizens.
Except without the togas and sandals, unless, perhaps you live in Eugene and like that kind of thing.
-
(I only heard the last part of the show...wish I had noticed today's topic sooner)
I am a big fan of this idea. Building on FredPDX's post-show ideas, I'd like to see the following:
- Only the Oregon House would be distributed, with as Fred suggests, occasional visits to Salem
- The Senate would meet in Salem, as is
- All of the standard tools for collaboration already in use by multinational corporation in Oregon (Intel, IBM, Nike, Precision Castparts, Google [in the Dalles], etc), would be eventually deployed for the House's use. This includes instant messaging, teleconferencing, secure SMS/other smartphone apps, and collaborative software such as that available from IBM's Lotus, Google (e.g. Docs and Wave), and other companies.
- The switch to a virtual House would be accompanied by a switch from biennial+special to annual.
Although FredPDX's comments are motivated by issues with corporate lobbyists, one thing that big companies have learned to do well is work in a distributed fashion. The fact that they do it regularly is the proof-of-concept that needed before doing it with state gov't. Big companies are as political as any legislature.
It's also timely...Web 2.0 infrastructure is growing and maturing, and Oregon companies like Jive are contributing. Making this change would be good for the green/family wage jobs needed in the Oregon economy.
This kind of change could become another example of Oregon's history of pioneering at a state level policies that have national repercussions. I think the idea has even more merit at the federal level (the office space vacated by Oregon House members could become the permanent homes of our U.S. Congressional delegation). As Justice O’Connor pointed out when she played a key role in protecting Oregon's right to a carefully crafted assisted suicide law, states are laboratories for such exercises in democracy. Perhaps after a decade of fine-tuning of a distributed Oregon House, the same proposal could become the basis for a federal constitutional amendment that could attract support from both red and blue states.
-
Really enjoyed being part of the conversation. TOL is a critical public forum where real ideas are discussed in a real way. Kudos.
As for Stu's idea, we mentioned some of the pros: shake things up, potentially grant greater access for constituents to their representatives, and less travel time for legislators and potentially for advocates.
Many of the cons were mentioned: Might not grant greater access if there weren't public access to where the legislator was; there would still be barriers of time and information; face-to-face interaction is important and valuable; and a given advocate would have a harder time reaching multiple legislators spread out across the State.
In addition to those that I heard, I wanted to mention a few for which there wasn't time: (1) legislators learn important information from their interactions with other legislators. There are a lot of bills. Information proxies and trusted voices play a pivotal role. There is a fair argument about the misuse and overuse of proxy-based decision making, but I've learned a lot from colleagues, and typically that is because I would see them and ask for advice. (2) Being in the capitol allows legislators -- even forces them -- to be exposed to different viewpoints beyond those they might here from their own districts. The cross-pollination that happens in the building has some costs, but it has many benefits. )
A traditionalist might lament the loss of the reverence generated by ceremony. I am more concerned about the degree of access and the quality of thinking and decisionmaking. My own guess is that Thomas Jefferson would tell us not to stand on ceremony or tradition unless that tradition actually helps us yield outcomes.
In any event, although I've got some real questions on the merits of the idea, I think the desire to reconsider how we make public decisions is critical. We've had roughly the same system for centuries...we might be able to stand some updating.
So cheers to Stu for creativity and courage.
-
I'm listening to the evening rerun and someone posted the concern that this proposal would deny lawmakers the experience of engaging with opposing views, or would deny access to the lawmakers at the seat of government.
However, I feel that the opposing views can be found in their own district, and if the lawmaker is in their own district more (most?) of the time, their own consistuents with opposing views would have better access, and the lawmakers would have poorer excuses for limiting access to their office.
It would require lobbyists to run around the state for their face time, but that is what they are paid to do, and I don't see the change as being a bad thing.
-
Just to clarify a couple of points:
This proposed amendment requires two things:
1: Legislators are required to be physically present in their geographic district when they cast legislative votes
and
2: They must be at a location which is publicly accessible.
I specifically left out in the proposed amendment any method for accomplishing these requirements since that could bog us down in outdated technology in years to come.
What I envision is a publicly accessible local (in-district) office for each legislator which is equipped with two-way video and audio links to the capitol in Salem.
Constituents would have local acces to their legislator when the legislature is in session, and the legislator would participate in committee meetings and floor sessions exactly as they do now, but over a broadband link. Other legislative participants would have their video/audio available at each loation, so the public would essentially be 'in the room' with all participants.
This is not actually 'telecommuting' in the traditional sense of 'work from home', but more of a business 'net meeting'.
If the concern is not having enough 'face time' to interact with other legislators, this could be done by having intermittent meetings at the Capitol but only work sessions would be permitted. - No voting until they returned home and had fulfilled the local public access component.
The full 49-word text of the proposed amendment is
"Beginning no later than January 1, 2015 all sessions of the Legislative Assembly shall be held in such a manner that all voting members of the Legislative Assembly shall vote on Legislative Issues only while physically located at a publicly accessible place within the geographic district which they represent."
This is probably not something the legislature will do willingly themselves, so it is up to the citizens of the state to move this forward.
More information, signature sheets and instructions are available at OregonOpenLegislature.org (my apologies for the amateurish web site - it's not my thing)
-
Having worked in the Oregon Senate for six years, I have several comments to add, joining the arguments opposed to this measure:
1: This measure should appeal to those too intellectually lazy to review the extensive reform discussions by the Public Commission on the Legislature (PCOL), mentioned in earlier comments.
2. The actual workflow of the legislature depends on the close proximity of the legislators to each other and to support and committee staff. During the session, everyone is multi-tasking continuously. Committee meetings and floor sessions may end and begin seconds apart, and you will need the full complement of resource material for each, some of which may have been updated just minutes before, somewhere else in the building, and by more than one source.
The surest way to keep your legislator out of the loop and behind everyone else is to require him or her to be someplace out of the building.
3. Among the PCOL reform recommendations already enacted is the expansion of live streaming and archived video of all committee hearings and floor sessions. If a citizen isn't using this resource, then he or she is probably not engaged enough to understand how the legislative process works (see intellectually lazy comment above) in the first place, much less able to understand the impact of a radical change in structure.
4. With a couple of thousand bills in the system at any given time, and having the responsibility as a legislator to keep track of what is changing and what is not, updated daily, sometimes more often than that, the notion that this essential part of legislating can be done remotely or by a third party is nonsense.
5. The nature of the legislative process is not constant, as the measure's authors presume. The various bill introduction and committee closing deadlines, along with the quarterly revenue forecasts, drive much of the action. The closer the legislature gets to the end of session, the greater the pressure, and your most important bills can and do die if you are not physically present to manage them.
6. Conversely, if you are serious about opposing any given bill, you will want your legislator on the job, in the building, working to defeat it.
-
There seems to be some misconceptions on how current video conferencing technology can't replace a face-to-face meetings. I think it's important that everyone on this thread understand the current communication transition that's taking place nationally and globally. Since the economic slowdown, the video conferencing industry has been on the uptick. It's currently a 1.7 Billion dollar worldly industry expected to grow to 4.9 Billion in 2014. Greater resolutions using lessor bandwidth have rejuvenated a once cumbersome technology that is ripe with HDTV sets sitting in many family rooms across Oregon.
Today, you can hold a very personal face to face HD (720p - same HD resolution you watch on OPB) video conversation on your HDTV using only 768Kbps of an internet connection. Delivering constant 30 frames per second, the term telepresence is now reality. Most DSL circuits offered from various ISP's exceed 768Kbps. This same technology can deliver DVD quality at 384Kbps with the same 30 frames per second. In addition, content from any computer can be shared with the video conference in high definition. That is, see a word doc or Excel spreadsheet as if you were in the same room with the computer that's sharing.
Users of this technology meet more often. Having the ability to instantly meet someone in high definition on a moments notice creates unity and continuity. If a counterpart could instantly show up in your office doorway anytime they needed to speak with you, would you accomplish more? Would nonverbal gestures and body signals help deliver a thought or message more effectively? The majority of business users think so and so does a company called LifeSize Communications: www.lifesize.com
Thanks.
Geno -
I like the idea of telecommuting, it is a sound approach. We have the technology - why not use it? I don't think it should be mandated (I believe in freedom of choice), but it should be optional. Here are some of the advantages I can see:
1. The legislator could remain physically (and mentally) close to their constituents and continue to be an integral and accessible part of their local culture.
2. It would be a 'green' approach, both financially sound and good for the environment - less driving, and no need to use energy to maintain a separate office and/or residence in Salem.
3. This would curb the influence of 'outsiders' such as lobbyists and politicians with agendas geared toward a different lifestyle. Even the perfect watchdog can't defend you when they are living in somebody else's backyard.