Not a bad idea at all unless they used it as an excuse to double the size of Capitol Bldg.

Maybe we could increase the number of representatives from 60 to 90 and then just divide the existing 30 Senate districts into thirds for Rep districts.

Probably would need to shift redistricting authority to a commission of retired judges to make it palatable for the parties (otherwise the SoS office becomes way too powerful).

Doubling is not sufficient. The districts need to be small enough that someone can personally talk to every voter several times during a campaign. It would all but eliminate the advantage of money in a campaign. If someone has met both candidates a couple times, the number of brochures they mailed isn't going to make much difference.

Of course a legislature of that size could be unwieldy, but the US House of Representatives has 435 members and they still manage to get things done on occasion. At least they do no worse than our current legislature.

in the meantime, how about just doubling the number of good democrats?

Where do you suppose you'll recruit the second one?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

The folks in New Hampshire have a House of Representatives that consist of 400, or so representatives.
That makes it more of a real "citizen legislature". And while I agree with the idea of a seperate council, or committee to handle redistricting it might be a good idea to look at the way Iowa does it. They seem to be the model others are using. Michael

I agree with nonpartisan legislature. But if there is a rise in salaries, it should come with more supervision, with perhaps no perdiem for unexcused absences, rolling recesses, etc. AND a salary cap for leadership staffers with the salaries published on a website or something. I agree with the statement that those on the Senate side earned their paychecks this session, but only a few on the House side.

Politians generally come up with suggestions for structural changes that would affect their job descriptions when they want to distract us from blaming them for their poor job performance. Sure there are some structural improvements that could be made to our legislature, but there's no structural reason why it's so dysfunctional now.

Paul -

Look at Multnomah County. Has it really been well-served by having five full-time elected Commissioners where only one, the Chair, has a job description that requires full time day-to-day work? They seem to have spent most of that extra time figuring out how to fight with one another. If anything the county would function better if the four Commissioners were part time with real jobs out in the community. Then they could provide oversight and a broader perspective to county decisions. As it is idle hands ...

While I think paying legislators more may make some sense. I'm not sure that will change the pool of candidates. The barriers you mention will still exist for anyone who is not willing to make politics a career. Most of the people in the legislature now are professional politicians. They just have to find outside work for part of the time every couple years. I am not sure it is a terrible thing that they have to go out into the real world.

The real problem is that currently the biggest qualification to be a legisalator is the ability to raise money for one's campaign. This means that the successful politicians spend most of their time building relationships with people who can help them do that, not with the constituents who vote for them. Its easy to understand why people are alienated from government when all they know about their elected representatives comes from the 8.5 by 5.5 cards they receive in the mail.

Having seen professional legislatures in other states, it is not clear to me that the typical level of all legislators isn't mediocre. Only rarely are the best and brightest willing to put up with the process of getting elected and then serving when elected office really provides very little opportunity to make a difference. The best and brightest simply have many better opportunities to choose from and paying them more isn't going to make much difference.

A perspective -

When the US Congress started, there were a total of 91 Senators and Representative covering a population of about 3 million people. Sounds strangely like the size of Oregon with a little over 3 million people and a Legislature with 90 seats.

I honestly don't think it is a "problem" per se that we have 90 in the legislature. I can call up my representative anytime I want and get through to him and have him not listen to me. However, I can't afford to live in the hallway outside of his office like the lobbyists hired by all the special interest groups. Having more legislatures will not give me one more ounce of representation, but will dilute what little representation I already have. Until, if ever, the lobbyists are gone, nothing changes.

The only proposal I think has validity regarding changing the legislature is to make the Senate a true Senate. The two houses are supposed to balance off various interests. But with the Senate Districts just being equal to super large double representative districts, we don't get the balance we need. Just like the Federal Senate represents States, I think we ought to have the Oregon Senate represent Counties. If we had one Senator from each County, we would have a net gain of only 6 seats.

The ups and downs of this are easy to see. If I had a County Senator, one not shared with other Counties (my State Senate District includes parts of 6 or 7 Counties), then I would have enhanced access, and that Senator could be held accountable by our County Commission to representing our interests. I know that places like Multnomah and Lane Counties would lose some representation. But that would place more emphasis upon the House of Representatives to be representative of the district that elected them. Multnomah has a huge advantage in the house. While I share my House representative with several Counties, there are parts of Portland with their own Rep. If we had the balance of County's represented by Senate with population represented by House - we might well see some new dynamics. For example, I think it would easier to lean on both the House and the Senate about schools in this scenario. If the Senate is more clearly identified with Counties - education is a huge issue at the County level. If the house were more clearly tied to representing a population segment, and didn't defer to the Senator, then they could also be pressured by parents, et al.

Not that this stuff doesn't happen now, and not work well now either. I am proposing a shake up that could make the State more "conservative" in that small Counties would have more voice. But, the "conservative" value of small places like Christmas Valley, and Burns is pro-school, fiscally conservative, pro-transportation, and generally supportive of the big picture of Oregon. It's not a bad thing.

Well, my progressive and liberal friends, please feel free to now blast away at my democratic ideals.

Haha, you mean "antidemocratic ideals", don't you, Steve. The US Senate is not nearly as democratic as the House.

I have favored this change for a while: eliminate the state senate. Pay 60 representatives enough to make full time dedication to their jobs an expectation. Ninety reps would be alright, but I don't think they would fit in the House chamber. Oregon doesn't have money for a new capital building right now.

I know that is strange since the US Senate isn't proportional, but the US consititution now guarantees one person one vote. You can't have a state senate as you describe.

I also think looking at the original congress is misleading. To being with only those with property could vote. So the number of people represented and the number of voters was quite different. I think that we now have the same representation in state decisions that people used to have in their national government's decisions is actually more an indication of how distant government decisions have become.

" I can call up my representative anytime I want and get through to him and have him not listen to me. "

Cute. But I think this misses two things. One is that those lobbyists are far more important to whether the legislator gets elected than you are because as long as he needs 10-15,000 votes to get elected he needs the money they provide to reach you during the election cycle.

The second is that representatives only rely on their constituents to make their interests known to a certain degree. As you point out your representative may cover several counties with widely varying interests. Their understansing of those interests, their ability to identify who in their district has knowledge on an issue are all quite limited. On the other hand they can depend on lobbyists to tell them about their interests. If a representative knows who the Sierra Club members are in their district he doesn't have to listen to the Sierra Club lobbyist tell him what they think.

So if you want to reduce the power of lobbyists, take away the money which is nothing new. And increase the ability of representatives to communicate with their own constituents directly instead of having to rely on lobbyists for their information.

Paul -

I suggest you talk to some legislators about what their job is. I suspect most of them are legislators first and have a job that they do on the side. I don't disagree they should get paid more. But the ones I know are almost all professional politicians even if they aren't paid full time.

"It's often claimed that a "real job" gives someone better oversight or a broader perspective than someone whose full time job is to monitor the bureaucracy, listen to constituents, and govern a multi-million dollar organization."

But that isn't really what legislators do. We elect the governor who appoints a wide variety of citizen commissions to help manage and monitor the bureaucracy. Legislators represent people in making the broad policy decisions for government which is difficult enough. But frankly, they do that better when they aren't steeped in the details of government but are focused on communicating with their constituents as peers. And communication is a two way street, both listening and educating constituents about the issues they are struggling with.

Multnomah County's problems clearly are partly personalities and those will change. But there is also a built in conflict with commissioners who have too much time on their hands. In fact there are five full time people and only the chair has a full time job. Its not that they don't work hard or find useful things to do. But they tend to take on things that happen to interest them whether they are the most important programs for the county or not. We spend over $1 million just on the commssioner's offices and personal "legislative" staff before you get to any money spent supporting their individual projects or the work of the commission as a whole. And those personal budgets have been increasing, despite the cutbacks in direct services the county provides.

Seems to me that if there was an enforcement of the open deliberations part of the Oregon Constitution (why can't caucuses be open to reporters--the Sen. Dems. did it and the sun still came up in the morning---not as if closed caucuses make for short sessions in recent years!), an enforcement of a timely notifications of committee meetings and their content in advance, campaign finance reform, publishing of the salaries in leadership offices, a hard list of things where perdiem is docked (unexcused absences, to begin with )and more local involvement in campaigns, we could have a better legislature. Maybe a requirement that legislative leaders answer questions from reporters/general public in either press conf. or appearing at civic events which involve Q & A.

Someone I know who is a Sen. Republican staffer was upset when I talked to him recently, "they are talking about races where there is no declared candidate yet!"--sound like anything on Blue Oregon?

Glad to see a state rep. on this blog.

"First we need to change the districts. Second, I think we may need more districts-- it's just too hard for areas east of 82nd to get representation."

Which is very similar to the issue of increasing the size of the legislature. In general, the more districts the more representative they are. Split Lisa Naito's district in half and one of the people elected will reflect Lonnie Roberts constituency and one will reflect Maria Rojo de Steffey's.

But, as I said, I think Multnomah County is also a good example why full time elected officials in legislative roles often brings worse results. Their contacts tend to be limited to those parts of the community with a major interest in the county's programs and are often focused on the county's role.

In the case of the legislature, their contacts are limited to lobbyists and other legislators during the session. Even the citizens they interact with are likely to be those with interest in legislation. The world as filtered through the prism of editorial board writers, political consultants and lobbyists is pretty distorted.

Rep Galizio offered:

Briefly, one perspective on altering structure and agency from a freshman legislator.

1) Campaign finance reform.

Meaning what? Amending Oregon's Constitution to alter the free expression clause? Won't pass a statewide vote. Remember when the fundies floated a measure to alter that same clause to regulate pornography? Opponents ran ads with Oregon'c Consitution on fire. Same thing will happen again, that issue is a loser. It's just that nobody has bothered to tell Lloyd Marbet.

2) Annual sessions with timelines enforced by unpaid "overtime."

Sure if legislator pay and per diem were limited to, say, 80 days per year with a set sine die that could only be extended by a vote of both houses.

3) Initiative reform.

This is usually codespeak for further handicapping the the people's right to legislate. The SoS already adds burdens to the process with every new administrative rule.

Want to really fix the initiative? Allow it to embrace new technology and completely rid itself of paid gatherers.

Why can't a voter download a one page petition with just one signature line? A voter could print it off at home, sign it (and thereby certify it) and then mail it to the chief petitioners with his own stamp. Someone could run an all volunteer drive over the Internet without having to hire the carnival barkers to sell it on the streets.

The only reason it hasn't happened is that it makes too much sense. M-26 wasn't about eliminating fraud it was about driving up Sizemore's expenses.

4) Committee assignments & power should be more of a negotiation between majority & minority parties.

And it should always be sunny on the weekends....

"There is plenty of work for the Commissioners to be doing."

Sure there is - none of it really in their job descriptions which are purely legislative. You can say this has nothing to do with the problem, but it is actually central to the conflicts on the commission. It also allows the disfunction on the commission to spread into the day-to-day provision of services by the county, well beyond the policy roles of the commissioners.

"The county commission here is broken, plain and simple."

I think the question is why it's broken and how do you fix it. If the problem is structural, then what is unique about Multnomah County's structure? One answer is that Multnomah County Commissioners are the only full-time elected positions in the state with purely legislative duties. At least I'm not aware of one.

Committee hegemony by the majority party [whichever party] is a deterrent to good government. I'd welcome Rep. Galizio's efforts to reform the system.

I'm also with him on CFR. The "loser" is the current way we pay for campaigns.

Rep Galizio wrote:

Awaiting another heroic response from anonymous posters......

Thanks for (partially) answering most of my questions with something beyond your initial list of one line "reform" items. As you may discover, those sorts of soundbite positions play better in direct mail campaigns than blog discussions.

As for anonymous posting, it allows people to ask questions and make observations freely. Some may discount my thoughts because I'm not specifically identified, I've come to terms with that and think it is worth the tradeoff. Maybe someday I'll change my mind.

On to the issues:

If by campaign finance reform you only meant better reporting requirements along with stronger oversight/penalties for self-serving campaign practices, then I apologize.

If you think it means amending the constitution, then I stand by my earlier assessment that this is an untenable position. I never said that political speech = pornography, only that each is protected by the same (much revered) provision in Oregon's Constitution.

If you are proposing publicly financed campaigns, then please just come out and say it.

On initiative reform, this sounds suspiciously like the Nesbitt/Novick prattle that emerges every session. Ballot title shopping exists mostly because the AG has the power to write an unintelligible title if it chooses. This is a power that can be abused for partisan purposes.

What would happen if you required collecting thousands of signatures before a measure could get a title?

You would dramatically increase pressure (and opportunity) to scuttle a ballot title for partisan reasons. Also, it is more likely that poorly drafted measures would end up of the ballot because some drafters do not discover a flaw in their design until the ballot title process occurs. If you have to gather a bunch of signatures before you discover a flaw, you increase the incentive for petitioners to put it on the ballot anyway (e.g., "we can't turn back now....").

When the Legislature refers a measure to the people, it gets to write its own ballot title (with assistance of legislative counsel paid with tax dollars). These titles do not need to be neutral or complete decsriptions of the proposal, to the contrary, they are usually drafted to play up strong selling points while omitting or glossing over objectionable provisions. The only requirement is that they are not grossly misleading or misrepresentative.

In essence, the Legislature has a license to game the people with bad ballot titles on its referrals, but all we ever hear about are new proposed restrictions to the people's only direct avenue to lawmaking.

The truth is that you wouldn't need to give chief petitioners the same sort of leeway as the Legislature to be fair and reduce ballot title shopping. Just allow chief petitioners the first crack at drafting unbiased language that sufficiently describes the major provisions of the measure and its impact. If chief petitioners know that writing a biased ballot title will result in delays (for legal challenges with additional fees to lawyers) they'll have the incentive to put forward an acceptable draft from the beginning.

Finally, re: powersharing on committees, the goal seems worthy but the suggestion still seems a little "pie in the sky" without a specific means for accomplishing it.

When you have one, please share it.

Double the size of the Oregon Legislature?

Thank heavens this discussion is opening up a bit, in spite of the side show about Multnomah County's dysfunctional County Commission. (Whose County Commission isn't at least partially dysfunctional? No one has ever demonstrated that democracy was perfectly efficient. It is only more efficient that any other organization of political power ever created. And it is only more efficient until it becomes excessively democratic. That is why the founders gave us democratic republics. They had evolved their democratic practices to the point that democracy was getting so excessive accomplishing political work was becoming impossible).

Thank heavens there is one Oregon legislator who is attempting to stay engaged with the dialogue and help make sense of every suggestion that comes along with any merit.

Now, can we get a little more focused on what we are trying to achieve with the whole discussion? Aren't we talking about how to reverse the process which has resulted in ordinary citizens having lost their political power altogether? Aren't we trying to see how to bring a little more life into the political discussion from the lobbyist-polluted capitols throughout the nation to each and every one of us, including those of us who no longer see any reason to even vote? If this isn't what we are talking about, then I have mistaken this blog for a political dialogue much more serious than it is.

If I am right about this discussion humming around the issue of political power centering in citizens or some place else, then let's explore the loci of political power now. Where is political power centered right now?

Right now our national political power has been surrendered by our duly and unduly elected representatives to abstract citizens (limited responsibitlity corporations); and in Oregon political power is rapidly following suit. If this is not a shared observation, then I need to take a break and wait for the discussion to either evolve for a while, or dissipate into more confusions like the Multnomah County dysfunction stuff. If this is a shared observation, then let us clarify it, add to it the other observations we can about where else political power now resides in Oregon, how power is being shifted further and further away from citizens, and how to get political power shifted back toward citizens.

Along the way, we may or may not choose to tinker with the corporate lobbyist party that dominates Salem's current deliberations.

Double the size of the Oregon Legislature?

Thank heavens this discussion is opening up a bit, in spite of the side show about Multnomah County's dysfunctional County Commission. (Whose County Commission isn't at least partially dysfunctional? No one has ever demonstrated that democracy was perfectly efficient. It is only more efficient that any other organization of political power ever created. And it is only more efficient until it becomes excessively democratic. That is why the founders gave us democratic republics. They had evolved their democratic practices to the point that democracy was getting so excessive accomplishing political work was becoming impossible).

Thank heavens there is one Oregon legislator who is attempting to stay engaged with the dialogue and help make sense of every suggestion that comes along with any merit.

Now, can we get a little more focused on what we are trying to achieve with the whole discussion? Aren't we talking about how to reverse the process which has resulted in ordinary citizens having lost their political power altogether? Aren't we trying to see how to bring a little more life into the political discussion from the lobbyist-polluted capitols throughout the nation to each and every one of us, including those of us who no longer see any reason to even vote? If this isn't what we are talking about, then I have mistaken this blog for a political dialogue much more serious than it is.

If I am right about this discussion humming around the issue of political power centering in citizens or some place else, then let's explore the loci of political power now. Where is political power centered right now?

Right now our national political power has been surrendered by our duly and unduly elected representatives to abstract citizens (limited responsibitlity corporations); and in Oregon political power is rapidly following suit. If this is not a shared observation, then I need to take a break and wait for the discussion to either evolve for a while, or dissipate into more confusions like the Multnomah County dysfunction stuff. If this is a shared observation, then let us clarify it, add to it the other observations we can about where else political power now resides in Oregon, how power is being shifted further and further away from citizens, and how to get political power shifted back toward citizens.

Along the way, we may or may not choose to tinker with the corporate lobbyist party that dominates Salem's current deliberations.

Walter,

I agree about corporate influence, but I don't agree that the advantage of democracy is efficiency. Dictatorship is often more efficient. Democracy's advantage is in carrying out the will of the people and governing in their interest.

Also, I am quite wary of the concept of excessive democracy. Though individual rights need to be protected from the tyranny of demagoguery, those who most often complain of an excess of democracy are powerful elites who wish to control government and keep the people uninformed - or misinformed.

"Whose County Commission isn't at least partially dysfunctional?"

What democratic government isn't partially dysfunctional? The initial proposal was doubling the size of the legislature. The central point seemed to be that increasing the size of the legislature will make it a more effective representative of people.

There have been several side discussions about how to better achieve the same goal of increasing representation. One of those discussions was the debate on the merits of professional, full-time elected officials versus part-time officials. That is where the Multnomah County "side show" came from. Professionalism is a part of another "side show" over increasing legislative salaries - the obvious idea being to make the job more attractive professionally. The campaign finance reform "side show" is the suggestion that we can reduce the influence of wealth in politics in other ways than making the legislature larger.

I am not sure what the initiative reform and changes in legislative committees has to do with the initial post. I think they are simply reflections of the Representative's frustrations with the process and he thinks they are more compelling and immediate issues to be resolved.

Frankly, I don't think "national political power has been surrendered", it is being wrested from us by a determined struggle both locally and nationally. The more that struggle is lost the more difficult will becomes to wrest it back. So I see expanding the size of the legislature as a way to slow down and prevent the consolidation of power that is happening. As long as the primary communication between elected officials and their constituents is controlled by the media and those who can fund campaigns we will continue see our abilility to positively influence government eroded.

So by all means, come up with alternatives. But a dramatic reduction in the number of people each person represents will increase the bredth of ideas available when decisions are made and make it far more likely that people will be able to really communicate with the people who seek to be their representatives.

I'm not real sure that doubling the size of the legislature would do much more than to totally dilute the Eastside's influence. Baker Co shares with Malhuer and some of Grant Cos a representative, Baker Co has 15,000 pop in 3500 sq mi, Malhuer is similar, so adding those Reps based on Population would probably leave these folks represented by 1 Rep and all the urban areas gaining several.

<h2>Paying enough to Legislators that anyone who won a seat could actually afford to have won seems reasonable. Some have asked me why don't I run, there are several good reasons why not, but it is also a fact that one month in Salem would bankrupt me. I wouldn't be interested if it meant a gain in income, but it still says something about a reduced pool.</h2>