Lt. Gov. Brian Calley is taking a pounding in the media and among Lansing insiders for his full-throated endorsement of a plan to reduce the Michigan Legislature to part-time status, which would make our legislative branch the weakest among the 50 states.

Michigan already has the strictest term limits for lawmakers anywhere in the nation. The Calley proposal, expected to be a key plank in his 2018 run for governor, would further reduce the role of a legislator by limiting them to three months on the job each year.

That combination of term limits and part-time status would mean our speaker of the House would have the equivalent of 12 months of on-the-job experience when he took the helm. Because of our toughest-in-the-nation limit of six years in the House, the speaker is chosen among those lawmakers with four years of experience who are heading into their final 2-year term of office.

Critics point out that the current system empowers the executive branch and the lobbyists, who already have far too much influence over newbie legislators with limited expertise.  A part-time Legislature, which requires voter approval, would only exacerbate the situation.

In an Op-Ed piece written for The Detroit News, Republican consultant Dennis Lennox sees Calley engaging in cynical sloganeering as he tries to keep pace with his chief GOP opponent in the gubernatorial race, Attorney General Bill Schuette, who has already backed a move to part-time status for the legislative branch. Lennox warns of a power grab:

The optics of two gubernatorial candidates calling for limitations on the legislative branch is constitutionally and politically troubling.

At best, this idea would undermine the constitutional framework of three co-equal branches of state government: the legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and Senate, the executive
headed by the governor, and the judiciary. At worst, it’s an attempt by the lieutenant governor and attorney general, both of whom are officeholders in the executive branch, to grab power by weakening the legislative branch, which serves as the people’s voice.

This sort of power grab might be expected in a banana republic, but not in a mature small-‘d’ democracy. After all, neither Schuette nor Calley back a part-time executive branch, which has run roughshod over legislators since term limits were imposed on the House and Senate after 1992.

Term limits is widely viewed in Lansing as a mistake – GOP Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof is the latest legislative leader to say so – but no one is willing to push for their repeal. Putting a part-time Legislature on the ballot is an idea that has been kicked around for more than a decade. It’s a supposed reform that enjoys populist appeal, even while it could wreak havoc on the legislative process.

Though few states have a full-time legislature, serving as a legislator in Michigan is a complicated job, especially since the damage done by the Great Recession of 2008-10.

Capitol correspondent Zach Gorchow, writing in his blog for the Gongwer News Service, indicated that the only states with anything close to Michigan’s current 6-year lifetime limit on service in the House plus a three-month annual workload are Maine, South Dakota and Montana.

Each of those states have far smaller populations than Michigan and their economies are much less diverse. Lawmakers in those rural states don’t deal with urban issues or a sprawling network of infrastructure or the constant concerns associated with the Great Lakes and dozens of major rivers.

Gorchow, who certainly understands the ins and outs of the Capitol as well as anyone holding a seat in the House or Senate, points out that the place would run off the rails if not for a well-functioning, seasoned legislative staff.

Calley cravenly claimed that his part-timers plan would somehow save “tens of millions” of dollars. Yet, the proposal to cut legislators’ pay in half would only net $4.6 million. The only way to get to the eight-figure mark in savings is to cut staff, which is already inadequate in terms of dealing with constituent phone calls and assistance. Who will do the job while the 148 lawmakers are on a nine-month break?

It’s also worth noting that a $10 million savings would only reduce the state’s general fund budget by one-tenth of 1 percent.

Here’s how Gorchow describes the situation:

Mr. Calley’s proposal has touched off some real anger in the Capitol community, among those already fuming that term limits have left the Legislature bereft of expertise (except for a handful of senators) and especially considering that Mr. Calley made a tidy $79,000-plus annually during his four years in the House and is now running a de facto campaign for governor. Mr. Calley’s part-time legislature proposal – conveniently, several insiders are saying, privately and publicly — would substantially weaken the legislative branch at a time when Mr. Calley wants to head the executive branch.

Jack Lessenberry of Michigan Radio explained that the goal of term limits, to elect a wide array of citizens to the “people’s house,” would be pushed aside since no nearly no one is “going to seriously cripple their career for a part-time political job that can only last six to eight years.”

Over at the Detroit Free Press, editorial page editor Stephen Henderson skewered Calley’s plan in a column that raised several troubling issues associated with legislators serving a combined 90 days a year. Henderson noted that few people other than wealthy business owners or retirees would have the ability to run for an office that requires taking three months off from their full-time job. Shorter sessions would give lawmakers even less time to learn the intricacies of their jobs. Lobbyists would emerge as the only full-time presence in Lansing.

Henderson concludes:

It’s a gimmick, sprung from a narcissistic political calculus rather than a considered drive for reform or improvement.

It outs Calley, just now searching for his own political footing, as craven and opportunistic, rather than visionary.

 

Photo: WZZM screenshot