My good friend and colleague wrote the following description of the flaws of our legislative system. I co-sponsored many of the bills he refers to and shared his frustration with the process. We must change this system!

LWE

HOUSE COMMITTEES RARELY VOTE ON THE MERITS OF BILLS

Representative Jim Davey

Providence Journal Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Opponents of voter initiative claim that it is contrary to the system of "representative democracy" envisioned by our Founding Fathers. If one looks closely at how Rhode Island's system actually functions, one can easily conclude that it could be more accurately described as "authoritarian," rather than democratic -- at least as far as the House of Representatives is concerned.

The House has 75 members, headed by the speaker. Bills introduced in the House are referred to standing committees, such as Finance, Judiciary, Corporations, etc. These committees then conduct hearings.

In other states, such as Maine, House committees vote on the merits of the bills as they are heard, and send them to the House floor for debate and vote. In Rhode Island, House committees rarely vote on the merits of bills. Instead, the bills are "held for further study," not to be seen again unless the House leaders -- not the committee chairs -- decide they want the bill reported out of committee.

The decisions on which bills should receive votes on the merits are usually not made until late in the session, resulting in a flood of bills at the end, rather than a steady stream throughout the session.

This has a number of negative consequences. Committee members are required to vote on bills they heard months before, and the details are not fresh in their minds. The sheer volume of bills impairs thoughtful reflection and discussion. Additionally, a few members -- knowing that votes will not be taken until the end of the session -- slack off in their attendance at committee hearings. For example, one member of the House Judiciary Committee rarely, if ever, attended the hearings but was present on the few days at the end of the session when votes were taken.

If nothing else, the committee chairs should be empowered to require that a member attend the hearing(s) as a prerequisite to voting on a bill. If votes on the merits were taken at the time bills were heard, this problem would be solved.

By far, the most glaring problem with Rhode Island's "strong speaker model," in place for decades, is that one representative -- the speaker -- controls the fate of all bills, if he so wishes.

In other states, such as Connecticut, New Hampshire and Maine, the fate of bills is controlled by the committee chairs, the representatives most knowledgeable about the merits of the bills heard in their committees. In these states, every bill receives a vote on the merits in committee and every bill is voted out to the House floor with one of the following: a favorable recommendation, a recommendation that it be amended, an unfavorable recommendation, or a recommendation that it be held for further study.

By contrast, our system protects the speaker and his team from having to go on record as voting against taxpayer-friendly legislation.

Examples of bills killed in committee without a vote on the merits during the last session include: a bill requiring annual audits of legislative expenditures; a bill requiring collective-bargaining agreements to be posted online; a bill proposing pension reform for municipal employees, police and firemen; a bill proposing that public-sector employees pay 20 percent of their medical premiums; and a bill requiring that 1 percent of video-lottery receipts be paid annually to the permanent school fund.

Given the troubled financial status of Rhode Island -- with huge budget deficits looming for the foreseeable future, combined with an extremely heavy tax burden -- wouldn't our state be better served by a system that allowed for and encouraged robust debate?

Unfortunately, the General Assembly is becoming more and more closed to ideas that don't emanate from the leadership. Killing the voter-initiative proposal and taking away the governor's authority to take the pulse of the people by putting nonbinding questions on the ballot are two very recent examples of the leadership's closing itself off from ideas from other sources. Unfortunately, the real losers in this overly partisan approach to policymaking are Rhode Island's taxpayers.

It will take great courage for leaders to reform the process, making it more open and accountable. But if their real goal is their often-stated one of doing what's best for the public, and allowing for a representative democracy, they will modify their system to make it more similar to the more open, accountable, and democratic ones currently in place in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine.

Jim Davey is a Republican state representative from Cranston