I trust the people and other musings on post secondary
The Governor, with his proposal, paints a broad brush by suggesting that all legislators who work for post-secondary are unethical. It’s true that some problems existed and I think that these problems are being dealt with appropriately. If you steal tax payer money, you go to jail, i.e. Bryant Melton. There are existing rules and regulations to prevent illegal activity.
Not every legislator employed in the system is a crook and frankly, I resent his insinuation. It’s kind of like saying, because Guy Hunt and Don Siegelman were convicted of crimes, ALL Governors, including Bob Riley, are unethical. Wouldn’t you agree that the Governor wields tremendous power and influence? Is it fair to say that, because the potential for abuse of power exists, that inevitably the power of the Governorship WILL be abused? I wouldn’t make that leap because I think that, in all cases, that it is a question of individual character.
We have a citizen legislature. There will always be conflicts of some type or another. If you are a small businessman, you vote on Workman’s Compensation Legislation and the Minimum Wage Bill. Don’t these votes directly impact his/her business? Funeral home legislation is handled by funeral home directors, with a direct benefit to the owner of said funeral home. Insurance agents vote on bills relative to their industry. We have legislators that work for cities, police departments, etc. who all vote on their retirements, health care, etc. The list goes on and on.
I have been asked only one time in my legislative career to vote on an issue, by then two year college Chancellor Roy Johnson, who asked me to vote for Governor Riley’s tax proposal. I declined, but there was nothing wrong with his asking. He committed to the Governor to do all he could to gain passage of the proposal. I didn’t feel that my job influenced my decision since my vote ran counter to the majority of the education community. I made the vote that I felt was in the best interest of my district.
This non-issue was made an issue by my opponent in my last election campaign. So let me be as clear to you as I was to the voters in my district: I had this job before I was elected to office. So, obviously, I didn’t use my “influence” to get the position.
In this last election, most of the targeted Democrats also happened to be employees of the two year system and we were called unethical, crooked, et al. I’m tired of this continuation of the election just because the Governor didn’t get the result he wanted. I wish he would stop trying to affect an election outcome through policy instead of honoring the will of the people who voted to elect each and every one of these representatives.
Many legislators have other ties to education, not just two year schools. Mike Hubbard has contracts with Auburn University. Does the potential for conflict exist in his case? So I guess my question is, why just us? Why single out K-14 employees? I know these men and women, most of whom are decent and honest people, on both sides of the aisle. At some point, this constant attack on people has to stop. It is incumbent upon all of us to raise the bar and lower the tone. It’s hard to do that when someone, after the elections are over, is constantly calling you unethical. Maybe the answer could be a full-time legislature but I doubt the voters would ever approve it
We had an election, the people voted for these women and men, both Democrat and Republican. And believe me; the voters were made aware, via attack ads, of where these people were employed. The people have spoken. I trust the people. Why can’t the Governor?
I agree with what you say about the potential for a conflict of interest always existing. But it’s just a little too off when almost a quarter of the legisative body works or has family who works for the college system. There’s no way that’s just a matter of circumstance. Even if they are unaware of it, it seems that legislators have been picked by two-year administrators for their positions in office.
But I do believe, as you do, that singling out the two-year system is too reactionary and political. I think Mike Ball has a nice compromise of providing a clear (and complete) disclosure of all state salaries a legislator receives. The Ethics Commission forms are too broad and, as in the case with Ken Guin, they obviously allow a very broad form of disclosure.
In the end, though, I prefer the idea of a full time legislature, and I think the voters might be more willing to accept that than you think, especially if it were openly debated. Then the voters could see the advantages.
Comment by Dan — April 16, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Representative Hinshaw, back on March 27 here in “Notes From The Legislature” (your “An odd strategy”) I asked you what would prevent Alabama from having a full time legislature. Now you seem to have answered by saying you don’t think voters would approve of one.
As I’ve said to both you and Representative Ward in this venue in the past a full time legislature would prevent most if not all of the problems by having so-called “double-dippers” in the legislature as well as legislators in the position of voting on appropriations that obviously create a conflict of interest for them.
I agree with Dan that once voters are educated about the advantages of having a full time legislature they are more likely to approve of it than you seem to think.
Comment by Don — April 17, 2007 @ 6:20 am
Hinshaw received his A.S. Degree from John C. Calhoun College and Athens State University. He currently works as an education specialist… whatever the Hell that means.
There must be plenty of people in the 21st district who would be a better choice for a representative.
Comment by OldCloverdale — April 17, 2007 @ 8:33 am
The Governor’s legislation doesn’t “single out” the two-year system. Why doesn’t somebody take the time to read it? It applies across the board. What he’s asking the State Board of Education to do is prohibit elected officials from working in K-12 and the two-year system because that’s all they would have the authority to do.
Comment by Anonymous — April 17, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Anon: Did you take the time to read? I think the post says “Why single out K-14?” i.e. K-12 + the two year system
Comment by QEK — April 17, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Old Cloverdale, funny thing is that the District just had the opportunity to decide who they wanted to represent it and they made their choice. You don’t trust the people? I thought Hinshaw’s post was pretty thoughtful. You didn’t have anything better to add than a gratuitous insult?
Comment by David — April 17, 2007 @ 9:53 am
Rep. Hinshaw, I appreciate you taking the time to provide your thoughts on the 2 year college issue. I didn’t mean to put you on the defensive (although I realize some of my previous comments to you may have been somewhat hash at times). I would like a thoughtful discussion of this issue and the remifications of the Governor’s proposals. I think what may be bothering a lot of Alabamians, including myself, is the appearance (and I have to admit there is much evidence to back up this perception) that the 2 year system has been used as a sort of slush fund by Roy Johnson and others to secure favorable treatment in the legislatur (e.g. documents suggesting that Ken Giun is useful because as a legislator he brings in so much money for Shelton State and Bevill). While some representatives such as yourself were employed by the system before being elected, many others were employed only after their election. Don’t you think that creates at least a perception of impropriety? As a legislator, what are you prepared to do to preserve the integrity of our two-year college system and the Alabama legislature?
Comment by Susan — April 17, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I believe that many in the Legislature that talk about a full-time legislature would be unwilling to quit their “day” jobs in order to become full-time reps. I have heard the argument that the pay raise would allow “regular folks” to serve their State in Montgomery by increasing the pay. Lets get real. Many of the reps in Montgomery are only there because of their “day” jobs and the ability to do both. Whether is is K-14 system, law firms or other “public” positions, most of y’all wouldn’t give up your jobs just to be in the legislature.
Comment by Ben — April 17, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Randy, first off, I know that you are a good and decent man (I know this because I’m on the same page as you in the LHS yearbook). I think it’s very cool of you to post here at Doc’s. On the issue of your job, I trust that you are being honest. However, I didn’t vote for you this time and did campaign for Al.
I don’t think that this is a ‘non-issue’; I think it is a growing issue and that the voters didn’t have the information back in the Fall. By the next election, maybe it will blow over. The Pulitzer Prize-winning Birmingham News doesn’t think that this is a non-issue. The Huntsville Times doesn’t think this a non-issue (but IIRC they endorsed you anyway). I just think that something smells (appearance of impropriety) when so many legislators are employed by the two-year college system. Count me as a constituent who supports the idea of a full-time legislature. I like the idea because it removes the conflict of interest; but I’m scared to death of what you guys might do with all that extra time (LOL).
BTW, I didn’t hear / see any ads that attacked you based on your employment by the two-year college system. I did get some pretty stupid attack mailings, but not that one. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but I didn’t see it.
Comment by Reactionary — April 17, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
First for Don:
The reason the public would reject a full-time Legislature would be, in addition to compensation, the need to add benefits, i.e. health care and retirement. I can imagine the attack ads on that vote. However, legislators might pass something like that, but, if the last expense account increase was any indication, you can start with 60 plus votes and dwindle to less than a majority quickly when the pressure is put on. Even if it passed the House, it would then have to pass the Senate and, as things stand right now, I don’t think the Senate has much intention of passing anything. But, even if it passed the Senate, there is no guarantee where the Governor would be on this issue. As you get older, benefits are more important than pay, same for every legislator. Thus, I believe it would be rejected soundly by the voters solely on the issues of health care and retirement.
For Susan:
I don’t mind a level-headed, non-accusatory discussion but, you know as well as I, that every comment that I make on this blog is being cut, pasted, and stored for 2010. I knew that risk when I agreed to contribute to this blog. I know that, for every post that I make, there is some party hack out there just waiting for the chance to attack me or my character. That being said, I believe we restore confidence in the two-year system by restoring accountability and oversight. As I said, we have laws against abuse of office…i.e. that’s the Attorney Generals job. We have laws against stealing, which are all under oversight by local District Attorneys. All Legislators who work for two-year colleges have bosses; I myself have several. It’s the bosses who must ensure that we are doing the work required of us. Many of us work on workforce development programs. Alabama’s workforce development program, as was stated by the Governor, is ranked #1 in the country and is a source of pride and accomplishment. He says, on the one hand, that the system is corrupt yet he says to others that the very system that employs many of us is world class. You can’t have it both ways.
So, there are many positive things about two-year colleges. Individuals and their failings should be accountable to their bosses and to the public and to the law, if necessary. As for the Legislature, we could make tremendous headway in the area of regaining the confidence of the public by pasing the PAC to PAC legislation (the stronger the better), ethics legislation, and by strengthening disclosure laws. I would like to see the Governor personally engage the senate on the PAC to PAC bill, instead of just talking about it in speeches.
For Reactionary:
I can’t believe you campaigned for my opponent. Where’s the love buddy? :)
I’m suprised that you didn’t get all those mailouts. There were at least four and the first newspaper story of the campaign was a similar style press release by him. As a matter of fact, it was even posted on this blog.
Anyway, read my response to Don regarding a full-time Legislature.
Comment by Rep. Hinshaw — April 17, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
Representative Hinshaw, I appreciate your response on the matter of a full time legislature.
I wouldn’t expect a vote on it this session, or perhaps for another couple of sessions because the way a such a body would be structured and function would first have to be debated and determined, and then the public would have to be educated on whatever was decided upon before anyone dared ask voters to accept or reject it. Your conception of how it would be structured and function may be at odds with that of other people. Assuming (probably wrongly) that legislators would create and pass the necessary legislation, all of this would take quite some time.
I’d like to comment on a portion of the caption of your post, “I trust the people…..”.
I think you’d agree that trust needs to work both ways if a representative form of government is to work well. I believe you must be in the minority in the legislature regarding trusting the people. If the majority trusted even county and municipal officials the legislature would have granted them home rule long ago. If the majority trusted the people the legislature would have given us Initiative and Referendum also.
You may recall, because you were a member of the HOR C&E Committee which you now chair at that time, when I came to the State House in 2005 to speak in behalf of Representative Ball’s Initiative and Referendum bill that part of what I said at that time was:
“I support Initiative and Referendum, especially in the form House Bill 276 would provide, for one basic, reason: It would be good for me, good for all Alabamians, and good for our state government — especially this legislature.
The enactment of this bill would be a contributing factor toward restoring public trust and confidence in our government, because it would send a message to your constituents that you trust them enough to give them an opportunity to have more of a voice in how the government they own operates than they have now - with their only voice, now, being through the two legislators that they send here to work in their behalf – just two out of the 140 members of the Alabama Legislature.”
If you and your fellow legislators want voters to trust our state government give us Initiative and Referendum as a start down that two-way street named Trust.
Comment by Don — April 18, 2007 @ 8:55 am
Representative Hinshaw, I would like to respond to the “trust” of the citizens of Alabama comment by agreeing with Don’s perspective. You may or may not have heard of the Democracy Defense League, a grassroots, non-partisan, multi-racial organization formed in Greensboro, Hale Co., with its sole mission being to eliminate voter fraud in Alabama by revamping our current inept laws that allow the fraud to continue. As one of the founders and a member of our executive board, I would like for you to know that we issued a Press Release dated January 28, 2006, endorsing the Initiative and Referendum bill. We represent over 1,700 voters in 40 counties who want the legislature to pass our proposed legislation so ALL Alabamians can know they are voting in an honest election. We are taking our orgainzation all over the state in this effort. If the legislature trusts and cares about the people then they need to pass Initiative and Referendum. How many thousands of constituients does it take for legislators to understand and care about the citizens’ welfare? I would really like to know.
Comment by Beverly Bonds — April 19, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Old Cloverdale, funny thing is that the District just had the opportunity to decide who they wanted to represent it and they made their choice. You don’t trust the people?
++++++++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately, sometimes “the people” get it wrong. That’s why we’re stuck with “an education specialist” who “received his A.S. Degree from John C. Calhoun College and Athens State University.”
What does that even mean?
The Birmingham News reviewed two-year college payroll and contract records last year, finding 43
lawmakers, their close relatives or their businesses that had been paid since 2002. Most received the work after their election.
Almost all of these are democratic members of the AL house of representatives.
Comment by OldCloverdale — April 20, 2007 @ 9:28 am
I guess my first instinct (in comment #6) on Old Cloverdale was pretty much right on. No substance, just gratuitous insults, this time with a non sequitur about other legislators that doesn’t really apply to the one who is actually here posting since he had his job before he was elected.
Comment by David — April 20, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
LOL, David. I noted where he also did it elsewhere on the blog that OldCloverdale apparently has only one comment to make, that the people elected the wrong person.
Doesn’t seem very helpful.
Comment by Danny — April 20, 2007 @ 2:57 pm