We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Informed policy-making is the primary responsibility of any legislative body in a democracy. The policy-making task at all levels of government has become increasingly complex, technical and burdensome. This has been particularly evident in the years since the Great Depression. The demand for an increasing quantum of governmental services and functions at all levels and the competition among governmental units for revenue sources to finance public services have been chiefly responsible for magnifying the legislative burden. Hence it is surprising and disturbing that the people's policy-makers at the state level have been somewhat loath to reorganize their legislative processes and procedures to meet contemporary needs. Many “little Hoover” commissions have been busily engaged in recent years in attempting to modernize state administrative organization. No correspondingly vigorous effort has been made at legislative self-examination, although the need is at least equally pressing. Only ten states have annual legislative sessions, in spite of the fact that informed students of state government generally agree that the volume of legislative business in most states requires annual sessions.
1 Apparently, however, legislative translation of recommendations into action on the administrative re-organization front has not been particularly satisfactory. See Bosworth, Karl, “The Politics of Management Improvement in the States,” this Review, Vol. 47, pp. 84–99 (03, 1953)Google Scholar.
2 The ten states with annual sessions are Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.
3 The Council of State Government's Committee on Legislative Processes and Procedures, in its excellent report, Our State Legislatures (Chicago, 1948)Google Scholar, calls attention to the need for consideration of the following points:
(1) Length and frequency of legislative sessions.
(2) Adequacy of compensation for legislators.
(3) Staggering of legislators' terms to insure continuity in leadership and legislative responsibility.
(4) Appointment of full-time legislative employees on the basis of merit and competence.
(5) Reduction and reorganization of legislative committees.
(6) Provision for public hearings on all major bills.
(7) Adequacy of clerical and research facilities for legislators. Consideration of need for legislative council and/or legislative reference service.
(8) Adequacy of the legislature's reference, research, bill-drafting, and statutory revision services.
(9) Limiting by rule the period during a legislative session when new bills may be introduced. Provision for drafting, filing and printing of bills before the opening of a legislative session.
(10) Need for a permanent joint committee on legislative organization, rules and procedure to expedite legislative procedure.
(11) Adequate budget for the legislature.
(12) Delegation of claims against the state to judicial or administrative agencies. Design of effective substitutes for special legislation on matters of purely local concern.
4 In view of the rapid growth of the legislative council movement in recent years, the academic literature on legislative councils is surprisingly sparse. One of the best recent articles is Guild, Frederic H., “Legislative Councils: Objectives and Accomplishments,” State Government, Vol. 22, pp. 217–19, 226 (09, 1949)Google Scholar. See also O'Rourke, Lawrence W., Legislative Assistance, (University of California at Los Angeles Bureau of Governmental Research, 1951)Google Scholar and Meller, Norman, “The Policy Position of Legislative Service Agencies,” The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 109–23 (03, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The University of Hawaii's Legislative Reference Bureau has released in mimeographed form an excellent research monograph on legislative councils and legislative reference services. Released in April, 1948 under the title Legislative Aids, this report may be obtained on a library loan basis from the Council of State Governments' Joint Reference Library, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois. For valuable recent data on organization, appropriations, functions and powers of legislative councils, see Council of State Governments, The Book of the States 1952–53 (Chicago, 1952), pp. 114–24Google Scholar. For additional bibliography on the legislative council movement, consult two reports by Guild, Frederic H. in the Low Library Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 169–90 (11, 1943)Google Scholar, and Vol. 42, pp. 60–75 (May, 1949).
5 By April, 1953, Arizona, Colorado, and Montana had established legislative councils this year. Alaska also established a legislative council in 1953.
6 The research arm of the council need not be large. The sine qua non here is quality of personnel. In most states, the council's research unit consists of two to four professional research men, plus requisite clerical assistance. In states with a large volume of varied legislative business, the research unit may be considerably larger. The Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission research staff, for example, numbers 22, including economists, statisticians, accountants and other research personnel, according to Guy W. Davis, counsel and director, Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission.
7 This list of functions is adapted from Lawrence W. O'Rourke's study (cited in note 4).
8 It should be pointed out, however, that the National Municipal League as early as 1921 recommended a legislative council as part of its model state constitution.
9 This account of the origins of the Kansas legislative council is based on personal interviews with Dr. Frederic H. Guild, director of research for the Kansas Legislative Council since its inception in 1933, and with Mr. Sam Wilson. Wilson reasoned that the legislature would produce an improved product if there were some agency to provide continuous deliberative action between legislative sessions and which could do some objective fact-finding on problems coming before the next legislature. Wilson stumped the state in favor of the council plan. Local Chambers supported it and considerable grass roots sentiment was built up before the bill was introduced.
10 Advisory Council for Iowa Economic Studies, Helping Iowa's Legislature, mimeographed (Ames, 1952)Google Scholar. This report deals with the need for establishment of a legislative council in Iowa. It is a revision of an earlier report along similar lines by the Advisory Council, published in May, 1950. The writer of this article did the basic research on which both Advisory Council reports are based.
11 This term should be credited to Mr. Herbert Wiltsee, Southern Representative for the Council of State Governments.
12 Nebraska, with a unicameral legislature, changed to this practice in 1951. Oklahoma revised its law in 1949. South Dakota made all legislators members of the council when it first established a legislative research council in 1951.
13 Dr. Jack Rhodes, director of research for the Oklahoma Legislative Council, advised the writer that if the Oklahoma Council had not been expanded in 1949 to include all members of the legislature, the council law would probably have been repealed. However, Dr. Rhodes feels that the expanded membership has been “highly beneficial” as far as Oklahoma is concerned. Council appropriations have increased substantially in recent sessions as a direct result of increased legislative confidence in the council and gratifying interim participation by virtually every member of the legislature, according to Dr. Rhodes. (Letter to the writer, April 17, 1953.)
14 O'Rourke, Lawrence, Legislative Assistance (cited in n. 4), pp. 13–14Google Scholar.
15 Authority for this observation is Mr. Herbert Wiltsee. Recent correspondence with legislative council personnel in a number of states that appear to be moving gradually toward the “recommending” type council confirms his observation.
16 According to the Council of State Governments, legislative councils in the following states submit policy recommendations to their legislatures: Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
17 Kentucky repealed its original council law in 1948, but immediately enacted a new legislative council law at the same session.
18 Personal letter to writer, March 22, 1952.
19 This point is stressed by Arthur Y. Lloyd, Director of the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, in a letter to the writer, March 30, 1953.
20 Council of State Governments, The Book of the States, 1952–53 (Chicago, 1952), p. 115Google Scholar.
