Thanks to the Press Herald for highlighting the use of so-called “concept” legislation (“Maine Legislature’s use of vague ‘concept bills’ has risen dramatically,” March 17).

I spent 45 years in the State House as a legislator and later as a lobbyist for non-profit organizations. There were no concept drafts for many of those years. The public always knew exactly what was being proposed before a bill was given a public hearing.

There is a legitimate basis for using concept drafts, if used sparingly. A legislator may have identified a problem and be unsure how to address it in law. The need to meet a filing deadline would justify use of a concept draft in such a case, permitting time to research how best to address the problem – but, even then, only if the bill included a plain-language statement of the issue to be addressed and only if final language is made available prior to the public hearing. This would not preclude necessary revisions to a bill before a committee vote.

Concept drafts increasingly appear to be used by legislators who have little idea what they intend to do with the bill in the end, using such vague titles as “An Act to Improve Education.” Filing a concept draft avoids having to justify the need for a bill after the filing deadline passes, when leadership must be convinced of a bill’s necessity before allowing it to go forward. It also avoids alerting potential opposition to the sponsor’s intent. In such cases, detailed language is sometimes not made available, even at the public hearing.

This could be avoided if the Legislature’s rules required that a public hearing be held no sooner than two weeks following submission of detailed statutory language, thus enabling the public to prepare comments with knowledge of what is being proposed. This would both increase transparency and reduce the use of concept drafts.

Another trend that lowers law-making transparency, while also increasing the likelihood of party-line votes, is the use of so-called “corner caucuses.” Sometimes, following a public hearing, committee members will go into private huddles with their fellow partisans to ensure that each party’s members are “on the same page.” They may then come back into public session and vote without revealing the thinking behind their positions. This process increases the likelihood that votes in committee follow strict party lines.

Bills should be discussed and positions formulated during open committee discussions. The public should get to watch the “sausage” being made. Fortunately, many committees continue to operate in this manner.

Notwithstanding these transparency-reducing trends, the Maine Legislature remains a more open political body than legislatures in other states. In Maine, all bills are given a hearing following notice to the public. Committee chairs in Maine cannot unilaterally decide whether a bill gets a hearing or moves forward after a hearing. In some states, a public hearing is not guaranteed.

The greatest increase in law-making transparency occurred during the 1970s, when the Legislature established a professional, non-partisan staff of policy analysts to serve legislative committees, thanks in large part to former Speaker of the House John L. Martin. Before that, legislators did not have the benefit of objective experts’ input.

The Office of Policy and Legal Analysis and the Office of the Revisor of Statutes are not household names, but they both play a vital role in ensuring that our citizen legislators get unbiased, expert advice – and that bills are written to do what legislators intend they do.

Limiting the use of “concept drafts” and discouraging “corner caucuses” would further serve the interests of increased transparency of and faith in the legislative process.

Copy the Story Link