Inside the State House, the process known as the “concept draft” is taking quite a pummeling.

Some of these bills have been justifiably criticized as being little more than a title, with the committee of jurisdiction’s public hearing centering on something so vague it can hardly be intelligently discussed.

Under the legislative rules, by the time the draft acquires actual language it goes to a work session where no public testimony is allowed. In fact, the major groups involved are generally asked questions, since lawmakers otherwise have little idea where to go.

And when a bill suddenly acquires a completely different character, opponents are entitled to cry foul. There are also rules which prohibit or limit access to the new language, all of which suggest a need for reform.

Before any proposals go to the Legislative Council, however, it’s worth recalling why concept drafts were invented, and what they could still accomplish.

Concept drafts were initiated in the 1990s to enable committees to draft better bills than what was coming out of the Revisor of Statute’s office. Translating a lawmaker’s original idea into legal language can take weeks, or months, and the lag continues to fuel the crush of bills that always exists by each session’s end.

So the concept drafts — not just a title, but a few paragraphs indicating the sponsor’s direction — were supposed to be introduced early in the session, with prompt hearings and then as many work sessions as needed once a final text was produced.

Unfortunately, concept drafts came of age at about the same time legislative term limits were imposed by referendum, which seriously disrupted the Legislature’s unusual, but effective joint committee system; most states, like Congress, have separate House and Senate committees.

Before 1996 and the consecutive four-term limit, committee chairs were often expert in their field, and served multiple terms. They knew which bills had been discussed and rejected in previous sessions, and which ones had promise but needed fleshing out.

Chairs of that description are now rare. Most serve only a term or two in the position, and the Senate, especially, has become a game of musical chairs, since each senator in the majority party leads a committee, except for those in leadership.

This lack of institutional memory has produced another regrettable trend — the proliferation of bills, which has now reached staggering proportion. As of this week, 2,281 “L.D.s” — legislative documents — had been introduced, with more to come. It may set an all-time record.

And the joint committees, which — again unlike most states — must hear and vote out every bills, are drowning in paperwork. The idea they could creatively explore a concept draft seems almost laughable.

Here is where another possible reform could come in. Sen. Rick Bennett has proposed a rules change that would eliminate the cloture deadline for bills in the first year, where open filing is allowed and legislators may submit as many bills as they like.

Bennett admits the idea is counter-intuitive. Wouldn’t eliminating the deadline — or, more realistically, putting it early in the session, rather than December — produce still more paper?

Probably not. One reason so many bills get introduced is that lawmakers want to be sure their interests are covered. If committees could meet, get the lay of the land, and review bills and concept drafts already on their docket, many current bills could be identified as redundant, or non-starters.

At that point, we might see 1,500 bills or so each two years, rather than the current explosion.

With that reform in place, concept drafts — real ones, not just titles — could assume an important role in crafting better legislation.

We sometimes forget that each new statute enacted by the Legislature must fit into the enormous body of law already on the books. Ensuring that the fit is smooth, and that the new legislation isn’t askew from, or even contradictory to legislation passed years or decades ago is an tall order.

The basic legislative rules haven’t been changed significantly in decades, and it’s questionable whether they still serve us well.

Rep. Anne Perry, D-Calais, a respected veteran who’s now served two eight-year tours, has asked the legislative staff to prepare a measure to rein in concept drafts. To be effective, however, the Legislative Council must do more.

It should discuss a package of changes that would take on the larger problem of excessive committee workloads and a lack of public involvement. And it would need to vote on those changes later this year.

Otherwise, a newly elected Legislature will convene in January and, once again, face the same old problems all over again.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Commentary: March Madness as we know it faces extinction

Next »

Opinion: Maine’s foster care children deserve their benefits