| mySPIN |
 More competition would result in more openness in government
by Tom Campbell
March 6, 2008
There is a direct correlation between a report critical of the way our state crafts a budget and the fact that so many of our legislators have election opposition.
The Pew Center on the States gave North Carolina a grade of B- on the way it assembles the 20 billion dollar annual budget. "Some budget information published by the Legislature can be difficult even for experts to follow, and public input in legislative hearings is in most cases severely limited," the Pew Center reported. Take note that the report is not as critical of the management of the funds as it is in the process by which they are allocated.
First term House Speaker Joe Hackney took some small steps last year to make the budget process in the House more transparent, but those who have been involved, either as observers or participants, recall the time, not many years ago, when there was much more openness. Why so little public input? A simplistic answer is that too few demand it be otherwise. With few exceptions, watchdog groups don’t harp on the subject and neither has the media. Lawmakers are not forced to be accountable, especially at election time.
Of the 120 House seats and 50 Senate seats, 42 of those running for House and 14 running for the Senate have no competition. One third has no primary competition and, after the May 6th primaries, 45 percent have no competition in November, including both House Speaker Hackney and Senate President Pro Tem Basnight.
Just as competition forces corporations to be more open and honest in business dealings, so would honest competition at the ballot box. While it is true that approximately 20 percent of the Senate and 25 percent of the House turn over every two years, a closer examination would show that most leave voluntarily. One legislator equated her lack of opposition to the voters being “happy with how we are representing them.” It isn’t too far a journey down that slippery slope to translate that “happy” mandate into an arrogance to govern as one pleases, even behind closed doors and without public input.
To get to a more basic cause of the problem, one should ask why there is so little genuine competition. Admittedly, lengthy legislative sessions, frequent committee meetings between sessions, and poor pay preclude many from being able to serve, but session limits and legislative pay, both worthy topics, aren’t the primary problem. It ultimately comes to who decides legislative districts and those same people who build budgets without public input are the ones who draw up the districts from which they are elected.
Legislators from both parties agree to “safe seats” every ten years during the redistricting process, virtually assuring one party or race will prevail in those districts. The exact number can be argued, but there are few honestly contested seats because of the way districts are drawn.
North Carolina won’t have more competitive elections or more accountability and openness in government until we change the redistricting process. Since we will be required to redistrict following the 2010 census, this process is timely for debate and change.
|
|
