World Future
Society
Social Innovation
Forum
Proposal for a State to Protect Itself
from Unfair, Debilitating, Federal Practices
by Alan F. Kay, Ó 2003, all rights reserved, 8/2/03
Federal deficit spending has reached unprecedented heights. State
and local authorities are being given new responsibilities from the federal government
without adequate means to achieve them. Most states face increasing public demands, voter
resistance to new taxes, borrowing restrictions, unfunded federal mandates, and drastic
cutbacks on vital programs.
Any state can take a sequence of steps to improve its position with
respect to the federal government that will lead to better, fairer treatment from national
legislation and regulations. Each state can take these steps independently in many
different ways. Although some states have federal liaison offices, the first step is to be
a bit more up-to-date and use a more effective concept for lobbying.
State leaders know that Washington is where the money is and lobbyists
are the ones to get it. Corporations invest in lobbying knowing that the return is
on-average better than ten-to-one in the form of tax reduction or opening new business
opportunities. Lobbying by foreign contingents is circumscribed by law, but the states
should just do fine. States can make a strong case for legitimate needs. This proposal
explains how states can put pressure on Washington decision-makers and get results.
Members of the US Congress, although in Washington and daily close to
key officials, are often useless for helping the state they are supposed to represent get
its own needs considered by the federal government. House and Senate Members seldom take
orders from anyone in state administration or legislature. They have their own problems:
finding financial backers, getting re-elected, and raising campaign funds. In these
turbulent times they also have to deal with restless constituents, thorny issues and
dubious pending legislation, often little related to the state's most important needs.
Members might be helpful if state money was available. But money given to the state’s
Congressional Members would mostly go to bulk up their staffs. State issues would fall off
the table as staff priority focused on pleasing their Member, making the Member look good
to the electorate, and retaining their own jobs after election.
The better alternative for the state is to put some money into acquiring
a small number of "colleagues", hired and paid for by the state to work with the
Members on state-selected issues and also helping the Members too. How colleagues should
be selected relates to how they can best be used to help the state lobby effectively for
its needs. If conventional search methods were used in recruiting, the resulting
colleagues as a group would likely have demographics similar to Congress itself –
mostly lawyers and mostly interested in or experienced in politics. Many would have
already tried for office or government jobs and were trying to get back in again. The
colleague group selected this way would be more troublesome and not as effective as what
is proposed here.
Colleague Selection Concept
Colleagues should be as diverse as America itself: farmers, engineers,
technicians, service providers, teachers, veterans, homemakers -- construction and factory
workers, doctors and nurses, renters and home-owners -- some fresh out of school, some
retired, a few wealthy, mostly middle class, and yes, a few on welfare. Very few of these
ordinary people have political experience. They have experience of the rest of life.
Seek these people by the methods similar to selecting juries – by
lot -- to seek diversity with a different perspective on Washington but, like Americans
everywhere, good people who serve loyally if treated fairly.
Colleague Duties
Each state might use colleagues in a different way, chosen from among the following:
- Meet regularly with their Members, usually in Member offices, to
discuss developments on issues of interest to the state and of interest to the Member.
Some Members may encourage some colleagues to play a different role, namely to specialize
in certain kinds of legislation or certain issue areas and could be selected to be at
large with respect to the state. Some colleagues may be very good at such an assignment.
- Lobby Members of other states on issues of particular importance,
or where personal experience may make a difference. This activity must be approved by the
Member to whom a colleague is assigned. [Imagine a homeless person acting as a state's
lobbyist on the issue of job-loss-benefits. Could be very effective.]
- Be a Constituent Services Aide helping individuals or
companies with routine problems or an Ombudsman working on resolving
conflicts-of-interests potentially important for large numbers of constituents. When the
country was young there was one Member for every 30,000 people. Today the number is around
640,000. Members try to cover this function themselves but are too busy and need help. The
function has devolved to burgeoning staffs, some with bureaucratic mindsets, seeking a
political career, and occasionally competing with the Member at election time. Neither the
Member nor the staff pays as much attention to the state's needs as they do to the needs
of the Members top financial backers.
- Help manage, organize, train, and/or educate staff in the DC
office or other offices and speak to citizen groups on the state's needs, priorities, and
agenda on occasions not requiring the Member's attention. Members sometimes get many more
speaking invitations than they can handle. They may be quite willing to let a colleague
handle one from a group the Member would just as soon not address, or to turn over similar
chores to colleagues.
From one state to the next, states and their leaders are different. It
is likely that each state will have a unique approach for handling such details as how
best to obtain, train, pay, and task colleagues.
Appendix A
Details on Selection of Colleagues
The basis for selection is best made for each district in the state
by the means that is used to select juries. Depending on the history of the state's jury
selection process, jury lists may have to be cleaned up, in consultation with and probably
requiring approval, possibly by the state Attorney General's office. A first round of
selection needs to be run several months before the national election. A person, selected
by lot, the "selectee" for the job of Colleague ("initial cap" for
legal document referral purposes), is notified by a letter with a congratulatory tone,
signed by a state official that includes material explaining the recipient's options, the
financial benefits, salary, term, expenses and duties and an employment agreement form.
Unlike jury selection, the selectee may freely opt out. If the selectee wishes to become a
Colleague, he or she would fill out the employment agreement form and return it. For most
selectees, the assistance of an aide, probably in the state Office of the Attorney General
will be necessary. The form when filled-out and signed by both a legal representative of
the state and the selectee is an Employment Agreement that makes the selectee a state
employee with the position of Colleague. The selectee has, say, 20 or 30 days to accept
the position or reject it.
The duties of a Colleague must be compatible with whatever the state has
determined from a governor's directive, or as necessary, from enabling legislation.
Salary and permitted reimbursement of expenses must be specified.
Roughly it is suggested that the salary should be half of what a Member gets and generally
less. Some important benefits can be gained by considering the selectee's previous salary
or net income.
For example, the Colleague salary (SC) proposed to the
selectee is made somewhat dependent on the selectee's previous salary, (SP) as
ascertained by the most recent selectee's tax return. No current federal income tax return
might be a good reason to disqualify a selectee. One fair and reasonable formula is this.
When SP is less than the Members salary (assume this is $160,000/yr.) the
Colleague's salary, SC, is less than half the members salary according to the
formula:
SC=16 +2SP/5 ($, '000), but not
less than $20,000.
For those few Colleagues who may have previous salary greater than the
Member's salary, then the Colleague is paid half of his previous salary
SC=SP/2, but not more than
$160,000.
Wealthier/poorer states may adjust these figures up or down as they see
fit.
It is suggested that, unless duty requires more travel, Colleague
expenses for something like four round trips a year to Washington should be paid by the
state under the Agreement. Colleagues should not be expected to have any paid-for staff.
If the state feels that there is so much worthwhile work that Colleagues need to be doing,
then instead of adding staff, it is suggested that the state enlarge the number of
Colleagues enough to get all the work done that is worth doing.
The selectee on becoming a Colleague must agree to serve to the best of
his/her ability for the length of service that might be a two-year period co-terminus with
the Member's term in Congress (or some variation of the length of service provision). Some
states may choose to allow exemplary Colleagues to continue during a further term. The
contract should make clear that the Colleague will use his/her best judgment on behavior
and decisions, similar to the oath of office that a Member takes, and with no other
controls over the Colleague by the state. Any such controls would be tampering with
the random selection process and tend to nullify the whole Colleague concept.
Prior to election or inauguration day, all Colleagues in a state may be
required to meet in person with the governor and take the oath of office in the presence
of the entire group and other officials in order to reinforce the idea that this is the
beginning of a serious undertaking.
Very important, under the contract the Colleague agrees not to serve in,
or run for Congress, during his/her term or for some period like one or two years after
his/her term ends. This will eliminate Members looking at Colleagues as potential
competitors, which might well compromise the success of the concept.
After, say, a thirty day period, during which all the first round
selectees have made their decisions on signing or rejecting a contract or the time
allotted for signing has run out, there is enough time for a second or third round for
filling the docket with replacement selectees. Obviously, if the state has say 20 places,
the round one selection process will select a larger number, like 50, who, in the sequence
can be called upon as soon as each successive vacancy (turn-down) occurs to immediately
begin the 30 day notice period. The extra time allows the overseers of the jury-like
selection process, enough to seek replacements for those not choosing to sign on. The
sample still remains random.
Cost The annual cost of ten colleagues salary and expenses can be
kept under one million dollars, essentially the cost of the colleague program for a small
state. For a large state, it is suggested that there be one colleague for every Member,
bringing the program annual cost up to three to five million dollars.
Appendix B
Long-Term Potential Arising from Multi-State Acceptance
If the colleague concept succeeded, the states may obtain much
greater control over their affairs. If and when a large number of states had adopted the
concept, they would probably have worked out a large variety of different selections of
duties, numbers of colleagues, terms of employment agreements, etc. Nevertheless they
would be in an excellent position to make an important and desirable change in government
structure and practice, beneficial to themselves and the whole country, based on the US
Constitution. If 38 states (3/4ths) could find and remain in agreement on wording during
the adoption process, they would achieve a Constitutional Amendment, the law of the land,
even if throughout the adoption process there is little support for, and likely much
hostility to, the Amendment proposal from the Congress and the Administration in
Washington. Much could be done with that power. Here is an example:
Example – Proposed Direct Election of Members to the US House of
Representatives
A Citizen Legislature, a book written by Ernest Callenbach and Michael Phillips in
1985 made a strong case for choosing members of the House by sortition, or selection by
lottery, used by the Athenians to choose representatives for two centuries of city-state
government. Callenbach and Phillips made an impressive case that sortition would make
democracy work better than elections. If sortition was a good idea then, it is a much
better and more needed reform now. Here are ten problems with national elections that
would be eliminated by sortition.
The Tragedy of US Democracy -- Deteriorating Validity of National
Elections
Democracy in the US seems to hang by a thread that is weakening year by year. Each of
the following ten items attacks our national well-being, and threatens to subvert and
nullify electoral democracy.
(1) the seemingly inevitable corruption of official campaign
financing reforms,
(2) the corruption of post-election governance as a result of increasing
strong-arm, smiling-face campaign fund raising,
(3) newly available computerized optimization software perfecting the art of
gerrymandering so that many districts and states can be locked-in for one party or the
other,
(4) the near total lock-out of third party candidates by the steady,
over-the-years machinations of the two (major) party leaders, assisted by elected
officials and the mainstream media, culminating in total effective electoral control of
Congress members and elected Administration officials.
(5) the shortening of information feedback loops during the campaign (including
more accurate, quick, sophisticated polling aimed at manipulating voters) employed by both
parties to determine how to use their enormous campaign funds to best advantage. The
outcomes in contested elections tend toward statistical ties producing disarray and
contention.
(6) the ability of successful politicians to mislead the public on their
real governance intentions: namely to legislate, regulate, and shape government
policy and actions so as to satisfy their key financial backers and to generally ignore
the needs of "ordinary" people.
(7) Unlawful, corrupt, and unfair removal of names from voter
registration lists and other obstacles discouraging and preventing eligible
individuals from voting, such as confusing ballots and self-contradictory ballot
instructions.
(8) The mainstream media perceived need to accommodate,
through editorializing and news reporting, high officials who (a) illegally or immorally
decide to keep secrets from the public and (b) grant access and interviews to supportive
reporters, editors, anchors, and moguls and punish those who are uncooperative, while
rewarding supporters with beneficial regulatory relief. These relationships have resulted
in the nearly-unreported gutting of the Fairness Doctrine and the astonishing
concentration of media ownership.
(9) Obsolete, undemocratic features of the U.S. Constitution, as amended
– including the role of the electoral college.
(10) Fraudulent and corrupt vote-counting that can
completely ignore enough legitimate ballots to overturn voters choices by rigging voting
machines and, even worse, when the fraud is done on touch-screen and other electronic
terminals by hidden, false-counting software. Detecting this kind of fraud, finding the
perpetrators, and holding them accountable can be almost impossible.
Opportunities
If in fact someday several states adopt the colleague system, the proposal for A
Citizens Legislature, would be only one of many ideas that, looking to the future,
might seem attractive to these early adopters. No one can judge today at this early point
whether a sortition concept or any other proposed government reform will be needed or
obtainable. Yet, improvement of the national election process and procedures seems an
issue that likely will get increasing public attention.
Aware of the 10 problems with national elections described above (The
Tragedy of US Democracy – Deteriorating Validity of Elections) by late 2000, I
had written a proposal for a "Best Practices System for National Elections" that
still appears on the World Future Society Web site at http://www.wfs.org/kay.htm.
I believe that, as summarized above in (10) Fraudulent and corrupt
vote-counting, this WFS article was the first detailed description of the danger of
false and politically manipulated vote-counts produced by powerful software, hidden by
password protection, that could be inserted into any of the two million electronic voting
machines required for a fully "modernized" national voting system. Voting
machines must be updated in a short window of time before election day by technicians, who
may be employees of private companies hired to operate, maintain, or manage these new
systems as part of a process to obtain final voting results from the data entered on
election day in the up-to two hundred thousand precincts or voting places of the country.
These companies obtain government voting-management contracts and maintain that under
these contracts their software is proprietary and, so far, will not reveal the source code
or any information publicly about the potential for hidden embedded software. Government
authorities responsible for approving these contracts should be held criminally
accountable for permitting the public's voting preferences to be completely subverted by
these voting-management contractors.
"Best Practices System for National Elections," in updated
form, also appears in http://www.alanfkay.com/National%20Elections.htm.
Conclusion
The first step, the colleague system, potentially can evolve into the true solution for
preventing election fraud and manipulative practices by replacing elections with
sortition.
Key leaders of each state can and should consider seriously now on its
own merits the value of adopting a colleague system in their state.
