This post is long, but it only dips once
Label the concern as double-dipping, conflict of interest, or whatever you'd like, but most people on Goat Hill seem to agree -- at least publicly -- that something has to change. The debate centers not on identifying the illness but on picking a cure with the least harmful side effects. And on this issue, people from each extreme want to play doctor.
On one side is Gov. Bob Riley, who wants legislators -- or, barring that, the state school board -- to forbid lawmakers from working in the two-year or K-12 systems while they serve in the Legislature. On the other is education lobbyist extraordinaire Paul Hubbert, who thinks the best check on any abuses is the same one we have now: a well-placed indictment here and there.
Riley's proposal has precisely no chance of escaping the Legislature alive this year. That's especially true because Riley is a Republican governor proposing a bill in a Democrat-controlled Legislature that could cost 39 Democratic lawmakers their seats. Things could get more interesting at the school board, where Riley is only one vote away from getting a ban approved. Still, Hubbert is the force to be reckoned with in Montgomery, so it wouldn't be entirely unwise to bet on the status quo as the ultimate outcome.
Independent of what will happen, of course, is what should happen. Three questions are relevant here. First, if a ban is approved, when should it apply? Second, is it fair to force some people, but not others, to choose between their job and their legislative service? And third, is there a better way to address this whole messy situation?
On the first point, if a "double-dipping" ban goes into effect immediately, it probably would lead some duly elected legislators to resign before serving out their current terms. If the Legislature opts for a ban, it should apply equally to all state employees and shouldn't take effect until the next round of legislative elections in 2010. Voters made their decisions last year, and no bill should try to force out their chosen representatives before their terms end.
As for the second question, a blanket ban on lawmakers getting paid for two state jobs sure does look good on the surface. It draws a clear line in the sand and eliminates suspicions of a conflict of interest in a legislator's votes or lobbying efforts on behalf of an entity. The appeal of the clear distinction is so strong, in fact, that state Sen. Rusty Glover, R-Semmes, fully supports Riley's proposal even though it would cost him his job as a high school teacher. (Principle? In our legislature? Imagine that.)
But it's important to remember that the Legislature is supposed to represent a cross-section of Alabama. We have geographic diversity -- every part of the state has a representative and senator of its very own -- but diversity of background is just as important. Businessmen, doctors, lawyers, etc., all bring their own valuable strengths and perspectives to public service, and so do education employees. It simply would seem unjust to force educators, many of whom work in the public sector because that's where the jobs are, to sacrifice their careers to run for public office, but to require no such choice from other professions.
There's a better answer: Make legislative service a full-time job. If all lawmakers have to surrender all other employment for the duration of their time on Goat Hill, no profession would face disincentives to serve that the others didn't. More importantly, we could alleviate concerns about conflicts of interest in both the public and private sectors. A full-time Legislature (with a full-time level of pay, which we now have) also could lure good candidates who otherwise might not be able to serve.
Full-time service would cost more, especially if we tacked on retirement benefits and a paid staffer or two to ease lawmakers' reliance on lobbyists to research and write bills. But the practical and ethical advantages a full-time Legislature would provide would be well worth the expense.