© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
Increasingly the political dialog is
about complete and absolute transparency for those elected people making
decisions. The notion is that the public should know everything about the legislative
process including everything that happens during the deliberation phase.
We are not talking about the
outcomes, how people voted, rather, how they reached their decision to vote.
Some people think the public should be eyewitness to the deliberations. This
sounds good but will not work. H. L. Mencken wrote: For every complex problem
there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Consider if jury deliberations were
in public. Jurors would be watched as they deliberated the case. Everyone could
see how they reasoned and voted. Would that scrutiny change their actions? You
bet.
An example is our Constitutional
Convention held in Philadelphia from May to September 1787. The delegates
decided first that they could not revise adequately the Articles of
Confederation which was their announced task so instead they negotiated a new
form of government.
They did so without any transparency
as they worked. The doors to their hall were locked and members pledged to not
talk to journalists. The newspapers of the time had no idea what was happening.
Why did they take such an unusual
action? Because the daily pressure as they debated issues would have ultimately
killed the convention if the issues under debate were known. As they day by day
debated these issues they would have had too much pressure to continue if what
they were debating was known to the public.
It looks like a special session of
the New Mexico Legislature will be required. And the forces of transparency will
want to watch everything from the first Frito-Pie made to the last coffee pot put
away… along with everything said and done during the special session.
Transparency of the final actions of
our elected is essential but perhaps not the deliberations. As the politicians figure
what they can and cannot support they must not have literally thousands of
people bombarding them with instant reactions.
Deals cannot be made in front of
everyone. That is a truth transparency activists do not accept. Like with jury
deliberations and the designing of our Constitution, deliberation scrutiny is
detrimental to the outcome.
New Mexico has vastly less money
than budgeted. So New Mexico will have to do something about it but this is an
election year. Politicians would rather not act but must since our Constitution
requires New Mexico financially to be in the black. New Mexico cannot deficient
spend, even in election years.
U. S. Senator from Oregon Jeff
Merkley wrote, “Budgets are nothing if not statements of priorities.” The
priorities are going to be called into account shortly in New Mexico and the
political leaders will not be able to punt the financial football to the next
session.
They will meet in special session
and do things that will lose each of them votes. The New Mexico budget will be
cut. There will be winners and losers. The only thing worse is to lose the
representative form of government by allowing extreme daily intrusions to the
point that the representatives can no longer function.
Fixing this financial problem will
be hard since the budget was already cut in many ways in the last session. Some
things cannot be cut and so one answer is to raise taxes.
With the increase of taxes being
dynamic the raises may not bring in the needed revenue because businesses and
people move out of state. The state may go into a financial death spiral of
taxpayers leaving and the people needing services not being funded adequately.
There are people who want complete
transparency but it is the kiss of death to most complex negotiations. Careful
what you wish for as it could make this problem much worse.
Some tough decisions will have to be
made. The lobbyists and activists will endeavor to protect their clients
through information, advocacy and political threats. Give our elected a fair chance
to fix the budget. It is important to watch how they vote for a solution, not their
deliberations.
Posts
1 comments:
As usual Michael you hit it out of the ball park.
The folks I love are the "second guessers" who always have a better way to get things done or allocate our precious budget resources to satisfy thier narrow, single issue agenda.
Same is true in management. No one wants to take responsibility, but everyone has an opinion when you just "get it done"!
Post a Comment