How long does it take to read a legislative bill? Really read it. Understand it. Digest it. Think about it. Research assumptions and study alternatives. Solicit expert opinions. Talk to stakeholders. Discuss it. Hear differing views. Maybe adjust, reshape, rewrite. And finally reach consensus.
As we all know, some legislators don’t actually even read a bill — not even a major bill — before voting on it. Perhaps that’s what Governor Malloy is counting on as he readies for the Oct. 26 special session.
Although there is nothing in the law requiring any specific review period for legislation, it seems odd that Team Malloy wasn’t interested in providing any details of its grand plan to create jobs and stimulate economic development before releasing a PowerPoint summary — still lacking details — Oct. 20.
At a time when the governor is singing a nice song about wanting to be bipartisan, inclusive and collaborate, his actions seem to work against any meaningful debate on his plans.
Malloy’s statement on the subject reads as if it’s those pesky legislators who are resisting disclosure:
“As I have been saying for weeks, I’m committed to trying my best to make this jobs session a bipartisan one. To that end, in order to respect the wishes of the caucus leaders, we are going to hold off on releasing specific details today in terms of what’s potentially going to be in the final package. They can’t make a final agreement with my administration until they’ve gotten sign-off from their caucuses, and that hasn’t happened yet. Conversations regarding the package are ongoing, productive, and, I believe, will ultimately be fruitful, as we work to reinvent Connecticut and help create jobs in our state.”
Sure, we can all rally around broad concepts like encouraging investment and providing better training that matches actual jobs that are in demand. But the devil is always in the details. And without sufficient time for public debate — not just on-the-floor for-the-cameras legislative debate — the chance of making a mistake goes up. Way up.
The majority Democrats control both chambers as well as the governor’s office. They don’t need Republican cooperation or input. They can hash this out behind closed doors and serve it up as the ready-to-pass package solution Malloy envisions. That’s efficient politics. But it’s not good politics.
What about the views of the rest of us, the folks from whom the legislators derive their power and the folks who likely will be paying for their decisions for years to come?
We all deserve better. And the blame for this failure to collaborate has to land squarely with the governor. It’s his job to lead and here he has put getting it done with minimal public opposition ahead of getting it right.
A deal is a deal
One spot where we do need to side with Team Malloy is in ignoring the Republican suggestion that the state retain control of the facility it has agreed to construct in Farmington until Jackson Laboratory delivers all the promised jobs.
It’s a good idea and an excellent example of the kind of bipartisan thinking that could have led to a better result. But it’s simply too late to the party.
If administrations — governors and top-level subject advisers — are to be effective in reaching agreements, the other party needs to know that they have the authority to close a deal. Yes, the law demands legislative approval. But it doesn’t demand line-by-line review. In all but the most exceptional situation, the legislative review should be an up or down vote.
We see no reason to cripple future bargaining in an effort to tweak the Jackson Lab deal. We made the bet; now let it ride.
