Thursday, September 07, 2006

3 State Senate Candidates Issue Keystone Contract

As mentioned yesterday, 3 Democratic Bucks County state senate candidates, Paul Lang (6th district), Chris Serpico (10th district), and Jeff Albert (12th district) announced their proposed state government reforms. I don't agree with all of them, but I'm glad they are thinking about such things. (press release via politicspa)

THE KEYSTONE CONTRACT

1. ADOPT TERM LIMITS
· 3-term limit for Senators; 6-year limit for leaders and committee chairs

2. LOBBY REFORM
· Require quarterly disclosure of the value of all resources that principals commit to their lobbying related activities (including support staff and efforts to influence the public to lobby); and disclosure of all gifts, meals and travel provided to public officials by a lobbyist or principal.
· Bar receipt of gifts of any kind, and reimbursement of personal expenses, such as books and legal fees.

3. WAM REFORM
· End use of the Commerce Department as means of funding legislative WAMs (Walking Around Money)
· Publish list of WAMs in a searchable database by Legislator and recipient

4. STOP ACCRUED BENEFITS
· End all accrued benefits (benefits based on length of time served)
· Prohibit any increase in any form of compensation beyond inflation

5. END “COMMITTEES AS FIEFDOMS”
· Permit one-third of members to bring up a bill or amendment in order to prevent unlimited control of agendas by Committee Chairs

6. OPEN RECORDS REFORM
· Post all voting records within 24 hours
· Publish all Legislative Journals within 20 days of session
· Provide timely access to essential documents prepared for pending decisions
· Ensure that access to documents is not denied through excessive retrieval processing, copying fees, and time delays

7. NO PROMOTION OF PERSONAL BUSINESS
· Bar the use of official position in the State Senate to promote personal business interests
· Restrict the Legislator and the Legislator’s family and business partners from doing business with any state or local agency and with any state regulated business.

8. STOP LAME DUCK SESSIONS
· No Lame Duck Sessions where you can raise taxes and approve spending

9. RE-DISTRICTING REFORM
· Create an independent redistricting commission

10. INCREASE FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY
· Publish budget notes online for every bill and amendment, after the last budget note has been issued, with at least three legislative days of notice before voting
· Provide an online database searchable by sponsor, co-sponsor, Legislator and the aggregate for spending
· Adopt campaign finance limits similar to existing federal law

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not sure the assualt on accrued benefits is too good of an idea, especially since all these candidates will be counting on labor support.

AboveAvgJane said...

They are talking about accrued benefits for legislators, not overall. Just the concept might make union members a little wary but some brakes on the benefits for elected officials might not be a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

I disagree. We need MORE jobs that pay good benefits, both during one's employment and after retirement, not FEWER.

Proposals like this, though they might sound good, will inevitably lead to a race to bottom. First legislators, then it's state and local employees, then it's teachers and others who will be told they can't have good benefits
because "no one else gets them".

It's a slippery slope and these candidates are making a mistake starting down it.

Now it's a different thing if they pledge they WON'T TAKE their accured benefits, but to try and deny them to others is just wrong.

AboveAvgJane said...

PD,

Excellent point. I can't see those in office really giving up accrued benefits but it could present an opportunity to putting similar benefits for others on the chopping block. We wouldn't want that.

Anonymous said...

No we wouldn't. :)

BTW, there was an excellent article in the New Yorker mag a few weeks ago by Malcolm Gladwell on the history of private industry pensions that are now
weighting down the auto and other US industries.

AboveAvgJane said...

PD,

I'm about a month behind on the New Yorker but I've seen the Gladwell article in the table of contents and look forward to reading it soon.