Published: Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Gregoire is right about accountability
State's high number of elected executives undermines efficiency
When Gov. Chris Gregoire proposed education reorganization last month, she briefly shined light on an enduring gubernatorial grievance. We elect too many statewide officials here, fragmenting executive authority and obscuring accountability.
Under Gregoire's proposed reorganization, the elected superintendent of public instruction would be subordinate to an appointed secretary of education. Although the governor seems to be agnostic regarding eliminating the elected position altogether, the plan doesn't work if the office remains elective.
The incumbent superintendent, Randy Dorn, thinks the job should remain in the hands of an elected official. As a candidate, he wasn't so sure. Regardless, the flap highlights the larger governance problem in state government. Along with initiative-and-referendum, the division of power stems from our populist traditions.
The initiative process puts lawmaking in the hands of the people, allowing us to wade in where governors and legislators fear to tread — or choose to tread water. If we disagree with legislative action or inaction, we have swift recourse. The process checks the power of decision makers in Olympia.
Similarly, dividing executive clout among nine elected officials restrains the power of the governor.
Former Gov. Dan Evans described his frustration with the situation to a Washington Research Council audience in 1983. He used a business analogy.
“How would you like to be the chief executive of a major corporation where you had eight vice presidents who were totally independent, as the separated elected officials of this state are, and a number of other vice presidents appointed by separate committees as occurs with various boards and commissions directors?” he asked.
Despite constitutionally giving the governor “supreme executive power,” the folks that organized Washington government clearly hedged their bet.
Evans was neither the first nor the last governor to chafe at what political scientists call the “plural executive.” Most, however, have focused their reorganization efforts to achieve more modest goals.
Gregoire gained the power to appoint the state's transportation secretary, for example, because her predecessor, Gary Locke, successfully pushed for the change. Previously, the state transportation commission hired the secretary.
Tackling the plural executive, however, lifts the effort to a new plateau. The 50 states vary considerably. Maine, New Jersey and Tennessee elect just one statewide office, the governor. At the other extreme, North Carolina and Oklahoma elect 10; North Dakota, 11. With nine, Washington is at the high end.
The next time you face a lull in a social gathering, ask guests to list the nine. Give them extra points if they can name the current office holders.
Most people will know the governor and attorney general, offices that typically receive the most campaign coverage and interest between elections. After that, there's an appreciable drop in visibility. It's not because their work isn't important or that they fail to put themselves forward. It's just the way the system works.
For some offices, continued independence makes sense. Most states elect the lieutenant governor, who succeeds the governor should the office become vacant and serves here as the presiding officer of the senate. More important, the auditor, treasurer, attorney general, and secretary of state serve as the public's watchdogs on important government activities, from campaign integrity to financial accountability, consumer protection and independent legal judgment.
Three offices, however, directly impinge on the governor's role. Gregoire explicitly acknowledged the conflict earlier this year.
“If the public is holding me accountable,” Gregoire said in announcing her education proposal, “make me accountable.”
Yes, and eliminate the elected office of superintendent of public instruction. Following that logic, we should also stop electing the insurance commissioner and the commissioner of public lands.
It's not as hard as you might think. While eliminating the elected office of superintendent of public instruction takes a constitutional amendment, the Legislature has the ability to abolish the elected offices of lands commissioner and insurance commissioner on its own.
Voters are holding the governor accountable. And she should have the authority that goes along with the perceived responsibility.
Sometimes it seems as if the populists who built our state so distrusted government they did everything possible to keep it weak. In so doing, they sacrificed accountability and efficiency. Lawmakers can increase both by streamlining the executive branch and reducing the number of elected offices.
Richard S. Davis, president of the Washington Research Council, writes on public policy, economics and politics. His e-mail address is rsdavis@simeonpartners.com.
Under Gregoire's proposed reorganization, the elected superintendent of public instruction would be subordinate to an appointed secretary of education. Although the governor seems to be agnostic regarding eliminating the elected position altogether, the plan doesn't work if the office remains elective.
The incumbent superintendent, Randy Dorn, thinks the job should remain in the hands of an elected official. As a candidate, he wasn't so sure. Regardless, the flap highlights the larger governance problem in state government. Along with initiative-and-referendum, the division of power stems from our populist traditions.
The initiative process puts lawmaking in the hands of the people, allowing us to wade in where governors and legislators fear to tread — or choose to tread water. If we disagree with legislative action or inaction, we have swift recourse. The process checks the power of decision makers in Olympia.
Similarly, dividing executive clout among nine elected officials restrains the power of the governor.
Former Gov. Dan Evans described his frustration with the situation to a Washington Research Council audience in 1983. He used a business analogy.
“How would you like to be the chief executive of a major corporation where you had eight vice presidents who were totally independent, as the separated elected officials of this state are, and a number of other vice presidents appointed by separate committees as occurs with various boards and commissions directors?” he asked.
Despite constitutionally giving the governor “supreme executive power,” the folks that organized Washington government clearly hedged their bet.
Evans was neither the first nor the last governor to chafe at what political scientists call the “plural executive.” Most, however, have focused their reorganization efforts to achieve more modest goals.
Gregoire gained the power to appoint the state's transportation secretary, for example, because her predecessor, Gary Locke, successfully pushed for the change. Previously, the state transportation commission hired the secretary.
Tackling the plural executive, however, lifts the effort to a new plateau. The 50 states vary considerably. Maine, New Jersey and Tennessee elect just one statewide office, the governor. At the other extreme, North Carolina and Oklahoma elect 10; North Dakota, 11. With nine, Washington is at the high end.
The next time you face a lull in a social gathering, ask guests to list the nine. Give them extra points if they can name the current office holders.
Most people will know the governor and attorney general, offices that typically receive the most campaign coverage and interest between elections. After that, there's an appreciable drop in visibility. It's not because their work isn't important or that they fail to put themselves forward. It's just the way the system works.
For some offices, continued independence makes sense. Most states elect the lieutenant governor, who succeeds the governor should the office become vacant and serves here as the presiding officer of the senate. More important, the auditor, treasurer, attorney general, and secretary of state serve as the public's watchdogs on important government activities, from campaign integrity to financial accountability, consumer protection and independent legal judgment.
Three offices, however, directly impinge on the governor's role. Gregoire explicitly acknowledged the conflict earlier this year.
“If the public is holding me accountable,” Gregoire said in announcing her education proposal, “make me accountable.”
Yes, and eliminate the elected office of superintendent of public instruction. Following that logic, we should also stop electing the insurance commissioner and the commissioner of public lands.
It's not as hard as you might think. While eliminating the elected office of superintendent of public instruction takes a constitutional amendment, the Legislature has the ability to abolish the elected offices of lands commissioner and insurance commissioner on its own.
Voters are holding the governor accountable. And she should have the authority that goes along with the perceived responsibility.
Sometimes it seems as if the populists who built our state so distrusted government they did everything possible to keep it weak. In so doing, they sacrificed accountability and efficiency. Lawmakers can increase both by streamlining the executive branch and reducing the number of elected offices.
Richard S. Davis, president of the Washington Research Council, writes on public policy, economics and politics. His e-mail address is rsdavis@simeonpartners.com.
Comments
(