Markesich, August P.

Sawyer, Leonard A.

English

UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington)

Washington Law Review Volume 49 Number 2 Symposium: Recent Washington Legislation 2-1-1974 Symposium: Recent Washington Legislation. Introduction August P. Markesich Leonard A. Sawyer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr  Part of the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation August P. Markesich & Leonard A. Sawyer, Symposium: Recent Washington Legislation. Introduction, 49 Wash. L. Rev. 287 (1974). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol49/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact cnyberg@uw.edu. WASHINGTON LAW REVIEWVolume 49, Number 2, 1974SYMPOSIUM:RECENT WASHINGTON LEGISLATIONINTRODUCTIONAugust P. Mardesich*The productivity of a legislative session is usually measured byevaluating its substantive enactments. The 43d Washington Legisla-ture enacted several measures which addressed some crucial problemsfacing the state: reform of divorce laws, landlord-tenant relations,civil commitment procedures, compensation to crime victims, imple-mentation of equal rights and protection of the environment.But the evaluation of the session should not simply conclude withthe analyses of these measures which follow in this volume. Attentionshould also focus on the new legislative procedures which were gener-ated during this last session because the quality of any legislation is, inpart, a function of the manner in which bills are introduced, the at-mosphere in which they are studied, and the means by which they arepushed to final passage.Dissatisfaction with overlapping committee structure, with ineffi-ciency, and with poor legislative understanding of many bills finallyresulted in changes designed to improve and streamline the legislativeprocess. Two innovations stand out: the simplified committee struc-ture and the continuing session concept. Both require elaborationbecause they are essential to improved legislative functioning.The 43d Legislature amended its rules to establish parallel commit-tees in both houses with emphasis on joint hearings. This procedure* Majority Floor Leader, Washington State Senate; B.A., 1941, LL.B., 1949,University of Washington.287utilizes legislative time more efficiently. Joint hearings not only areconvenient for those witnesses appearing, but they also acquaint themembers of each house with the concerns of their colleagues in theother house, thus reducing House-Senate conflicts.Furthermore, legislators are now limited to membership on threecommittees. This limitation concentrates a legislator's focus and al-lows him to develop greater expertise and knowledge about particularareas than was possible before.The continuing session concept is designed to provide needed legis-lative efficiency, quality and flexibility. Essentially, the standingcommittees continue to meet during the year and the entire Legisla-ture is called back into session only when there are enough bills for itsconsideration. This procedure achieves several purposes. Most signifi-cantly, it should forestall the demise of the citizen Legislature. Asdemands for legislative action increase, so does the tendency to createa full-time professional legislature. The result of this tendency is thatthe legislative body can become insulated from the people and cantake on the negative characteristics of a bureaucracy. The continuingsession concept not only allows a legislator meaningful time in his dis-trict in direct contact with its problems, but also provides a forum forthose problems to be analyzed. In addition, this year has marked asignificant increase in public hearings. While the public has not yetbeen as responsive as expected, it is hoped that citizens will utilizethese hearings more frequently to make their ideas known. Thus, thecontinuing session is not a step toward a full-time professional legisla-ture, but rather is a means of maintaining and strengthening the cit-izen Legislature.Another benefit of the continuing session is refinement of legisla-tion. Defects in bills are exposed and minor problems which pre-viously had escalated into major obstacles during session now areironed out beforehand. Thus, when a bill is finally presented to theentire legislature for consideration, debate should focus on funda-mental policy differences and issues rather than on technicalities.It is premature to assess the extent to which these changes in thelegislative structure will produce more wise and responsive legislation,but they are at least a beginning. Many serious problems remainwhich affect the atmosphere within which the legislative process func-tions. Campaign financing, conflicts of interest and legislative salariesare not glamorous problems, but their impact is significant. The care288with which these problems are considered and resolved will be re-flected in the quality of future legislation. I call on all concerned citi-zens and members of the Bar to give these issues probing considera-tion and to join in their resolution.Leonard A. Sawyer**It is an honor for me to prepare an introductory comment to thisimportant issue of the Washington Law Review. The Review's con-cern with both the products and procedures -of the Washington StateLegislature reflects the growing interest of scholars in the legislativebranch of government.In the preceding pages my colleague, Senator Mardesich, has aptlydescribed several of the internal changes made by the 43d Legislature.I agree fully with his comments as to the importance of these changesand their impact on the quality of legislation. One additional improve-ment made by the 43d Legislature, however, seems particularlyworthy of comment: the establishment of a professional research staff.The staffs of previous legislatures generally were appointed on apatronage basis. Typically, staff members obtained employment be-cause they had performed campaign work or political favors forcommittee chairmen or other influential legislators. As a result, legis-lative standing committees were staffed all too often by part-timeemployees with neither legislative research skills nor familiarity withthe subject matters within their committees' jurisdictions. Needless tosay, this kind of nonprofessional patronage staff was not capable ofproviding the Legislature with the research and information which itrequires in order to intelligently consider legislation. In contrast, thestanding committees' staff of the 43d Legislature is composed pri-marily of professional persons. It is interesting to note that lawyersconstitute the largest block by training of the research staff of theHouse of Representatives, and each House standing committee is pro-vided with legal services.** Speaker, Washington State House of Representatives; B.A., University of PugetSound, 1948; LL.B., University of Washington, 1951.289Because of this improvement in support personnel, the Legislaturenot only has increased its capacity to intelligently consider legislation,but at long last has placed itself in a position where it can adequatelyreview and check the executive branch. This enhancement of the leg-islative staff should serve the public interest well.290

Symposium: Recent Washington Legislation. Introduction

https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2022&context=wlr

Symposium: Recent Washington Legislation. Introduction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington)