Zero Tolerance
In my time in public office, I've often been asked to vote on "zero tolerance" policies. Zero tolerance for drug use. Zero tolerance for students with weapons. Zero tolerance for DWI.
While the underlying goals are important, I've always thought that "zero tolerance" policies -- when applied without context -- lead to arbitrary and even unjust results. Therefore, I've often voted against mandatory penalties when they outstripped the gravity of the behavior (See "fees, abuser").
But I've found one I can support.
Zero tolerance for lawmakers using the state budget to benefit themselves personally.
Now the state budget has a lot of constituences: taxpayers, teachers, state police, hospitals, et al. Each has an open and obvious stake in the process. In each case, the interested parties can plead their case and support those lawmakers who support them, either by volunteering their time or donating funds. It's not a perfect system but it's pretty transparent.
The way that lawmakers set their salary is also transparent. In fact, it's so transparent that the salary has not been increased in twenty years. It's still $18,000 annually for the Senate. In addition, Senate members get $169 per diem while we're in session and $14,000 in an "office allowance" to maintain a district presence.
But you don't need me to tell you that, because it's all itemized in the state budget.
Do special interests get a break sometimes? Sure they do. For example, as a Delegate, I supported a budget amendment allocating funds for "Black Women United for Action," a Fairfax County nonprofit featuring youth enrichment programs. My amendment became part of the Budget in 2005.
That request came from a good friend who asked me to help her. I did it. And I'm glad we were able to maket that investment. In a similar vein, I helped Fairfax City get funding for the Blenheim House, which is a historic property the City has preserved.
One can argue that these are worthwhile project or "pork barrel" spending. Either way, I was the connection to the state legislature. Our local cause benefitted. However, I had no financial stake in the deal.
This brings us to the story that is just now breaking in the media and on the blogs ....
What has happened in Newport News is unacceptable. Having public power requires that you hold your personal finances apart from any political decisions that you make. There is no excuse for carrying a budget amendment and inserting it into the Budget with the expectation you will personally benefit.
The General Assembly is not an employment agency.
The Governor and Assembly should state their position on this. We've heard a lot about "zero tolerance" in Richmond when it comes to the bottom of society. Now it's time to apply that law to ourselves.
.
Good point Chap. The Abuser fees are an example of "Zero Tolerance" gone awry. The ironic thing about that was that the key advocate of that legislation, Dave Albo, stood to benefit from it personally, since he is a traffic attorney. I guess Dave does not share your Zero Tolerance for lawmakers benefiting financially from their legislation.
But I hope that you can see that the folks who unethically (illegally) abused the system used (what appears to me) to be the same basic process, which without safeguards invites abuses (in my view).
Why not a zero tolerance on this basic process itself?
this is the kind of thing, to be honest, undermines trust - both at the State and Federal level.
It's crystal clear that the current earmark process is abused on many different levels with each person who does it - justifying it in their own mind as "for a good purpose".
How about a 3rd party organization be a online "window" into each and every one of these items?
Would you or your colleagues feel the same way if I could go to VPAP and look up all the earmarks that you did?
I'm not being personal here (not my intent) but I am asking a hard question - in a venue (that I give you credit for providing).
so.. if I offended in any way, my apologies in advance.
LarryG: No offense in any way. I have some major problems with the VA system (see my earlier post on "supersize donations") but it's not corrupt. Most legislators, if not all, are in it for the right reasons. If you're joining the Assembly to increase your wealth, you're a fool. Thats why the current situation really burns me.
As far as earmarks, it's a distinction to say "I'm pushing this because it benefits my community directly" versus "I'm pushing this because it benefits my personal finances." The first is legal if not always logical -- the second may be logical, but it sure as hell ain't legal.
I couldn't agree more. Way to go Chap!
re: " I'm pushing this because it benefits my community directly" versus "I'm pushing this because it benefits my personal finances."
but how do we citizens know which is which?
re: earmarks - I think all of them should be completely transparent at the time they are enacted.
for myself.. I think there are too many and the process for them is totally murky ... and usually murky thing in the legislature run and hide when light gets shone on them...
The idea that each legislator might have some ability to essentially bypass the budget process and directly bestow what amounts to a gift to some worthy organization is not inherently wrong - within reason...
but I'm just not sure what the limits are and whether or not there are per-legislator strings-attached to some.
again.. no offense intended... and yes...to a certain extent.. the "reward" for an elected official to put himself "out there" is sometimes questions like this.
so thank you.
I agree with Chap on the good old fashioned corruption front. I just don't see a lot of evidence of politicians using their office for personal gain.
However, I see evidence (or at least the environment) for a lot of manipulation by special / vested interests. Part - time politicians with salaries so low that most have to keep very serious "real jobs", ridiculously low office allowances and unlimited campaign contributions all set the stage for well funded special interests to ply their craft.
Real estate developers, gas station owners, NIMBY landowners, Dominion, construction companies, truckers, high technology companies, ship builders, dry cleaners .... the list of special interests with something to gain in VA goes on and on.
How do the (very) part time politicians who need to hold a full time "real job" and have squat for an office budget get their information? How do they do the research required to properly understand the right governance structire for an outsourcing contact or the constitutionality of a transportation bill or how to get state buildings to be more green? I assume that they have a long line of well paid, full time employees from the various special interests lined up at their door to help them "understand" these matters. And it's these same special interests who stop by during the election cycle with their checkbooks (one need only look at VPAP.Org to see that).
So, are Virginia's politicians stealing in order to line their own pockets? I don't see it. Are thet being manipulated because they lack the time and money to fully study matters themselves? Bet on it. Are they beholden to the big campaign contributers who, in the main, represent special interests? Count on it.
Remedies:
1. Pay the politicians enough that they can be full time (like the federal government).
2. Give the politicians a sufficient office allowance to provide a full time, reasonably paid research analyst.
3. Limit campaign contributions (partial solution).
4. Establish a "before the fact", independent reseach organization to conduct original and applied research on matters of interest to the GA. JLARC is on the wrong track for this. It's an "after the fact" agency. And its board is a bunch of elected politicians who all have an axe to grind. The Virginia Research Agency should be a non-profit organization with a private board. Former politicians are allowed on the board, current politicians are not. Some business, some academic, some former pols. Nobody with any significant business ties to the decisions of the GA. Dominion's CEO is not a candidate. The GA sets the research agenda but the VRA does the research and makes the recommendations. All research and recommendations are made public.
Groveton - are you DAFT? How far are you from the biggest nest of FULL TIME legislators in the world?
Are you advocating that Richmond look more like Washington when it comes to special interest money?
I'm not sure what happens if we make Va GA full time but if someone told me that it would result in even more special interest money - I'd not be shocked at all.
I'm just not convinced that "professional" politicians who will spend even more of their time away from ordinary citizens is a good thing.
I think it is important for legislators to spend ample time in their home districts and to present themselves at as many local events as they can - to be a familiar face and to be approachable.
I'm ALL in FAVOR of them having ample full-time staffs... to carry out the things that staff can do that is not necessary for the legislators to be doing.
no thanks on the idea of giving them permanent desks in Richmond.
By the way, I'm also in FAVOR of their calendars being online so we see who they are meeting with....
and if I can wish.. I can also wish for meeting minutes of these meetings online also.
but that's staff work... and easily done by competent staff.
LarryG:
Of the four options I listed under remedies - you like #2. You never addressed #3 or #4 and you don't like #1. As far as giving them permanent desks in Richmond - I never made that proposal. I do think the legislature needs to be in office more than one day / week (the current average). However, I'd still like to see them spend most of their time in their district.
And let me ask you a question - you seem to think that part-time legislators have more time for constituents than full time legislators. Why? Are you engaged with your VA Delegate? Your State Senator? Neither my Delegate nor my State Senator engages with their constituents in any meaningful way I can see (except, of course, during campaign season). You write, "I think it is important for legislators to spend ample time in their home districts and to present themselves at as many local events as they can - to be a familiar face and to be approachable.". That would be great if it happened but (in my districts) it does not. By and large, our part time politicians do not spend thier "non political time" meeting and greeting constituents and presenting their side of the issues. They spend that "non political time" scrambling to make enough money to pay the rent.
As for special interests - I see no difference between Richmond and Washington. Both political cultures are beholden to special interests every day and in every way. Both groups have problems but when was the last piece of DC passed legislation that was immediately declared unconstitutional? When was the last federal law passed that had to be immediately repealed? When the country faced an economic crisis the feds acted with the stimulus package. As the Commonwealth faces a transportation crisis, the General Assembly sits frozen - able to do anything.
Why do you and I post on this blog? Neither of us live in Chap's senatorial district? Is it because our part time legislators who are supposedly closer to the people can't be bothered with a blog? Or regular town halls (other than during the 90 days immediately preceeding an election)? Or meaningful newsletters? Or ... anything.
Your clever plan of part-time citizen politicians isn't working. They aren't engaging with constituents, they aren't getting anything dome while they are in session. Where's the beef?
3 - limit campaign deductions - I don't think that money from non-individuals is "free speech" and I'm opposed to it - period. But if we can't stop it then I like VPAP posting that info as soon as the donations happen.
4. - I agree with your comments about the leadership and active participation in JLARC. I do not care for active politicians being involved in that group.
but we do need "after-the-fact" data to contrast and compare trends over the years both in state and with regard to other states.
re: part/full time.
Groveton - do you think that full time has resulted in more Congressional presence at the local level?
I don't and I'm just not sure what full-time gains if each member has a good staff that can do the research and analysis and present that info in concise form for the member to base his/her actions.
You have not given a compelling reason for full time yet in my mind.
In fact.. you point out that time is spent groveling for more money... will that problem be better if they are groveling full-time?
special interests = money - full time will not solve this problem.
I don't think the VA GA sits "frozen" on Transportation per se. There is much heat and fire every year.
The problem is that Va is but one of four states who do not delegate transportation to the local and regional level and confine the State DOT to state-level roads.
The solution to VDOT's bankruptcy is not to raise taxes on RoVa to pay for NoVa/HR... ain't never going to happen - get over it.
I think they are moving (at glacial speed) towards an acknowledgement that the State needs to allow regions to tax for transportation but it'll have to be by referenda - which I agree with.
I think people should vote on how much they want to pay for transportation and what the projects are as opposed to having a state-wide slush fund where unelected folks allocate the money in curious ways...
it's a bad system and it needs to be reformed and few folks in Va want to continue this system and pay higher taxes into it.
Finally - the reason I post here is to encourage legislator blogs and to help prove to Mr. Peterson that in putting himself "out there" that there can be a civil discourse and that it has the potential for him to "personally" meet with his constituents on a wide range of issues... at their convenience... and his.
it's a thing we should encourage .. much like the early days of email when some of our legislators did not want it.. but over time.. because constitutents used it .. it got to the point where it was expected and legislators who would not get with it were viewed as not wanting to deal with constituents...
so we need to encourage this method of discourse... although I must say after the town hall meetings ... I have some pause...
so.. I'm at 2800 characters and I'm allowed 3000.. come back at me with what I have not addressed to your satisfaction.
"The solution to VDOT's bankruptcy is not to raise taxes on RoVa to pay for NoVa/HR... ain't never going to happen - get over it.".
I think you'll be very surprised at what happens after the 2011 redistricting (based on the 2010 census).
There is a very strong candidate for delegate in Northern Virginia. Her name is Barbara Comstock. She is a Republican challenger for the seat held by freshman Margi Vanderhye. Her position on transportation is not only miles beyond Del. Vanderhye she is miles beyond Creigh deeds.
From her web-site:
"First, we need to make relieving congestion our top priority so that we do not stall our economic recovery and growth. To that end, I support and will champion legislation mandating a Bipartisan Commission tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation plan that reprioritizes transportation funding to address traffic congestion and economic growth, and is committed to changing the state transportation funding formula so urban areas like Northern Virginia get more than 17 cents on every transportation dollar we send to Richmond.".
We ain't payin' fer no NoVer roads? Actually, you are not paying for NoVa roads now. By Ms. Comstock's statistics, NoVa is getting only 17 cents back on the transportation dollar.
More importantly, Ms. Comstock is emblematic of a new vastly more aggressive Northern Virginia politician. She is not content to sit back under the cone of silence about the ongoing fleecing of Northern Virginia (and Tidewater and Charlottesville) by Richmond. I believe she is a politically sophisticated person who will line up the many localities being ripped off by Richmond.
Virginia is urbanizing. The political implications of that urbanization will be felt in the 2010 Census and 2011 redistricting. Northern Virginia is seeing (for the first time ever) candidates who represent their constituents first and their state political parties second. Richmond's reign of terror is coming to a close.
We ain't payin' fer no NoVer roads?
How about us getting back the whole dollar we spend today and we'll use the spare 83 cents to pay for our own roads. Who will pay for roads elsewhere in the state? Don't know. All I know is: We ain't gonna keep payin' fer no RoVer roads.
I'd like to see how she got her numbers and are we talking about all localities getting the same left-overs from VDOT or are we talking about some getting back more than others?
you guys who don't believe that road maintenance costs money crack me up.
Virtually all of the current gas tax is going to maintain existing roads guy - that's the reality and the truth of that is that roads in NoVa cost a lot more to maintain than roads in RoVa.
In RoVA a simple pothole patch can be done with a flagman (instead of closing down the road and repairing at night) and it don't have to be perfect so that it can withstand thousands of cars going 70 mph.
That kind of maintenance costs a lot of money.
I would be very interested in seeing an accounting of how much the localities pay in gas tax and how much they get back in projects and maintenance and VDOT overhead/salaries.
but Groveton - an increase in the statewide tax where NoVa gets 17 cents on the dollar is your advocacy?
Why not a region-wide NoVa tax where you get ALL of it and you don't have to worry about RoVa poaching it?
give me an answer guy.. which one do you prefer and why...
and yes.. Virginia IS urbanizing and the vast majority of any new money raised is going to come from where? not RoVa... it'll be a drop in the bucket ..
the answers to NoVa transportation needs is ultimately going to come from NoVa... and if you're smart - out-of-state tolls on the interstates that weave through NoVa.
LarryG writes:
"I'd like to see how she got her numbers and are we talking about all localities getting the same left-overs from VDOT or are we talking about some getting back more than others?"
Perhaps you should ask her.
"you guys who don't believe that road maintenance costs money crack me up."
Here's part of a comment on this blog written by Sen. Petersen ...
Fairfax puts $60M into the highway and maintenance fund each year based upon our sales tax receipts (gas is collected by the state and I can't seem to get these #'s broken down by jurisdiction). Contrast that with the $250K that Ffx gets back for "secondary roads" this year and you have one hell of a problem.
I'm sorry LarryG - who is it that doesn't think maintenance costs money? People like Barbara Comstock or the crooks in Richmond. $250K for secondary roads is a quarter (25 cents) per person in FFX.
"Virtually all of the current gas tax is going to maintain existing roads guy - that's the reality and the truth of that is that roads in NoVa cost a lot more to maintain than roads in RoVa."
That's because the current gas tax hasn't been raised in something like 22 years. The current gas tax is calculated in center per gallon, not even a percentage of the cost of the gas. Meanwhile, the cost of road construction and maintenance has skyrocketed. And now you wonder why all the money is going to maintenance. It's because the tax hasn't kept up with the costs of building and maintaining roads. 30 years ago I sat in classrooms at UVA full of people from non-NoVa Virginia. Some of them seemed to understand basic accounting and economics. Have all of those people moved to NoVa "for the jobs"? This isn't a hard concept.
"In RoVA a simple pothole patch can be done with a flagman (instead of closing down the road and repairing at night) and it don't have to be perfect so that it can withstand thousands of cars going 70 mph.
That kind of maintenance costs a lot of money.
".
That's half the story. The other half isd that the country lane getting repaired by two guys in a truck serves 500 taxpayers while the urban / suburban road that takes a whole crew serves 500,000 taxpayers.
"I would be very interested in seeing an accounting of how much the localities pay in gas tax and how much they get back in projects and maintenance and VDOT overhead/salaries.".
Again, from Sen Petersen's comments:
"(gas is collected by the state and I can't seem to get these #'s broken down by jurisdiction)".
Apparently, the full time Descendants of Pocohontas who really run the state don't believe that our elected officials should be supplied with the facts. I believe that the facts would expose their arguments (and yours) as absurd.
" gas is collected by the state and I can't seem to get these #'s broken down by jurisdiction"
this is a problem that needs to be fixed.
re: 250K for roads - that's for new projects - not the maintenance...
the proper question is how much money is spent on maintenance by VDOT in Fairfax?
I think you have to use numbers that allow people to connect the dots if you want to convince them of more money for roads
and I think what you're going to find is that VDOT maintenance includes overhead and that VDOT is a very expensive provider of services.
People are not going to go for a state-wide gas tax - LEAST OF ALL - Mr. McDonnell that you seem to favor.
I'm a pragmatist and I think the most promising path for NoVa is to ask the GA to allow them to ask the people in the NoVa region if they want to pay more for roads ...keep all of the tax - and decide if they want to use VDOT for some maintenance and projects if other providers can do it cheaper.
VDOT is a mess. They not only are expensive but they pretty much like to do business their way... even on simple things like how to phase a project... or look at common-sense things that cause congestion - like signals that back up traffic from left turn lanes into travel lanes.
They are an instituionally moribund organization used to doing what they want to do and charging a pretty penny for their help.
NoVa has an MPO - MCOG-TPB. Ya'll need to go to the GA and see if they'll allow ya'll to hold a referenda on new taxes for transportation...
.. and forget about ROVA... the more ya'll do that.. the more people are convinced that you're really not interested in fixing your transportation problems but fishing around for more money from the GA.
but I'd very much like to see an accounting for each jurisdiction in terms of how much they pay in gas tax - and how much they get back in services, maintenance, operation and new infrastructure.
this is how you would make a case for raising taxes in my view.
My last two points on this thread:
"I'm a pragmatist and I think the most promising path for NoVa is to ask the GA to allow them to ask the people in the NoVa region if they want to pay more for roads ...keep all of the tax - and decide if they want to use VDOT for some maintenance and projects if other providers can do it cheaper.".
Isn't that what killed the last transportation bill? My understanding is that the Virginia constitution does not allow for unelected regional authorities to tax people. My further undrstanding is that any change to the Virginia constitution must be submitted in one elction cycle and then voted on in another. I don't really know the details but what I've been told is that a constitutional amendment put forth today could not become part of the VA constitution for 2 years. At that point, the regional authorities could get started.
It seems a lot easier to me to grant city status to all the major jurisdictions in NoVa - Fairfax, Arlington, Loudoun, Prince William. They would all have to get some new taxing authority and would all have to cooperate on transportation issues. However, they would all have to stop paying almost all of the state gas tax, sales tax surcharge, etc. If the region is responsible for its own transportation then the citizens of that region should only pay taxes into the region for transportation services.
VDOT - I actually think VDOT is something of a bright spot. When I last looked at the numbers it seemed that VDOT was getting more projects done on time and budget, cutting unnecessary costs, etc. Maybe I am just buying the storyline but I thought things were on a pretty good basis with VDOT.
You're right about the reason it was ruled illegal but there is nothing wrong with putting up a regionwide referenda where permission is granted by the people and the permission is given to their local elected officials.
Much like voting to join VRE and then that allows a 2% gas tax.
Something along those lines is legal.
what the GA tried to do was an end run ... where they imposed the taxes and then gave them to unelected officials.
another path - have the MPO direct elected...
the point - NoVa to push for more self-reliance.
going the city route might also be a good path if you can get your local elected to agree to a consolidated government.
the existing gas taxes - a good amount of them go to maintain roads of statewide significance - much like the DOTs in other states whose primary role is the major connecting roads and not local/regional roads and they get the state gas tax for that purpose.
VDOT has "prettified" the "on time and on budget" but it's smoke and mirrors...
it stated good with Phillip Schucet when he started it but they've gutted it ...
and you can verify this ... just go to that interface and try to find out about a particular project in your area in terms of projected costs and completion dates and the like.
that interface is the software version of rope-a-dope ..... you'll just waste 30 to 60 minutes chasing your tail...
it's typical of VDOT... they really do not want you involved in "their" business in the first place.
We need to do what the other 46 states have done and what JLARC and APA have recommended - let VDOT be responsible for roads of statewide significance and get them out of the local road business..
.. which is not a good thing to start with because for years and years - counties have made land-use decisions without regard to transportation consequences...and used VDOT as the holder of the "wish list" that was promised to the locals when they became concerned about the growth and traffic congestion.
The localities knew that the wish list was bogus but it served their purposes to place accountability and blame for their land-use decision on VDOT....
Many localities are not going to be near so gung-ho on some kinds of development if they have to face the voters on what they did not do to deal with the traffic.
that was what essentially killed the 3202 funding scheme.
there was no accountability ....
and the funny thing (not) is that the MPOs are run by elected officials who liked the idea of another VDOT-like entity holding bogus wish lists...
at any rate.. NoVa - and it's elected leaders .. need to craft a legal approach to more self-reliance on roads and run like heck away from state level tax increases where NoVa will be lucky to get pennies on the dollar.
The Road thing - is REALLY about citizens holding elected officials more accountable...
so I'm not at all surprised of the convoluted machinations like the 3202 legislation...
but you know... you said it was ruled illegal because the tax was going to be given to unelected officials..
which is... what...???
exactly what we do right now for the state tax....
Richmond and your local VDOT office calls the shots... ask your local officials.. or Mr. Peterson...
Here's a couple of items that folks might find interesting:
http://www.sullydistrict.org/presentations/DATAFFxCty060622.pdf Page 3
and
http://virginiadot.org/business/resources/fy-08-supplement-final.pdf
page 7
the first shows that Fairfax County has since 1981 approved almost 3/4 of a billion dollars in transportation taxes.
and locality referendums on taxes that could pay for regional projects are just as valid .... and viable...
the second is the VDOT budget that shows the annual allocations that VDOT districts like the Fredericksburg District and the NoVa area get back and they dollars are categorized so you can see how much things like maintenance actually cost... overhead....etc..
Someone with a calculator could break this down to a per capita number.
and a little more digging could produce how much NoVa actually pays in fuel taxes but just looking at the numbers... NoVa gets about 4 times as much money as the Fredericksburg District and there is about a 4- 1 population difference.
I did not did deeper... but methinks there are several citizen blogs out there that have said they want to deal with the numbers... so this opportunity remains yet to be exploited...
People familiar with the PRTC know that - that entity is allowed to collect a 2% tax on gasoline - for each jurisidiction that chooses to join that entity - in return for that entity having first dibs on the money to pay for the operating and debt expenses of VRE.
whatever is left - can be spent for other transportation projects in the member localities.
So.. why could not that same entity - right now - that most all of NoVa is a member of - have the tax increased to ...say 3 or 4% with that money going for more NoVa transportation projects?
Yes.. it would take the GA to do this but that same GA apparently agreed to the formation of the PRTC and the 2% tax at some point...
... so why not use that same legal method but just increase the tax?
If NoVa local and state elected officials made that proposal - why would the RoVa localities be opposed?
I'm looking forward for solutions rather than backward at those things that some NoVa folks feel they got shortchanged.
What are solutions going forward?
I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE POSITION THAT MORE, WIDER AND FASTER ROAD IS THE ANSWER IN NORTHERN VA. I ALSO OBJECT TO AN UNELECTED BODY HAVING AUTHORITY TO TAX FOR ANY REASON. REFERENDUMS IS THE ANSWER AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND A RESOUNDING "NO" FROM THE CITIZENS.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 2 HOURS IN THE MORNING AND THE SAME IN THE AFTERNOON. THERE IS 24 HOURS IN A DAY AND OPTIONS APLENTY - METRO, VRE, CAR POOLS. NEXT TIME YOU ARE ON 66 OR 495 OPEN YOU EYES. 99% OF CARS ARE OCCUPIED BY ONE PERSON. REDICULOUS IN MY OPINION.
for the referenda part, Fairfax says that since 1981, citizens have, in various referenda, approved $740 million in transportation.. that's not chump change.
In the Fall of 2004, two years after the 2002 region referenda went down, Fairfax citizens approved $165 million for transportation.
In all fairness, much of it not for wider roads but instead for transit, fixing bottlenecks, etc
look here:
http://www.sullydistrict.org/presentations/DATAFFxCty060622.pdf page 3
Okay.. what this tells me is that people will approve higher taxes for specific projects that they understand and approve of
... as opposed to the 2002 Referenda which was really a thinly veiled .."give us a bunch of money so we can decide what to do with it" effort.
and this is why.. I think most folks don't want to pay increased state taxes for gasoline either.. that the money goes off into the ether... and that you're lucky to get half of it back and then it will be used for projects they don't want and don't support.
it's not totally VDOT's fault but this method of doing business has greatly eroded the public trust IMHO.