House
Speaker Jim Black's Remarks to the NCCBI
Legislative Conference
|
“Government should be run more like a
business.”
How many times have you and I heard that phrase?
Or even used it ourselves?
I know that I have.
After more than 30 years of running a small
business, and a little more than a year as
speaker of the House, I've decided that we cannot
run government exactly like you and I run our
businesses.
In my optometry practice, which is a small
business, I can usually accomplish whatever I
want. I haven't fired too many people during my
30-plus years in business, but there's no doubt
that I have that authority.
If my employees don't see things my way, and
don't carry out my instructions, they could pay
the ultimate consequence.
I don't have the power to fire members of the
House. They're elected and sent to Raleigh to
represent the people in their districts. I
pledged on the day I was elected speaker that I
would give all 119 other members of the House an
opportunity to represent the people who elected
them to the General Assembly. And I will not back
down on that pledge.
But I think we can-- and should-- operate all
three branches of state government more like a
business.
In the House, that means maintaining our focus on
the end product-- the legislation that we pass,
while never forgetting that our customers are the
taxpayers and citizens of North Carolina.
Like a good business, we should do our work as
efficiently as possible.
That's what I promised you I'd do last year. And
that's exactly what we did.
By working closely with Marc Basnight and our
Senate counterparts, we were able to adopt a
biennial budget before July 1-- for the first
time In two decades.
We got the budget out by making that our top
priority. We asked the appropriations
subcommittees to meet twice a day-- and they did.
We asked the budget writers in the House and
Senate, the Democrats and Republicans, to work
cooperatively, and to avoid rhetoric and
game-playing. That's what they did.
After we passed a budget, we didn't dawdle in
Raleigh. We wrapped up our work and adjourned the
shortest “long” session since 1973.
I intend to do the same thing in the upcoming
short session. I want us to do our jobs and
adjourn. There is absolutely no reason for us to
stay in session until Halloween. That's what
happened during the last “short”
session.
I'll be disappointed if we're still meeting in
July.
To keep the “short” session short, we
need to remember that the primary purpose of the
session is to adjust the budget
As far as I'm concerned, everything else is
secondary.
If there are routine, non-controversial issues
that we can resolve quickly, we'll take them up.
For anything even slightly controversial, someone
is going to have to make a strong case that it
cannot wait until next year before we'll take it
up.
Anecdotes and horror stories about what might
happen if legislation is not passed will not be
good enough. I want proof beyond a reasonable
doubt that a controversial bill cannot wait until
the 2001 session.
I'll probably catch a little flack for that
stand. The editorial writers and loyal opposition
will probably say that we're afraid to take up
controversial issues because it's an election
year.
They may even say that we're dodging our
responsibility.
My answer will be simple. We are carrying out our
responsibility to maintain a part-time
legislature by getting “short” sessions
back to their intended purpose-- adjusting the
budget.I don't know about you, but I don't hear
any great cry out there for a full-time,
professional legislative branch of government.
And I am going to do all that I can through
better management to slow the creep toward a
full-time legislature.
I may decide that we need a constitutional
amendment to limit the length of sessions. But
I'm not ready to take that dramatic step yet.
My deep-seated and long-held belief in a
part-time legislature Isn't the only reason that
I want us to focus on the budget this year.
It's going to take all of our combined skills and
talents just to craft the budget.
You will hear a little later about the financial
squeeze that we face. Tax cuts, natural
disasters, lost court cases, recent bond Issues
and big-ticket commitments that we must finish
mean we don't have any excess revenue.
Other states are flush, and are expanding
programs and cutting taxes this year.
We've already done both. This year, we don't have
any money to cut taxes substantially or to launch
bold new Initiatives.
That does not mean we cannot look ahead. We can--
and should-- begin talking about our long-range
priorities. While our revenue picture looks
brighter a few years down the road, there will
never be enough money to do all that we want to
do.
We simply must agree on some common goals.
One of my priorities for the future is to
implement the recommendations of the Task Force
on Rural Prosperity. My friend Erskine Bowles
will talk to you about that later on today. I
have supported the work of that task force from
the beginning, and have made a commitment to
support the group's efforts.
But we can't do it all this year.
We can't overhaul the mental health system this
year, either.
We can't do any number of things that are going
to cost money.
We can, however, start setting priorities for the
future, and try to get away from “management
by crisis.”
A good business does not bounce from crisis to
crisis. It doesn't just look at the next few days
or weeks. Truly visionary business leaders cast
their eyes to the future.
State government should do the same.
Before we can take the long view, we must focus
on our budget priorities for this year.
It's no secret where my priorities lie. We must
follow through on our commitments of the past few
years.
The first commitment is to raise teacher pay to
the national average. That will require roughly
$250 million this year.
As far as I'm concerned, that money comes off the
top when we begin writing the budget. That is my
highest priority.
We also must follow through on Smart Start
expansion. We must give our state employees a pay
raise. We must fund the bonuses under the ABCs
plan. And we must make sure our schools have the
money the need to hire the teachers for their
booming enrollments.
As you will hear in a moment from David Crotts,
it will be difficult for us to meet those
obligations.
Outside of the budget, my top priority is to pass
a capital improvements plan for higher education.
I've said over and over again that our inability
to reach an agreement on a bond Issue last year
was my biggest disappointment of the session.
I have made it clear to the House members of a
study commission on the issue that I want them to
bring us a bill that will pass this year.
I have also urged university and business leaders
in Charlotte and across the state to work
together to build support for a higher education
capital improvements plan. I am glad to see this
organization taking a lead in that effort. With
your help, we will pass a bill this year.
While I want to focus like a laser beam on the
budget bill during the session, I want all of us
to start looking at the bigger picture.
What are our priorities as a state over the next
five years?
What are our biggest needs? How can we best meet
them? And how can we pay for It?
I've been concerned for some time that we, as
government officials, find it difficult to take a
long-term view. All too often, we govern in a
crisis mode, reacting to the latest audit or
newspaper story.
In government, like most everything else, the
squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I want to see if we can't do better at
preventative maintenance.
That need for a long-term view is the major
reason I pushed for the creation of a tax policy
study commission. It's time for a comprehensive
look at our tax system, to make sure that it
remains fair and equitable.
I'd like for us to take an in-depth look at the
state's regulatory system.
I probably hear more complaints from business
people about state inspectors and regulators than
any other topic.
All too often, I fear, our state inspectors have
developed an “us against them”
attitude. They see the business they are
regulating as the enemy.
Their attitude should be “us with
them,” regulators joining with businesses to
protect our workers and consumers.
Having said that, I need to make one thing clear.
I am not talking about relaxing rules and
regulations and endangering lives and health. I
am talking about reasonable enforcement of the
rules.
I have no problem with state regulators coming
down hard on businesses that repeatedly disregard
the rules. But it troubles me greatly when I hear
of inspectors who harass honest, hard-working
business people who are trying to comply with
regulations that seem to change on a regulator's
whim.
I'm sure some of you are skeptical about our
ability to take a long-range view.
There were plenty of skeptics four years ago who
predicted that the governor and the General
Assembly would not have the political will to
follow through on a plan to raise our teachers'
pay to the national average.
They predicted that the Excellent Schools Act
would become the latest in a list of education
initiatives that fell by the wayside.
Those skeptics were wrong. Working together,
Democrats and Republicans, the House and the
Senate, and the executive branch, we followed
through on that commitment.
There's no good reason that we can't use the same
approach In overhauling our mental health system,
and looking at our regulatory system, and in
tackling the other problems that we face as a
state.
That's another way that we should operate
government more like a business. We should
develop long-range strategies to accomplish our
goals. And then we should work together to carry
them out.
Thank you.
Back to main page
|
|
|
