WHAT'S A CON CON WORTH?

[Ed Case]

A Con Con isn't free. It takes our tax dollars to put it on. But what's a Con Con worth?

It's a fair question. We should never waste taxpayers' money, and the cost of a Con Con versus its benefit is a fair factor for us voters to consider in deciding this November whether to covene a Con Con.

It's also a question we should address now, because the early debate over a Con Con is focused almost exclusively on its cost. Con Con opponents have determined their best argument to persuade voters to reject a Con Con is not its merits but that it will cost too much. Supporters (and I'm one) say let's decide this on its merits, and that cost is a red herring, worth it and controllable.

We saw this play out publicly in the last week. Our State Legislature, most of whose members are not Con Con supporters, passed a resolution (HCR231) directing the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB), an arm of the Legislature, to estimate the projected cost of a Con Con and report back by September 1 of this year. Our Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Con Con supporters, countered with an LG-led Con Con Cost Task Force made up of state cabinet officials, Hawaii's elections officer, state legislators (majority and minority), and civic organizations, to report back by August 1st.

What's going on? The Legislature's resolution directed LRB to evaluate just one type of potential Con Con (an expensive one), while the administration's task force, in a little one-upsmanship, will evaluate a range of possible Con Con formats and expenses. Unfortunately, this represents the inevitable politicization of the debate and an overfocus on cost. The good news is that somewhere in all of this we'll have good information with which to consider this aspect of our November decision.

But let's step away and get the ground rules straight. First, let's remember that exactly how to set up a Con Con once the voters decide to convene it is up to the Legislature. There's no standard mandated Con Con format, and thus there's flexibility to design various types of Con Cons at various costs.

Here are just two examples:

-The Legislature's resolution directed that LRB evaluate a Con Con of 102 delegates (representing two per representative district) with salaries, offices, staff, etc. But we could have a Con Con of 76 delegates (one per representative district, one per senate district) at proportionately less the associated cost.

-The Legislature's resolution directed that LRB evaluate a Con Con to be held "at a leased facility in Honolulu large enough to accommodate ... general operations ..., including plenary sessions, large committee meetings, and informational sessions and to house offices for the delegates." (Whew, does the Convention Center need business?) But we do have a State Capitol that can accommodate all of that for free, and a past Con Con met at a public school for virtually nothing.

Let's also put the cost debate in context. Our Constitution in part establishes the structure and operation of our state and county governments. This year our state budget is over $10 billion and our county budgets around $2 billion. How much is it worth to take a good look, for the first time in thirty years, at whether and how we can run our government more efficiently?

Or how about a fundamental responsibility of our government, like educating our kids the best we can? Our state education system is established in our Constitution and our Department of Education spends almost $2.5 billion a year. How much is it worth ... priceless?

Once the political vog starts clearing on this aspect of the Con Con debate, I suspect the opponents of a Con Con will have pushed the cost of an assumed Cadillac Con Con well into the $10 to $20 million range, the theory being that voters might be fine with a "single digit million" Con Con but will balk at $10 million-plus. And my answer on the merits of that cost and format would be an unqualified yes, it's more than worth it. But I think with a little creativity, use of existing resources and (speaking of this site) modern technology, we can have our best Con Con ever for far less the cost.

[Daniel Leuck]

Thank you for this informative breakdown of the Con Con related activity in the legislature and executive branch. I wonder if either effort to assess the cost will incorporate use of this site as a cost reducing factor. I suppose there is little chance of the LRB effort doing so.

Is a fear of term limits for the legislature the primary factor behind their resistance to a Con Con?

[Ed Case]

Thanks, Daniel.

I believe up-to-date e-democracy, which is what this site's about, holds tremendous potential to both reduce the costs of and expand citizen involvement in a Con Con. I would think that anyone fairly evaluating the cost of a Con Con would want and have to factor in the obvious contributions to be made by e-democracy. I've known the folks at LRB for a long time and they're just as committed to e-democracy as anyone. I hope they view themselves as having enough flexibility within the artificial constraints placed on them by the Legislature's resolution to factor into their cost study the clear advantages and potential of e-democracy.

As to legislative resistance to a Con Con, it's hard to generalize because some legislators do support a Con Con, some are undecided and may end up supporting a Con Con, and some who oppose a Con Con believe sincerely that we don't need a Con Con. Having said that, it's clear that the prevailing sentiment in our Legislature is against a Con Con. And to generalize, it's probably mostly about maintaining power and control and preserving the status quo. They and the external groups whose interests they primarily represent generally believe things are fine as is, fear loss of power and control, and view a Con Con as a major threat on both fronts. That's way too bad, because we all stand to benefit from the big-picture, one-in-a-generation look at how things are and how they should be that only a Con Con will afford us.

Ed Case

[Mel]

How long does a concon last? The legislature bangs out about 3,000 bills per year, actually get about 300 or so passed in a 60-day session that includes recess days, holidays and weekends which stretches the process out to nearly 4 months (mid Jan - early May).

The cost to run this year's legislature was at $7.6 million bucks, but that also includes a small portion to keep things going during the interim. During the interim the capitol is not fully utilized, and it may be possible to hold the concon at the capitol on an odd-numbered year during the interim (hoping of course that the legislature does not need to come back for a special session).

How many days or months does a concon last? How long did the 1978 and previous ones last?

I think I would favor a single rep per district concon and one that did not include any current or former legislators.

As for other locations to hold this, the convention center may be a good alternative location or as someone previously mentioned, a public school, though that would limit the convention to be held during the summer months, the longest block of time which a school may not be used.

[digitaleye]

For the kickoff how about the largest county Stadiums? Plenty parking, could have the local bus provide free transportation to and from for the vehicle impaired, could have local talent involved to draw a larger crowd, etc....

This isn't going to be another O'ahu centric event is it? :(

for those too far to travel rent video kiosks hooked up online to be switched to the stadiums Jumbotron. HITS videoconferencing capabilities could be used no problem on the weekends off session.

of course record the whole event for on demand access for the unfortunate folks who won't get paid if they take time off of work to attend. Allow for comments to be uploaded in text, audio &/or video.

BTW ever use Google Docs for collaborative online drafting of documents?

if not, check out this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRqUE6IHTEA

just dreaming.

ConcOnline

[Rick M.]

I agree. Once we get rid of the roadblocks to bringing Hawaii into the 21st century and making it easier to get more development going, who cares how much the constitutional convention costs. Even it it costs the $200 million that the opponents say it will, we'll make it back in taxes with all the new business development once we remove roadblocks that keep businesses from getting anything done in this backward state.

[Ed Case]

I agree with Rick M's basic point that a better-organized and updated government structure that could come out of a Con Con would substantially improve business activity and generate increased tax revenues far in excess of the actual cost of a Con Con. But just to be sure we don't get offtrack on the outside cost estimates, the absolute highest estimate I've heard anyone make, and that's from those who want to generate a high cost figure in order to bolster their opposition to a Con Con, is $20 (twenty) million, not $200 (two hundred) million.

[Ed Case]

Someone rightly reminded me the other day that funding limitations usually spur imaginative and cost-effective solutions. So keeping dreaming, digitaleye; there are a lot of cost-saving alternatives out there if there's a commitment to find them. And I definitely agree on the O'ahu-centric comment; a true Con Con can't be, and, especially with all the resources available today that weren't around in the last one in '78, there are just no excuses for it.

[Peter Kay]

Great post, Ed. This is precisely the kind of leadership we need from "Elder Statesmen" such as yourself.

Cost is an extremely interesting discussion. Speaking from the private sector point of view, whenever you go to the accounting department and ask to spend money, the answer is always, "No!".

And so begins the game. The game of cost vs. benefit. The 'ol "Cost Benefit Analysis" shuffle where one has to demonstrate that the expense (investment!) will provide a reasonable return on capital risk.

I don't see how any framing of ConCon cost, whether 1, 5, 10, or 20 million, can in any way be meaningful or productive unless it's balanced by the benefits.

Can one put forth the idea that a ConCon resulting in a restructuring of various government services could reduce the state budget by, let's say 0.1% (one tenth of one percent)? That would be equal to $10M per year. Which multiplied by the 10 years between ConCons adds up to a $100M savings.

Is that worth spending $20M (assuming it would be so outrageous) ? Even a "Greedy Venture Capitalist" would be satisfied about getting a 500% ROI over 5 years. If we back off the costs to $10m and even get more conservative by setting a goal of reducing the state budget by 0.05%, (something that even an entry level accounting major could do blindfolded) we're still at saving $50m over 10 years.

Now I know it's effectively impossible for governments to think about increasing productivity to the point where budgets are actually trimmed while increasing services, but in the real world, this happens every day.

To me, if we're going to talk about cost, we have to talk about benefit. If we can't talk about benefit, then even $1 is too much.

Is it realistic to expect we can reduce the state budget by more than the cost of a ConCon? Personally, I think the number we're talking about, as you pointed out, is so manini compared to the overall state budget that it's essentially a rounding errror.

[Kaunaloa]

If an entire legislative session is $8M [i'm rounding up] you'd have to TRY REALLY HARD to get a concon to cost over $10M.

I continue to concur with Ed re: cost -- it's a red herring; there's several reasons to not have a concon, spending a fraction of one percent of the annual budget surely isn't one of them ...

[Ed Case]

Each Con Con sets how long it'll last. The only rules are that the Con Con has to start no later than five months before the next general election after election of the delegates, and the Con Con has to make any proposed amendments available to the public no later than a month before the election at which voters will decide whether to accept the Con Con's proposals. So, in sum: (1) the voters decide whether to convene a Con Con; (2) the Legislature decides how many delegates and when and how they'll be elected and appropriates the money for the Con Con; and (3) the Con Con decides how long it'll go, how it'll run and what it'll propose to the voters and when.

In general, past Con Cons have run about sixty working days spread over about three months in the summer/fall before a general election. This compares with the Legislature, which runs for sixty session days over about 3 1/2 months. But one important difference is that the Legislature is bicameral (House and Senate) and bills have to clear both houses and then go through conference, while the Con Con is unicameral (one body) and so should be able to get through its business quicker.

The annual legislative budget is over $35 million, but that includes various legislative agencies like the Legislative Reference Bureau, the Legislative Auditor and the Ombudsman. If you take just the House and Senate, that's about $20 million annually.

But that's year-round, because although the Legislature meets just 60 session days over about 3 1/2 months (plus special sessions), the legislators get paid year-round like many of their staffs and their offices are open as well. In contrast, the Con Con is just for the time provided: Con Con delegates, staff and resources are just for the duration of the Con Con, not year-round.

What this all means is that even if a Con Con took as many working and total days as a normal legislative session, had comparable staff, and did about what's done in a legislative session, it should cost far less than a total year-round legislature at $20 million (especially if the Con Con uses the State Capitol resources that the Legislature wouldn't then be using). And that's why the Legislature's own resolution, HCR 231 (linked in my initial post above), said that if the cost of the '78 Con Con, which was a pretty extensive one, was adjusted to today's dollars, it would amount to no more than $8 million.

[Ed Case]

On Peter and Kaunaloa's comments, if a Con Con can't find at least its cost in savings from improved structure and operation of our $12 billion/yr. state and county governments, well ... it's just not possible.

[Curtis Muraoka]

If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.

My overarching question is, are we satisfied with what our constitutional tools have to offer?
If the answer is NO, then the next question is, Does the current legislature have the will to make relevant changes?
I say "NO" to both, therefore a Con Con is the only way to move forward..

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Do Democrats have too much power? If Republicans are irrelevant in Hawaii, do we have a Dem monopoly on our hands?
I'm nonpartisan, but the way key Democrats (Roz Baker and Marcus Oshiro) treated charter school children as second class citizens this session seems to illustrate that same kind of corruption caused by absolute power. They were more interested in Gov. Lingle's support of charter schools, as they were about students in charter schools. Putting politics before kids--what is that???
A ConCon would serve to balance the imbalance.