Outcomes-Based Governing

Is there a right way to govern? I ask this question, because as easy as it is to pound my fist at the cynical abuse of rules and processes committed by both parties when in the majority, I cannot help but to wonder that if there is a "right way," would this or any forthcoming generation of politicians even recognize it, much less employ it.

This phenomenon of "outcomes-based" governing, while it may not be entirely new, is a troubling trend that can only undermine further the already fractious relationship between the voters and those who purport to represent them. By outcomes-based governing, I simply mean the trend that "anything goes" in the quest to get desired legislation into force. Outcomes will not engender trust nearly as much as the transparency of the process used to achieve those outcomes.

The case du jour: A few weeks ago, Alabama Republican legislators crafted a bill designed to provide a method for local school systems to opt out of a state-mandated school calendar. The background, in brief, is that in late spring 2012, just weeks before the end of the school year, the state passed legislation mandating the start and end times of the school year. School cannot start before the 3rd week of August, and must end within days of Memorial Day. The result of the 2012 legislation forced school systems to scramble to adjust their 2012-2013 calendars, and was generally received negatively by all except the Alabama Tourism Department. This new bill was designed to give local systems the chance for a waiver to opt out of the mandate, and thereby the ability set their own calendars. This bill actually had some bipartisan support, the endorsement of the state superintendent of schools, and was on track for quick passage. The state Senate passed it, then the state House passed it. From there it went to committee, where all hell broke loose.

What happened in committee is still a little murky, but the 9-page bill for school flexibility came out as a 27-page bill establishing what amounts to a school voucher program. There was no substantive debate allowed on the revised bill, and both the state House and Senate passed it. The governor was supposed to sign the bill on Tuesday, but a judge issued a restraining order, and now we're at an impasse. The Republicans are appealing to the state Supreme Court, completely Republican, but the outcome is far from certain. Just for the record, this type of back-room behavior is standard operating procedure for Alabama, no matter which party is in power.

My beef is this. I'm supportive of the school flexibility bill, and in principle, I'm supportive of school choice solutions. But the manner in which the state Republicans handled this matter disgusts me. If you want a school voucher program, craft a bill, debate it and vote on it. Make a public case for it. You may win, you may lose, but at least you did it the right way. Instead, the perception is now fully entrenched that somebody hijacked a simple bill to push through something entirely different. And that perception may be the truth. While I personally think the judge is out of line in preventing a passed bill from going to the governor's desk, the Republicans only brought this upon themselves.

In the end, good legislation may not see the light of day, because somebody got greedy and tried to ram something else through the process. Outcomes-based governing is a live-by-the-sword, die-by-the-sword proposition. It fully undercuts and erodes virtue and principle. And it is clearly the wave of the future.

But it is a terrible way to govern.