Over the past four years our fledgling democracy has experienced the growing pains as all young democracies do. And as such each branch will attempt to test the limits and constitutionality of its actions. In the absence of precedent much of this back and forth can look like pointless squabbling, but at the end of the day when the dust settles…what has been established is the ground work or map to follow….or not follow. The route taken on that map will be decided on by future legislative/executive/judicial members respectively. What currently is at stake is the level at which Legislative and Executive folks engage the budgetary process. Issues of micro-management, individual’s salaries, inferred political opinion along with the basic time-line this entire process was intended to occur on. So I put the question to the people as well as candidates running for office. What can be done to ensure that this does not happen again? (Legislatively & Admnistratively)
On March 25, 2010,
in Campaigns, Candidate Issues, Constitution, Judicial Branch, Osage Congress, Osage Executive Branch, Platforms,
by Ryan Red Corn
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Loading ...
I don’t believe you can legislate good behavior or make anyone understand the concept of seperation of powers.
But, you can elect people who not only understand it, they can carry it out.
If you want a congress that doesn’t fight, elect thoughtful, and earnest people who have an inherent interests in maintaining harmony.
Well stated Louis. I agree with you that in many cases it boils down to self control. In addition, it is the basic understanding that when dealing with differing ideas and opinions, there will be times in which people just don’t agree. However, when these times present themselves, it is incumbent upon the leadership of our Nation to take the time and research both sides of the discussion and come up with a collective decision that focuses on what is truly best for the Nation.
The micro-managing needs to stop. I know many congresspeople were talking about the tough economice times and how we have to be frugal, but you have to stop and ask yourself what do you want this Nation to be about??
It seems the people who are being very leery of spending and wanting to stamp out any raises are trying to treat the Nation as just one big investment. They act as if it is a stock they are playing in the market and are trying to mold it and change it to see how they can get the biggest return on investment in the next couple of years.
Are these people not thinking about the valuable jobs that the nation provides?? The real people who show up to work everyday and run the programs and services that provides for our Osage brethren? When I heard congressman moaning and screaming about giving raises to our childcare workers or hearing them complain about spending in the language department I want to ask them, “do you really think you know how to run this program better than someone who has been managing it for over a decade, someone who is there everyday involved with the program??” Isn’t it not better to give our Osage workers a little bit more money, improve their lives even if our overall budget is a bit smaller, or we may not have such a big “rainy day” fund. Having well paid employees and productive employees would be our biggest asset, this would improve our human capital and is just as important if not more important than any kind of money we are saving. To continue to limit employees and cut programs over the “threat” of a worst case scenario and saying “we’re looking out for what’s best for you” is being very narrow minded. The employees and programs that are functioning everyday are the lifeblood of the nation and they need the support they ask for.
The Nation should be about jobs and improving lives, and if we are making more of profit, that should be just icing on the cake. When I hear people say statements such as “our gaming employees are getting paid too much, the Cherokee’s don’t make that much” or “we are paying these people too much, they should be getting paid this,” I wonder what’s wrong with paying our workers a little more as long as they are doing their jobs?? If a budget director comes to your office with their budget projections and they can justify their spending, GIVE THEM THE MONEY!” It seems this Congress has it backwards, they ask “well, what can you cut out of all this and still somehow have the same results?” It’s as if we are in the manufacturing sector and all we are thinking about is lean manufacturing “leaner, cut this, cut that, come on people.” For some programs this works, but for most this is the wrong way to go about it.
Bottom line, people need to think about each and every employee and let the directors do their jobs. If a director can justify his or her spending, and it looks reasonable, we should fund them. They are the ones providing the services and goods that benefit our Nation.
Regarding directors, micromanaging and departments handling their own budgets, I still believe that Congress should voice their concerns when we see certain Executive Branch people receiving 30% or 40% raises every year. My arguments are more of budgeting regarding the departments as a whole and many of your front line employees.
I can also see Congress questioning many positions where we are not sure exactly what someone does, like say “Executive Government Liasiaon” or paying someone $70,000 or higher when they may not even be living in the State of Oklahoma anymore. This looks very suspicious and is a waste of resources.
In direct response to the original question (what can be done to ensure this doesn’t happen again?) the answer is to ask some direct questions of candidates. Do you believe the appropriations process is a tool by which the Congress exerts control over the Executive branch and guides their actions? Do you believe it is the role of Congress to evaluate employee performance and budget accordingly? Do you believe Congress should have a budget before them that is amendable position by position, salary by salary?
Before anyone gets too carried away with this discussion, it is important to realize that there are some large pieces missing from this puzzle. First, there are no agreed-to methods of measuring employee or program performance. On the program side, this is due in part to the sidelining of the Office of Fiscal and Performance Review. The validity of this organization is still in litigation, but at least two candidates (for Chief) have pledged to drop the suit if elected. On the personnel side, legislation has finally been introduced that will implement the first parts of a Merit Based Employment System. This system contemplates an overhaul of the current wage scales and job descriptions to provide for an improved level of continuity and pay equality across programs and departments.
In other words, it won’t always be this way. Many of the questions on Separation of Powers issues have been raised as Congress attempts to do its job in the absence of an OFPR and a Merit Based system. Once the entire system of compensation and advancement is governed by law and an independent committee, there will be no need for Congress to micro-manage budgetary details. And once there is a fair and active OFPR, the measurement of program efficiency and performance will be standardized, and less exposed to the subjective nature of Congressional committee review.
While there may be some that wish Congress to remain involved in the finer points of the budgetary process, I am not one of them. When well-defined processes govern how the budget is developed and approved, the Congress will have large blocks of times available to consider other, more pressing legislative needs.
I would rather hear from the candidates themselves how they envision the budgeting process should occur. Congressman Red Corn refers to “well-defined processes that govern how the budget is developed and approved” and I would be interested to know what position each of the candidates have regarding this issue specifically, and how if elected they plan to contribute to the construction and implementation of this process.