Helen Sommers: An Oral History

Chapter 23
How the Legislature changed
in 36-year career
Monahan: How do you see the change in the power
of the Legislature over your 36-year career, comparing
1973 and now?
Representative Sommers: With a Legislature that met
only a few months every year or two and temporary
staff, the Legislature didn’t have near the power of
the executive branch. When session was over, we’d
leave Olympia and the executive branch was totally
in charge. But the big change for the Legislature
came with a full-time professional staff that was
able to research issues from a legislative perspective,
which was often a different perspective than
the executive branch.
Legislators spent more time year-round with ongoing
sessions and interim gatherings. And, certainly
technology also was one of the equalizers! Technology
gave us ready access to all kinds of information. The
various state departments put out information and
shared it with both the executive and the legislative
branches of Government.
The members and the staff were so much better
prepared and had access to knowledge. We had
the ability to mandate the way the information was
presented and to improve the access to information.
Technology made very significant changes to
the process that made the Legislature more effective
and an equal partner in governing. Before the
1970s, the Legislature was a very weak branch of
government because all the information funneled
down from the executive branch . That changed.
Monahan: Compare the way the two parties – the
majority and the minority – worked together then,
and how they work together now. What are the
major changes over the years you served?
Representative Sommers: Camaraderie in 1970s - 80s
was very different then than now. There were friend-
ships and congeniality on both sides of the aisle.
Social gatherings at the end of the day brought
legislators together regardless of their party! There
was nothing wrong with legislators from both parties
being friends. The dynamics are very different now.
The power of those in charge – leadership and
chairs – also has changed. Year-round access and
information certainly gives more power. Those
with decision making authority are in control of
the process. The relationships, including friendships
between the majority and the minority, have diminished.
Sadly, politics has changed in so many ways.
Monahan: With the changing role of the Legislature
as a more equal branch of government than in the
years before you were elected, what are your thoughts
on a full-time Legislature with fewer members?
I read an article by Shelby Scates, in the Seattle
Weekly (1999) “Missing the
bad old days.” Scates interviewed
Don Brazier, a former
legislator (R-Yakima–1967-69),
Chair of the Utilities & Transportation
Commission, and a
member of the Public Disclosure
Commission. Brazier also
was a noted historian and
author with his books “History
of the Washington Legislature
Don Brazier
1854-1963” and his second
volume covering 1965-1982.
At that time, Brazier said Washington had the
second-largest Legislature in the western states. He
suggested reducing the size of the Legislature and
making it full-time with a commensurate salary
increase for fewer elected members. He suggested, at
the time, a 64-member House and 32-member Senate.
What are your thoughts on a smaller, full-time
Legislature and how do you think that would work?
Representative Sommers: It’s too bad that we set
aside the idea of a smaller number, but a full-time
Legislature. I agree with the concept.
But one of the major steps we did take was the
professional full-time staff. That was a huge change
for us, and certainly toward a more efficient, better
prepared, more knowledgeable Legislature. The
change meant legislators were more in the loop than
ever before. Legislators are involved with Olympia