John Burris: Abolish The Highway Commission

A Governor’s working group is currently debating where to find money to build more highways. They have until this December to submit recommendations to the Legislature, which must then approve. Representative Andy Davis, a consistently conservative voice inside the group, says reform and efficiencies are important first actions, instead of more money for the same Highway Commission to spend in the same way.

He’s right, and should even go one step further.

The Highway Commission is a relic from the past and should be abolished. They spend dollars inefficiently by building roads in lesser-traveled places, reward political patronage, and lack meaningful accountability or oversight.

Spending the Dollars

Comprised of five powerful men, politically appointed and therefore politically connected, the Commission divides highway dollars into ten geographic regions, each Commissioner representing two districts. Roughly seventy cents of each dollar is spent on projects the Commission collectively approves, but roughly thirty cents is spent subjectively, with each individual Commissioner choosing his own priorities.

Anecdotes about paved driveways for the politically plugged-in have likely been exaggerated over time, but it’s no stretch to say that a significant percentage of each dollar is not spent according to statewide need. It makes the process inefficient.

If the Commission was abolished, the Governor could instead instruct the Director of the Highway Department to develop an updated state highway plan, based on utilization and need. The Legislature wouldn’t appropriate money for individual projects, but instead for a department, which develops an overall plan with flexibility built in. The director would be responsible for the details and the governor accountable for the results. The legislature would provide broad oversight. It’s the way we run most every other state agency.

Politics in the Process

When asked about why the Commission exists, supporters explain – usually with a touch of condescension – that the Legislature just can’t handle something as complicated as the building of roads. They also say politics shouldn’t play a part in the process. We can’t let politicians pick and choose which county roads to pave, they say.

The arguments are dramatic and not realistic. The Legislature controls the spending for healthcare, schools, prisons, and every other core function of government. The largest line-items total in the billions. We spend only around $400 million on road construction each year. It would be a minor addition.

More importantly, each function is handled through a structured, fair, and transparent process. We have a school funding formula. One school never gets more than another school just because one had a good legislator. For roads, the money shouldn’t follow a Commissioner’s random inclinations.

Politics is engrained in the process now. The Commission has long been a stepping-stone for hopeful politicians and a landing spot for old ones. Commissioner John Burkhalter utilized his appointment to launch a campaign for Lieutenant Governor. He was replaced by Frank Scott, the competent and likable banker who’s said to be considering a run for Little Rock mayor or city director. After leaving the Legislature, former House Speaker Robert Moore, a personal friend who has good intentions, was appointed by Governor Beebe. Tom Scheuck, another Beebe appointee, is a large and well-known Democratic donor. Republican politicians filled the Commission during Huckabee’s terms, such as State Rep. Prissy Hickerson and fomer State Rep. Jonathan Barnett.

The only thing worse than already elected politicians deciding where the asphalt should go is multiple personalities with conflicted interests making the decisions in hopes of being elected some day in the future.

Accountability

There’s no question the Legislature and Governor have more accountability than a Commission most people don’t know exists. In the past, some Commissioners have enjoyed the perks of the powerful appointment. Benefits include taxpayer funded airplane flights all around the state, sometimes with family on board (the plane logs are publicly available), and oftentimes cozy business relationships with contractors and suppliers.

As with any rule, there are exceptions. Former Commissioner and now Rep. Prissy Hickerson stands out.  She serves on the working group and is well-regarded by almost all. Exceptions like her withstanding, the perception of inefficiencies around the Commission and the appearance of arrogance by many Commissioners have long plagued the supposedly non-political group of five.

Why We Should Abolish

Republicans should support abolishment because it emphasizes reform before additional money. Democrats should support for the same reasons, but also because it takes five powerful political appointments away from the Republican Governor. Most of all, it would give them input on how to spend dollars better. Today, legislators are blamed for problems they didn’t create and have no power to solve.

Before asking Legislators for more dollars, it’s fair to examine the fundamental way in which we spend the dollars we already have. There are an abundance of ideas to be considered. Rep. Davis has a list that totals tens of millions in savings. It comes close to totaling what the working group has said is the short-term funding goal.

Abolishing the Highway Commission should also be considered. It would create more accountability and ensure dollars are being spent on the state’s highest needs areas. That should come before any discussion of new revenue.

Otherwise, it will be difficult for this Legislature and this Governor to claim any banner of creativity or reform. They’ll just be perpetuating the old problems with the old way of doing things.

Voters, especially conservative ones, expect more.