10/06/2014
Analysis of performance of the members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliement Jonáš Rais
Contents • How to measure performance of members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament? • Attendance of deputies at committee sessions • Changes in deputies´ behavior over time (other indicators)
Part 1
MEASURING PERFORMANCE OF DEPUTIES
How to measure performance of members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament?
• Measuring performance of the deputies is problematic – There is no available indicator that can sufficiently capture both activity and efficiency of the deputies – Not only the particular indicators provide only limited view of the deputies’ performance, but their measurement is often problematic – Best solution is to study wide range of indicators that can jointly provide more precise and comprehensive view of performance
Available indicators • • • • •
Attendance at committee sessions Participation in voting on proposed bills Parliamentary print representation Passing bills success rate Activity during plenary sessions
Salary of the deputies during the sixth electoral period (2010-2013) • Salary of a deputy is set as the salary base (from 1.1.2011 till 31.12.2014 it was 51 731 CZK) multiplied by coefficient 1.08. Deputy without any post (such as chairman/vice-chairman of committee) has salary 55 869 CZK. • The coefficient increases by 0.44 for chairman of committee. The salary base is thus multiplied by 1.52 and chairman of committee has salary 78 631 CZK. Therefore, the performance of duties of the chairman is evaluated at 22 762 CZK. • The coefficient increases by 0.22 for vice-chairman of committee. The salary base is thus multiplied by 1.3 and vice-chairman of committee has salary 67 250 CZK. Therefore, the performance of duties of the vice-chairman is evaluated at 11 381 CZK. • In the event that a deputy is chairman/vice-chairman of more than one committee, the coefficients´ increases do not cumulate.
Part 2
ATTENDANCE AT COMMITTEE SESSIONS
General information about committees • Committees are the key body where the particular bills are mostly discussed and amended • The number of committees continually increased during the past 4 electoral periods • The only available sources of such information are the non-compulsory attendance rolls Period
Average
Modus
Number of committees
1998-2002
1,4
1
14
2002-2006
1,5
1
15
2006-2010
1,7
2
18
2010-2013
2,2
2
19
Committee sessions attendance Average absences during committee sessions 28.11%
2006-2010
31.58%
2010-2013
• Deputies were absent during the last electoral period (2010-2013) by 3.47 percentage points more than in the previous period (2006-2010) • On average the most absent during the sixth electoral period (similarly to the fifth electoral period) were the deputies in the Petition committee: 48.65 % (45.47 % in the fifth electoral period)
Average absences during sessions of the particular committees 5. electoral period (2006-2010) 60.00% 48.65% 50.00% 45,47% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
6. electoral period (2010-2013)
Average absences of chairmen during committee sessions (6th electoral period) 50.00%
28.47% 22.22%
21.43% 14.29%
Petition Public Health committee Administration committee and Regional Development committee
11.76%
Science, Social Policy Environmental Education, committee committee Culture, Youth and Sports committee
11.11%
Budget committee
6.90%
Foreign Affairs committee
6.38%
Economic committee
4.26%
4.17%
2.97%
2.38%
European Affairs committee
Election committee
Constitutional committee
Inspection committee
0.00% Agricultural committee
• Average absence of chairmen during the sixth electoral period was 12.98 %.
Average absences of chairmen during committee sessions (6th electoral period) 50.00%
44.44%
22.22% 21.43% 14.29% 12.50% 11.76% 11.11%
6.90%
6.38%
5.45%
4.26%
4.17%
3.45%
2.38%
0.00%
0.00%
• Average absence of chairmen during the sixth electoral period was 12.98 %.
Average absences of vice-chairmen during committee sessions (6th electoral period) 38.35% 32.07%
31.53%
31.11%
29.84%
27.83% 23.99%
23.46% 19.17%
18.59%
17.65%
17.65% 14.13%
Petition committee
Constitutional Foreign Affairs Science, Budget Public Inspection committee committee Education, committee Administration committee Culture, Youth and Regional and Sports Development committee committee
Election committee
Economic committee
European Affairs committee
Health Environmental Agricultural committee committee committee
• Average absence of vice-chairmen during the sixth electoral period was 24,93 %.
14.10%
Social Policy committee
Average absences of deputies during committee sessions based on party affiliation 5. electoral period (2006-2010)
6. electoral period (2010-2013)
46.67%
37.55%
35.82% 33.77% 29.10%
33.41%
28.37%
27.38%
21.38%
14.52%
ODS
ČSSD
VV
TOP09-S
KSČM
KDU-ČSL
SZ
Did the absences influence success in the early elections in 2013? Success of candidate deputies with more than 50% average absences during committees sessions Deputy Party Average absence Region Position on the list JUDr. Michal Hašek ČSSD 87.75% Jihomoravský kraj 2. place Bc. Jan Pajer ODS 85.19% Královehradecký kraj 5. place Mgr. Jana Černochová ODS 75.00% 3. place Hlavní město Praha MUDr. Jiří Koskuba ČSSD 55.56% 12. place Hlavní město Praha Ing. Adam Rykala ČSSD 55.05% Moravskoslezský kraj 3. place Mgr. Vlasta Bohdalová ČSSD 53.52% Jihočeský kraj 2. place MUDr. Vít Němeček, MBA ODS 52.73% Liberecký kraj 4. place
Success of deputies that were committee chairmen and had more than 10% average absences during committees sessions Region Position on the list Committee chairmen Party Average absence Ing. Hana Orgoníková ČSSD 50.00% Královehradecký kraj 1. place JUDr. Stanislav Polčák TOP09-S 44.44% Hlavní město Praha 2. place doc. RNDr. Anna Putnová, Ph.D., MBA TOP09-S 21.43% Jihomoravský 2. place
Did the absences influence success in the early elections in 2013? Success of deputies that were vice-committee chairmen in the 6. election period and had more than 20% average absences during committees sessions
Committee vice-chairmen PhDr. Robin Böhnisch prof. Ing. Václav Cempírek, Ph.D. Mgr. Jan Farský Ing. Ladislav Šincl Bc. Jaroslava Schejbalová doc. PhDr. Miroslav Grebeníček, CSc. Mgr. Vítězslav Jandák JUDr. Stanislav Grospič Ing. Alfréd Michalík PhDr. Robin Böhnisch Jan Hamáček prof. RNDr. Ivan Ohlídal, DrSc. prof. MUDr. Rom Kostřica, CSc. MUDr. Jitka Chalánková Ing. Miroslav Bernášek JUDr. Jan Chvojka Mgr. Helena Langšádlová Ing. František Laudát Ing. Hana Orgoníková Ing. Václav Votava Ing. Kateřina Konečná
Party
Average absence
Region
Position on the list
ČSSD TOP09-S TOP09-S ČSSD TOP09-S KSČM ČSSD KSČM ČSSD ČSSD ČSSD ČSSD TOP09-S TOP09-S ODS ČSSD TOP09-S TOP09-S ČSSD ČSSD KSČM
60,00% 50,00% 46,03% 45,45% 40,48% 39,29% 37,50% 35,71% 32,00% 29,41% 29,17% 28,57% 27,59% 25,71% 25,00% 25,00% 23,81% 23,40% 21,43% 21,43% 20,69%
Královehradecký kraj Pardubický kraj Liberecký Moravskoslezský kraj Jihomoravský kraj Jihomoravský kraj Jihočeský kraj Středočeský kraj Moravskoslezský kraj Královehradecký kraj Středočeský kraj Jihomoravský kraj Jihomoravský kraj Olomoucký kraj Středočeský kraj Pardubický kraj Středočeský kraj Hlavní město Praha Královehradecký kraj Plzeňský kraj Moravskoslezský kraj
2. place 3. place 1.place 2. place 8. place 2. place 3. place 1. place 14. place 2. place 1. place 8. place 1. place 1. place 3. place 6. place 2. place 5. place 1. place 2. place 4. place
Part 3
CHANGES IN DEPUTIES’ BEHAVIOR OVER TIME
Deputies’ performance over time • The analyzed data cover the 3rd (1998-2002), 4th (2002-2006), 5th (2006-2010) and 6th (2010-2013) election period • Individual indicators provide only limited view of the deputies’ performance but can jointly provide more precise and comprehensive view
Participation in voting on proposed bills Average active voting 73.50%
65.91% 1998-2002
2002-2006
65.03% 2006-2010
66.16% 2010-2013
Average excuses from voting 7.89%
3.61%
4.39%
0.21% 1998-2002
2002-2006
2006-2010
2010-2013
• By voting, the deputies express their agreement/disagreement with the proposed bills and therefore represent the interest of their electorate • We can differentiate 5 different situations – active voting (the deputy gave his aye or nay), he abstained, was not logged in the system or excused himself from attending
Passing bills success rate • Differentiation of
Proposed and passed bills 10.99
4.28
9.52 3.7
1998-2002
13.2
12.59
2002-2006
3.94
2006-2010
2.71
2010-2013
The average number of passed bills per deputy The average number of proposed bills per deputy
Passing bills success rate 38.93%
38.92% 31.30%
20.53% 1998-2002
2002-2006
2006-2010
2010-2013
deputy – initiator of the bill deputy – signatory of the bill is not possible
• Higher number of proposed and passed bills does not necessarily increase welfare (it is often the reverse) • Higher success rate when pushing bills indicates more capable deputy
Parliamentary print representation Average number of prints 7.56
6.35
1998-2002
2002-2006
5.3
5.3
2006-2010
2010-2013
• Assumption that only the more competent and knowledgeable deputies are usually chosen (there is negative correlation between absences during committee sessions and print representation)
Activity during plenary sessions • Representation of electorate during discussion of proposed bills • Difficult to discern relevancy and quality of particular speeches • The averages are cleaned of speeches of chairmen and vice-chairmen of the Parliament
Activity during plenary sessions Average number of speeches 89.05
85.36 78.43
1998-2002
Proportion of deputies that spoke less than 10 times
2002-2006
2006-2010
12.80%
2006-2010
2010-2013
9.13% 76.04
2010-2013
Proportion of deputies that did not speak even once 5.50%
4.48%
1998-2002
2002-2006
Proportion of deputies that spoke less than average 71.56%
3.79%
3.04%
12.84%
68.35% 65.67%
66.09%
1998-2002
2002-2006
0.50% 1998-2002
2002-2006
2006-2010
2010-2013
2006-2010
2010-2013
Speeches during plenary sessions (shares based on party affiliations) 6th election period (2010-2013)
5th election period (2006-2010)
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
SZ ODS KSČM KDU
0% less than less than less than average not even median ten times once
ČSSD
VV ODS KSČM TOP09
20%
0% less than less than less than average not even median ten times once
ČSSD
Thank you for your attention!
