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 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 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 ) has salary 55 869 CZK. The coefficient increases by 0.44 for chairman of. The salary base is thus multiplied by 1.52 and chairman of 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. The salary base is thus multiplied by 1.3 and vice-chairman of 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, the coefficients increases do not cumulate.
Part 2 ATTENDANCE AT COMMITTEE SESSIONS
General information about s Committees are the key body where the particular bills are mostly discussed and amended The number of s 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 s 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 sessions 28.11% 31.58% 2006-2010 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 : 48.65 % (45.47 % in the fifth electoral period)
Average absences during sessions of the particular s 60.00% 5. electoral period (2006-2010) 6. electoral period (2010-2013) 50.00% 48.65% 45,47% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
Average absences of chairmen during sessions (6th electoral period) 50.00% 28.47% 22.22% 21.43% 14.29% 11.76% 11.11% 6.90% 6.38% 4.26% 4.17% 2.97% 2.38% 0.00% Petition Public Administration and Regional Development Health Science, Education, Culture, Youth and Sports Social Policy Environmental Budget Foreign Affairs Economic European Affairs Election Constitutional Inspection Agricultural Average absence of chairmen during the sixth electoral period was 12.98 %.
Average absences of chairmen during 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 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% 14.10% Petition Constitutional Foreign Affairs Science, Education, Culture, Youth and Sports Budget Public Administration and Regional Development Inspection Election Economic European Affairs Health Environmental Agricultural Average absence of vice-chairmen during the sixth electoral period was 24,93 %. Social Policy
Average absences of deputies during sessions based on party affiliation 5. electoral period (2006-2010) 6. electoral period (2010-2013) 46.67% 35.82% 33.77% 33.41% 37.55% 29.10% 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 s 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% Hlavní město Praha 3. place MUDr. Jiří Koskuba ČSSD 55.56% Hlavní město Praha 12. place 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 chairmen and had more than 10% average absences during s sessions Committee chairmen Party Average absence Region Position on the list 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- chairmen in the 6. election period and had more than 20% average absences during s sessions Committee vice-chairmen Party Average absence Region Position on the list PhDr. Robin Böhnisch ČSSD 60,00% Královehradecký kraj 2. place prof. Ing. Václav Cempírek, Ph.D. TOP09-S 50,00% Pardubický kraj 3. place Mgr. Jan Farský TOP09-S 46,03% Liberecký 1.place Ing. Ladislav Šincl ČSSD 45,45% Moravskoslezský kraj 2. place Bc. Jaroslava Schejbalová TOP09-S 40,48% Jihomoravský kraj 8. place doc. PhDr. Miroslav Grebeníček, CSc. KSČM 39,29% Jihomoravský kraj 2. place Mgr. Vítězslav Jandák ČSSD 37,50% Jihočeský kraj 3. place JUDr. Stanislav Grospič KSČM 35,71% Středočeský kraj 1. place Ing. Alfréd Michalík ČSSD 32,00% Moravskoslezský kraj 14. place PhDr. Robin Böhnisch ČSSD 29,41% Královehradecký kraj 2. place Jan Hamáček ČSSD 29,17% Středočeský kraj 1. place prof. RNDr. Ivan Ohlídal, DrSc. ČSSD 28,57% Jihomoravský kraj 8. place prof. MUDr. Rom Kostřica, CSc. TOP09-S 27,59% Jihomoravský kraj 1. place MUDr. Jitka Chalánková TOP09-S 25,71% Olomoucký kraj 1. place Ing. Miroslav Bernášek ODS 25,00% Středočeský kraj 3. place JUDr. Jan Chvojka ČSSD 25,00% Pardubický kraj 6. place Mgr. Helena Langšádlová TOP09-S 23,81% Středočeský kraj 2. place Ing. František Laudát TOP09-S 23,40% Hlavní město Praha 5. place Ing. Hana Orgoníková ČSSD 21,43% Královehradecký kraj 1. place Ing. Václav Votava ČSSD 21,43% Plzeňský kraj 2. place Ing. Kateřina Konečná KSČM 20,69% Moravskoslezský kraj 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% 65.03% 66.16% 1998-2002 2002-2006 2006-2010 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 Proposed and passed bills 12.59 13.2 10.99 9.52 4.28 3.7 3.94 2.71 1998-2002 2002-2006 2006-2010 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 Differentiation of 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 5.3 5.3 1998-2002 2002-2006 2006-2010 2010-2013 Assumption that only the more competent and knowledgeable deputies are usually chosen (there is negative correlation between absences during 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 76.04 4.48% Proportion of deputies that spoke less than 10 times 9.13% 12.84% 12.80% 1998-2002 2002-2006 2006-2010 2010-2013 1998-2002 2002-2006 2006-2010 2010-2013 Proportion of deputies that did not speak even once 5.50% 3.79% 3.04% Proportion of deputies that spoke less than average 65.67% 66.09% 68.35% 71.56% 0.50% 1998-2002 2002-2006 2006-2010 2010-2013 1998-2002 2002-2006 2006-2010 2010-2013
Speeches during plenary sessions (shares based on party affiliations) 5th election period (2006-2010) 6th election period (2010-2013) 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 0% less than average less than median less than ten times not even once ČSSD SZ ODS KSČM KDU 20% 0% less than average less than median less than ten times not even once ČSSD VV ODS KSČM TOP09
Thank you for your attention!