Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Five things the congressional class of 2022 should do differently

Opinion

New members of Congress

Newly elected members of Congress, including Delia Ramirez of Illinois, attended their Capitol Hill orientation Monday. The Congressional Management Foundation has some suggestion for these new lawmakers.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Fitch is the president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

A few years ago, I was interviewing a young legislative correspondent for a second-term House member. She told me this: “My boss’s predecessor got elected 40 years ago and before he left office, he advised my boss to individually answer every single letter he got from a constituent.” And I thought about replying: “So you’re basing your constituent engagement strategy on a system designed for the 1980s?”

One of the most common flaws the Congressional Management Foundation has observed in the past decade is that new members of Congress simply inherit the bad habits of their predecessors. The operational demands of remote work, the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, and the outstanding progress initiated by the House Chief Administrative Officer in recent years have certainly infused more creativity in congressional operations. Yet the first-term members of the 118th Congress have an opportunity to make additional innovations.

Here are five ideas that new lawmakers in both chambers should consider before finalizing their office plans.


1. Don’t use the term “caseworker.” Congress is saddled with systems and terms invented when the last big push to enlarge congressional office staff came in the 1970s. “Caseworker” comes from the social work community, and often confuses constituents the first time they encounter a congressional staffer with that title. Some offices are getting creative with this title – and our personal favorite is to change the title to “constituent advocate.” With that title, there is absolutely no mystery who is prioritized and what the job is.

2. Shift the constituent mail operation from the legislative director to the communications director. Mail operations and workflows were largely designed in the late 1970s before most offices even had a person with the title “press secretary.” It is more efficient and logical to house all the “public relations” work, including responding to constituent mail, with the communications director. This shift should be part of the job-vetting and initial hiring process. Trying to do this after someone has been hired, and your organizational chart has been established with a legislative correspondent reporting to the legislative director, would be disruptive. This doesn’t mean the communications shop crafts all the messages – articulating policy positions should reside with the LD and legislative assistants. Yet having the CD oversee all the communications in the office allows for greater uniformity and consistency in messaging.

3. Open as few district offices as possible. Remote work during the pandemic demonstrated that most congressional work can be done remotely. You don’t need three or four district offices (and the security and rent that come with them). Unless the district is unusually large, geographically, most House members can suffice their constituents with one or two offices. Creative arrangements with municipal governments and federal buildings can be established to set up “mobile office hours.” Offices that previously have cut back on district offices report they have more of a footprint in the district because their staff conduct significantly more proactive outreach.

4. Establish modern work-flex policies for your office. Prior to the pandemic and remote work in Congress, CMF was counseling congressional offices to consider a range of work-flex options: tele-work, shared jobs, sabbaticals for employees, etc. Post-pandemic CMF’s advice has changed: You don’t have any choice – congressional offices must adopt work-flex policies or you will lose valuable staff. We talked with one freshman chief of staff in early 2021 who had already lost their LD to another office because the member refused to offer her some telework options while another office did. You won’t lose staff to K Street lobby shops and trade associations but your employees will go down the hall and work for another member with modern telework options. CMF has created a very useful Workflex Toolkit for Congress in partnership with the Society for Human Resource Management that should guide you through the questions and steps for adopting work-flex policies

5. Don’t just “respond” to the mail – build trust with constituents. Most aspects of constituent mail operations have not changed in 50 years. The workflow, the language, the review processes – all vestiges of the last century. But a 21st century constituency has Amazon-like expectations. And research is very clear – the current response type and turnaround rate of constituent mail is getting failing grades from your constituents. CMF just published a report, “ Building Trust by Modernizing Constituent Engagement,” intended to help the freshman class do it differently. It’s a how-to guide based on the last five years of CMF research both with Congress and through constituent surveys. Every office should create a Strategic Constituent Engagement Plan to guide your work in a way that does more than just “respond” to inquiries, but that builds genuine trust in our system of government and in the member of Congress.

An innovative trade association leader a few years ago would tell new employees: “Doing things this year the same way we did them last year is just an excuse for not thinking.” In 2020, when the pandemic required offices to immediately move to remote work, CMF was very impressed with the creativity and ingenuity of both leaders and managers to be responsive to the crisis and to constituents. The Class of 2022 has an opportunity to make a similar imprint on Congress, altering their mentality and operations in a way that both adheres to the lofty goals of our nation’s founders to create a more perfect union, and interact with constituents using methods expected from a 21st century constituency.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less