Other transcripts

Transcripts

February 10, 2004

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
· Legislative Leadership
· Environmental Agenda
In-Studio Guests:
· Stan Turley, foremer Speaker of the House and Senate President;
· Randall Gnant, former Senate President;
· Sandy Barr, Sierra Club (Grand Canyon chapter)

>> Michael Grant:
Tonight on "Horizon", two Republican lawmakers will soon move to smaller offices after losing their committee chairmanship for running afoul of house leaders. We'll talk to past leaders to get a sense of what goes on behind the scenes and how such matters should be handled. Also environmental organizations take their causes to the state's capital. We'll take a look at environmental issues before lawmakers good. Evening I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to "Horizon". Two democratic presidential primaries today, Virginia and Tennessee, with 85% of the votes counted in Virginia Massachusetts senator John Kerry is winning with 51% of the vote. North Carolina senator Edwards is second with 27%. Followed by general Wesley Clark with 9%. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean with 7%. The polls closed an hour ago in Tennessee so far Kerry is winning in that primary. But there's just 4% of the votes being reported. Arizona state university is announcing it has entered into a $43.7 million partnership with the United States Army. The Army awarded them a cooperative agreement to create the Army flexible display center at the ASU research park. Flexible displays are low powered computer displays that can be continually refreshed with new data and carried in the field by the military. They can supply information on troops and enemy positions and movements or weather and environmental conditions. University representatives say the award was the result of representation of the Arizona bio-design Institute and the research infrastructure bill will have a look at that technology Monday night on "Horizon". Representatives Tom O'halloran of Sedona and Pete Hershberger of Tucson began packing belongings in house offices today as a consequence of being stripped of their chairmanships. They must vacate those offices which will be assigned to new committee chairs. Jake flake removed them last week after going to the media saying the speaker prevented bills from going to their committees. They were won the IRE of house leadership for increased funding for CPS reform. In a moment I'll talk to two former leaders about the politics of leadership and the difficulty involved in handling these situations but first Paul Atkinson tries to make sense of happened.

>> Paul Atkinson:
Representative Tom O'Halloran spoke to various groups assembled on the lawn. He was invited because of his work on water issues and because he chairs the house committee on water and Native American affairs or at least he used to. He and the Human Services chair were removed from their committee posts after they went to capital reporters complaining Jake flake wouldn't let their committees hear any bills. Hershberger was asked about that on "Horizon" talking about a growing split between moderate and conservative lawmakers.

>> Michael Grant:
I understand you are being published by the speakers not assigning bills to the committee.

>> Pete Hershberger:
He is not assigning any of my bills or any bills to my committee. I'm having ongoing dialogues with him to work it out.

>> Paul Atkinson:
Representative Andy Biggs, a conservative, defended the speaker's actions.

>> Andy Biggs:
These are the speaker's committees. When you stand up on the floor to make an announcement, you say Mr. Speaker your committee will meet with your permission. The speaker has 16 committees now. If he decides he only wanted is it he could disband four and only have 12. He could expand to however many he wants. These are the speaker's committees and the speaker does have the right to assign bills where he wants to.

>> Paul Atkinson:
Empty boxes in Pete's office will soon be full as he and O'halloran must give up this more spacious offices to the new committee chairs.

>>Pete Hershberger:
I will share an assistant and it will be a smaller office, that's correct. That's the price you pay.

>> Paul Atkinson:
They are more upset about the bills not being heard.

>> Ptom O'Halleran:
I understand the speaker does have the power to do that but as far as public policy goes holding of bills, threats of holding bills, I don't think there's any room in any government for that. Freedom of speech is something that is an American value in a none of us want to give up. People's representatives should have that value also.

>> Peter Hershberger:
They are taking away the chairmanship at that point was the worst because it deprived the citizens of Arizona of two very important committees. Again, this is the open branch of government and for four weeks the citizens of Arizona had no human' services or natural resources committee. That's a disservice to the citizens.

>> Paul Atkinson:
Last time a chairmanship was taken away was the summer of 1990, that's when the speaker of the house took away a chairmanship of a committee. Aldridge led a conservative revolt to resolve a budget crisis. The last time bills were kept from being heard, just last year. That's when moderate Republican senators spoiled a budget compromise by holding out for more money for education and children's programs. As a consequence, the bills they sponsored couldn't get a hearing in the house.

>> Peter Hershberger:
That doesn't make it right. What kind of government are we going to have? I think the citizens of Arizona expect the legislative branch of government to be the open branch of government. They expect us to work with ideas and work together to compromise on issues that best
serve the issues of Arizona. Rather than being dictated by a few.

>> Paul Atkinson:
House speaker Flake says what happened happened and it's time to get back to the business at hand.

>> Jake Flake:
In the regard of removing the two chairman from they are committees, I have done it. I felt like I did what I had to do and to me it's over. It's over and behind me. We just need to move on from here.

>> Paul Atkinson:
They insist the whole matter could have been handled better.

>> Tom O'Halleran:
Our government should be able to -- those representatives of our government of this great house here should be able to say what they feel and vote their conscience. Leadership needs to be able to control the environment to a certain extent but that doesn't mean they control the values and minds of the representatives. It means to the control the process. You don't have to threaten people to control that process. You can sit down and include people at the table. You can be open about the discussion process. That's what we have been working for for a few years here now. That doesn't help that process along.

>> Peter Hershberger:
In the future the leadership can be more clear on the expectations ahead of time rather than dropping the hammer without any comments. And we can compromise. In the Republican party, we have different views. We can come to some agreement in the Republican party and go forward from there. Rather than one side of the Republican party dictating that.

>> Jake Flake:
I felt like I have done what I had to do and evidently they felt like they did what they had to do. So, I don't know if we have learned any lessons. It's jut a matter of taking situations as they come and doing the best you can and that's all I've been able to do.

>> Michael Grant:
Joining me now is legislative veteran Stan Turley. He served as both speaker of the house and senate president at different points in his more than 20 years at the state's capital. Also here is former senate president Randall Gnant who wrote a book on how the legislative process work. Good to see. Mr. Turley it's been a long time. Good to see you.

>> Stan Turley:
Good to see you.

>> Michael Grant:
We were joking that the speaker certainly caught their attention with this move. Put it in some context for us. How unusual, in your experience, is it for committee chairmanships to be pulled?

>> Stan Turley:
It's quite unusual. Although, I have seen it done in the early -- early on in my career in a coalition we had. There were three committee chairmanships pulled. I think as much because the committee chairman themselves distanced themselves from the process as the speaker being arbitrary at that time. But it has been -- my first committee chairmanship came as a result of that effort.

>> Michael Grant:
It's really kind of a nuclear bomb, though, of leaderships weapons, is it not?

>> Stan Turley:
Yeah. I think it's a last resort. I -- it's -- I wouldn't second guess anybody but I -- I never had to take a chairmanship away. I did make a democrat chairman when the idea was that all the Republicans would have the all the chairmanships. I put Pauly Rosenbaum in as chairman of administration and got flack over that but --

>> Michael Grant:
Did that lead to interesting discussions in caucus?

>> Stan Turley:
Yeah, it did, but we all went through it.

>> Michael Grant:
Mr. Gnant, you had the experience when you were chair of senate probes under then senate president burns of bills not being assigned to your committee that should have been assigned to your committee. That's another form of discipline, is it not?

>> Randall Gnant:
Yeah, it is. You know, Michael this whole debate centers around when you believe leadership to be. Way too many people that in addition to electing a leader you are automatically designating everyone else to be followers. You are supposed to do what they are told to do. Follow that along for just a minute. If that's the case, everyone -- after you pick your leaders everyone else should be able to go home. And the president and the speaker should be able to duke it out with the government. Obviously that's not the way our system is set up. On the other hand, if you are going to honor and respect individual it's make their own choices based on what they believe is best for the district and the state, then it seems counter product to then punish them for doing what is in their best interest.

>> Michael Grant:
This is a lot like herding cats. You have 60 member in the house and 30 members in the Senate. Both of you know better than I do, that these people get downright unruly. If you don't have some ability to keep the troops in line and move along, forget about 100-day session, forget about 200-day session, probably forget about a 300-day session. What we're searching for here is the right line.

>> Randall Gnant:
There's some of that. The joke goes around that if you got the legislature together you couldn't get a majority to agree tomorrow is Wednesday. That's a necessary part of the process. This might be an interesting observation to some people. You have to use power and coercion and threats in order to get your policy through, maybe your policy shouldn't go through. If your policy isn't going to attract after you have done the debating, after you have done the research, after you have don't discussion, if you can't attract the majority maybe that's not the best policy for the state.

>> Michael Grant:
One of the concerns Mr. Turley, that is press id is an attempt by these kinds of techniques to control opinion or to control the free flow of information, speaking on behalf of the constituency that you were elected to serve as opposed to discipline, more in terms of keeping people in line, but allowing them a certain rake of freedom?

>> Stan Turley:
Everyone should have the absolute right to a true and honest opinion. But as you have a majority trying to work a program through the legislature, that majority must stay pretty well united or the minority is very easily for them to unite and to split out if a majority can't stay together, its minority can split them out and create all sorts of problems as well. When you -- what you find is the fringe elements of a majority but have to somehow come toward the center somewhat in order to stay together. This is a matter of respecting each other's feelings but also recognizing that compromise sometimes is necessary in order to stay together.

>> Michael Grant:
In the court of public opinion, speaking of respect, obviously the bottom line on all three branches of government is ultimately do the people respect the process and what is going on there? Does it give the process a bad name, and does it weaken the public's ultimate respect for the institution if they see going on what may look like petty politics as opposed to trying to move toward a resolution for the public good?

>> Stan Turley:
Oh, I think that's certainly true. You know, the legislature and the congress, they rank pretty low in public opinion a lot of time.

>> Michael Grant:
16, 17%.

>> Stan Turley:
Most people think that their own representatives or our congressional delegates but you if put them together they are a bunch of idiots you see. It works that way in the legislature. It's really -- the role of the leader is to try and hold a group together in a constructive, you know, work along. You need to have certain authority which you can use but it should be done very carefully.

>> Michael Grant:
Mr. Turley I know you are in a tough spot because you don't want to criticize your successors and also there's a chameleon relationship between you and the speaker. Was it appropriate to hurl the nuclear bomb in this particular case based upon on the fact facts as you know them?

>> Stan Turley:
I won't second guess anybody without knowing more of what is going on but I would say that that kind of action should come pretty much as a last resort. And I don't really know what is going on to lead up to it.

>> Michael Grant:
What do you think? Was it an appropriate nuclear strike or not?

>> Randall Gnant:
I won't second guess either, but I will say that any actions taken against an individual for voting his conscience or for legitimately working for or against the passage of a bill, I think is uncalled for. There are legitimate reasons to remove a committee chairman. If he is not doing his job as a committee chairman, I thought he ought to be removed. I don't think he should be removed for an act of conscience where he is using his own best judgment to do what they thinks is best for himself or the district or the state.

>> Michael Grant:
To the extent though that the people of Arizona get together and elect more Republicans than democrats or elect more let's put it in contest, more conservatives than moderates isn't it appropriate for a conservative group that got more votes to say to the moderate group, people -- a majority of the people put us in power and we're going to have use some instruments, you know against you to try to act on behalf of our collective constituents.

>> Randall Gnant:
But the people of the state didn't put a majority of one particular philosophy into hour. Doctor power. They happened to elect an individual representative. And collectively from all the districts around the state, you may have a majority that feels one way or another but you also have, you know, in almost all instances a strong minority that feels the other way. Nowhere is it written that a majority, a majority of a majority if it's a caucus situation which by definition is a minority, should be able to dictate to everyone else how things should be done. This is a deliberate process and when one group the conservatives in this case say they want to dictate all the terms and conditions because they have a one or two vote surplus over say the moderate link, that's probably not fair to the whole process.

>> Michael Grant:
But if my group got together and elected more of my guys than your guys to a certain extent or am I expecting my guys to beat on those guys?

>> Stan Turley:
You want to win because you -- but you don't have to beat them up to do it. Just win with a smile on your face. You know, most of your solutions and they are not -- they are just temporary solutions in the legislative. This the they are not going to be settled clear out on one side or the other of whatever philosophy you want. They are whittled down and shaken in the middle somewhere -- not in the middle maybe but not out on a fringe.

>> Randall Gnant:
Stan makes a good point. That's exactly the case. There's not an issue at the legislature that outside of abortion probably that can't be dealt with in a deliberative sense where each side gives a little bit. It's one when group because they have a one or two vote, a surplus over the other group says we want it all. We want entire cake. We don't want our percentage of the cake we want the entire cake. That's what leads to the things that have happened over the last couple weeks.

>> Michael Grant:
Final questions. Republicans have a substantial majority in the house. Does that -- ironically enough does that make this more difficult?

>> Stan Turley:
It makes it more difficult for the senate when those guys in the house were able to flip flop around a little bit and go over to the senate. They have to stay together over there or they come apart. So sometimes the numbers can adversely effect -- actually make a difference.

>> Michael Grant:
Not a strong feeling of hanging together or hanging separately.

>> Randall Gnant:
Let me give you a real quick example of that. The last special session budget we did when I was in office the 15 democrats and the 15 Republicans in the senate put out a more fiscally conservative budget than did the house of representatives that 2-1 Republican because as you said they couldn't get the cats herded.

>> Michael Grant:
Former senate president Randall Gnant thanks for being here. Former speaker and president Stan Turley good to see you, sir. Various environmental groups gathered at the statehouse to learn what issues lawmakers are working on and to educate legislate tours about various water, land and wildlife issues. One of the bills would encourage businesses to make use of solar energy.

>> Ken Clark:
My assessment ratio change for businesses that generate 10% of their energy from solar shouldn't have into effect on the budget. What you are doing is dropping them from 25% assessment ratio to a 16% assessment ratio which gives them to incentive to put in solar panel and we benefit from that in many, many ways.

>> Michael Grant:
That house bill 2526 has head to be heard. Joining me is Sandy Bahr, the conservation outreach coordinator for the Sierra club the Grand Canyon chapter talking about issues she either hops to pass or kill in the session. Nice to see you.

>> Sandy Bahr:
Nice to see you, too.

>> Michael Grant:
Interesting approach on encouraging solar energy in terms of changing the assessment ratio?

>> Sandy Bahr:
Yeah, I think it's -- it's nice to see on the solar energy bills bipartisan support. This is a bill that has both democrats and Republicans on it and they are looking at providing incentives for individual businesses for producing solar on site. They have to produce at least 10% of the power they use on site from solar energy. I think it's a really good way to encourage what should be something we use more and more in Arizona. We have an abundance of sunshine so why not utilize it more effective live instead of building more and more power plants.

>> Michael Grant:
You have told me that there's a senate concurrent resolution that has been introduced that would take the lottery to the ballot not for the purpose of either continuing or discontinuing the lottery. We have seen that a couple of times but rather to say all of its proceeds would go to the general fund instead of various earmarked purposes?

>> Sandy Bahr:
Correct. It's SCR1014. Yeah W he shift all the dollars back to the legislature for appropriation. It's partly a power issue. They want control over all the funds. They like thinks that are -- things that are earmarked. But it gets at things that haven't been popular including the heritage fund and that's the fund that takes up to $20 million from the lottery and appropriates it to parks and to game and fish for wildlife issues. So it took a ballot measure to get the heritage fund and it's taken a lot of efforts to keep it. There have been more than 30 attempts in -- you know since 1990 to sweep the fund in some way or divert it.

>> Michael Grant:
You know, there are a number of people though, from various political walks of life, particularly with the recent budget difficulties, that are starting to rethink the wisdom 6 earmarked proceeds and programmed increases in spending regardless of what is going on on the revenue side of equation. I take it the Sierra club, at least on this particular issue, is not one of those groups that is rethinking the wisdom of that?

>> Sandy Bahr:
Not at all. The legislature has made the situation. They refuse to fund programs that are important to the public. The public votes on the ballot measures. They have repeatedly said they support things line the heritage fund, supporting programs for wildlife and supporting the state parks. The legislature wouldn't do it. It wasn't like someone overnight said let's do a ballot measure. It took a long time trying to get funding at the state legislature and when they wouldn't fund it people took it to the ballot. This happened with other issues a well. They often tie their own hands instead of really showing leadership on these issues. The previous segments points out some of the problems with that process. So, it's just a matter of if the people lead, the leaders will follow situation and that's what happens with these ballot measures. You really need that opportunity in order to fund important programs. They just won't step up and do it sometimes.

>> Michael Grant:
This seems strange to me. Lawmakers are considering appointing a climate change study committee in the state of Arizona? Have I got this right?

>> Sandy Bahr:
That's correct senate bill 1227 is a climate change study committee. It has folks from the universities, from agriculture, trucking industry, utilities environmental groups to look at climate change and the potential impacts on Arizona and recommend appropriate action to the legislature. Across the country states are taking action to reduce primarily carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases and this is a way to begin looking at that in Arizona. We have the senior United States senator from Arizona, senator Jon McCain taking a leadership position on this issue. So why not the Arizona legislature and why not try to do something before we're last in the country?

>> Michael Grant:
We're almost out of time, sandy. Is there another issue that you consider to be particularly key from your standpoint legislatively?

>> Sandy Bahr:
Coming up is state trust lands.

>> Sandy Bahr:
That is going to be a huge issue from an environmental perspective. I'm concerned about what is going to happen to that in the legislature process. It's not a simple issue and there are certain interests that are pulling pretty hard for particular measures. We're concerned about give away of grazing leases in perpetuity effective live on the rural lands. There's a rural part of it, there's an urban part of it. The urban part of it is probably okay but on the rural lands are is significant concerns and we saw what happened with the transportation deliberations down there. We're very concerned what they'll do to the state trust lands.

>> Michael Grant:
Sandy Bahr from the Sierra club, thank you very much for joining us.

>> Michael Grant:
A center for day laborers in Phoenix has completed a year-long pilot phase. Now the Phoenix city council will likely be looking at the benefits and disadvantages of center and making a decision on whether or not the center will remain open. Find out more about that Wednesday at 7:00 on "Horizon."

>> Michael Grant:
Thursday we celebrate statehood week by among other things looking at the life and times of Arizona's longest serving state lawmaker Pauly Rosenbaum. Then on Friday a motley crew of reporters talk about the week's stories. Thanks for joining us this Tuesday evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.

Back to the top