stacy b-log

My first exposure to the political process came when I was 18 years old and got to exercise my very first vote in the Louisiana gubernatorial election. I had the honor of choosing between a Klansman and a thrice-indicted but not-yet-convicted racketeer. My vote just celebrated his 80th birthday at the Federal Correctional Institute in Oakdale, Louisiana. The Klansman is still free.

I figured the electoral process could only get better from there... then I jumped head-first into the concrete swimming pool that is Arizona politics.

I serve on the board of Local First Arizona - a coalition of more than 1,300 locally owned, independent businesses whose mission is to encourage consumers to "shop local" for the economic, environmental and cultural benefits that this simple act gives to our community. In November, we facilitated a study by Austin-based Civic Economics on the local impact of state procurement. Where you and I can make an everyday difference by spending our $5 at a local coffeehouse, state, county and municipal governments spend millions each year. Civic Economics found that three times the revenue recirculates through the local economy when an in-state business is used compared to an out-of-state firm or national chain. Read the full study here.

My friend Penny - who does a lot of bid work in Texas - asked whether Arizona had a "resident-bidder" program, in which the government entity gives preference to in-state companies competing for state contracts. Some resident-bidder provisions are overtly protectionist, requiring out-of-state firms to underbid the resident bidder by 5 percent or more. Others are more modest and "break the tie in favor of the home team." Come to find out, 48 states and U.S. territories, including Guam, have resident-bidder programs. Arizona, New Hampshire and Massachusetts do not - and I truly believe that Arizona is as good as Guam.

Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, agreed.

He's our District 7 state senator, and I have found him to be thoughtful, responsive and incredibly generous with his time whenever I've had a question about the way our state works. Next thing I know, he has introduced Senate Bill 1233 (state procurement code; Arizona preference) and off we go to the Senate Commerce and Economic Development Committee. Local First executive director Kimber Lanning and I testified before the committee and we even got an "AMEN" from Republican Senator Robert Blendu who said, "I agree - we're as good as Guam." Even my old friend John, who is a REAL lobbyist (and we don't hold that against him), was impressed with our testimony after he recovered from the heart attack he almost suffered from seeing me show up unannounced on his home turf.

We passed the committee 6-0... agreeing to an amendment that would clarify our definition of a resident-bidder and promising to streamline the bill to a simple idea - BREAK THE TIE IN FAVOR OF THE HOME TEAM. If price and quality are equal, give the state business to the IN-STATE BUSINESS. I then appeared with Kimber on The Pat McMahon Show on AZ*TV about the sexy goodness that is state procurement (Find a link to the show here); I had my first newspaper byline since 1999 - an op-ed piece, no less; we took our case to Air America radio and even spoke before the Greater Phoenix Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Everyone agreed: Breaking the tie in favor of the home team is a GREAT idea - why didn't we think of this before?

We went on to the full Senate where we passed 22-5 (3 absent). We'd made it to second base and needed to get through the House committee then the full House to get home to Governor Napolitano's desk.

Sadly, the baseball metaphor for Arizona politics is only appropriate if you're standing on the pitcher's mound being charged by an angry batter with wood in hand. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry... all of the major city Chambers of Commerce... Bank of America? ... the Arizona Wholesalers: All these Goliaths of Arizona business came out AGAINST our bill. Our House of Representatives quarterback, Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, asked, "What kind of hornet's nest have you girls stirred up?" She encouraged us to meet with the Arizona Chamber to see if we could come to some sort of compromise.

Through other channels we'd learned their definition of compromise: They wanted us to drop the part of our provision that required an Arizona company to "have a substantial portion of their business in Arizona." And by dropping that provision, how would they be an ARIZONA COMPANY? They also threw us a bone and said they weren't crazy about the phrase "identical bid" and felt it'd be easier to implement if we substituted "comparable or similar" - which seems reasonable on the surface, EXCEPT THAT IT WOULD MAKE OUR BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IT WOULDN'T STAND UP IN COURT. Nicely played.

So, Kimber and I met with Glenn Hamer - president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce - who happens to be an old family friend of Rep. Reagan's. Great meeting - seriously: He's a huge fan of local business and went on and on about his favorite local places. We explained our bill, its genesis and our intentions: Break the tie in favor of the home team. Especially when our state faces a $1.7 billion shortfall, it makes sense to keep every dollar in-state - ESPECIALLY WHEN OUR BILL REQUIRES ALL PARTIES TO SUBMIT TO THE STANDARD, COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS. SB 1233 only comes into play to break a tie.

"But I don't see how you could have an identical bid - I mean, even if it's just one penny? It should still go to the lowest bidder. I just don't understand this," Hamer said. He asked us to find some case studies and see how SB 1233 would work in practice. We agreed - and asked him to take a neutral stance on our bill. He made no promises. We shook hands and left him with a box of our Local First "Small Wonders" maps of independent restaurants and boutiques in central Phoenix.

I got back to the office cheered from our meeting - I had a job to do... I also had an email from Senator Waring: A representative (read: lobbyist) from the Arizona Chamber had just called his office to say our bill was DEAD. Sen. Waring even saved the message for me. That afternoon, I received an email back from House Speaker Jim Weiers: He'd assigned our bill to the Government Committee and to Rep. Reagan's Commerce Committee. Unfortunately, we have to go THROUGH Government to get to Commerce and then we have to get through Commerce to get to the floor. The only problem: Government is basically the place where bills go to die and the Chair of the Government Committee, Rep. Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, said point blank that he would not hear our bill.

At this point, you'd think it'd be nice to hang up my spurs, drink a cold beer and call it a night... but according to my friend John the Good Lobbyist, that's not how the game is played. The boxing metaphor is more appropriate than the baseball metaphor - even though there is no mercy rule. To be taken seriously in this legislative session and the next and the one after that, you basically have to be Joe Frasier in the Thrilla in Manilla: Amid a withering flurry of punishment from Muhammed Ali, you just have to keep coming back for seconds, in hopes that when they finally call the fight, your trainer Eddie Futch will say, "It's all over. No one will forget what you did here today." Which is all fine and good when both of your eyes are swollen shut and you think your name is Thursday. So I made an appointment to speak with Rep. Adams about our bill.

True to our word, I also met with the director of the state procurement office and her lobbyist. We reviewed the bill and their initial concerns: As originally presented - without the Senate Committee clarifications - they felt it would have created huge burdens on the state office because they would have had to check against every other state's rules and it would have increased the likelihood of protested-bids which delay the delivery of services and cost us taxpayers more money... but breaking the tie in favor of the home team?

"We like this bill as it's written now," said Jean Clark, the Director of the State Office of Procurement. "I'd like to break the tie in favor of an Arizona business. It's better than what we do now."

"Well, how exactly do you break a tie bid now?"

"We draw lots."

EXCUSE ME? YOU DRAW LOTS? YOU ARE LEAVING MILLION DOLLAR APPROPRIATIONS TO CHANCE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? WHY NOT JUST PLAY ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS? WHY NOT FLIP A COIN?

"Well, we're not exactly flipping a coin - this is pursuant to the code and we have witnesses. It really is a formal process, but yes, we do draw lots... It happens a handful of times, and I'd prefer to give the business to an Arizona company, but that's not how the code is written now, and your bill would do change that... and you can tell them we approve of breaking ties this way."

Let me repeat: THE STATE OF ARIZONA DRAWS LOTS!!! Granted, it's a lot easier than picking between a Klansman and a felon, but I digress.

I called Glenn at the Arizona Chamber to report my findings. He sounded like someone was inserting bamboo shoots beneath his toenails.

"Look, I'm not asking for anything - I know my bill is dead. It has to get through Government to get to Commerce and Government refuses to hear it ... and I know you didn't promise anything. But I did my due diligence, and you need to be aware that we have a handful of these 'tie bids' each year, and the ties are defined in the statute, and they currently break the tie by drawing lots."

"They draw lots? Like a rabbit out of a hat?"

"Well, they have witnesses, but yeah, they draw lots. Million-dollar contracts basically determined by a coin-flip... and our bill would change that. Our bill would keep that money in state rather than leave it to fate."

"I can't believe this - do you understand how important this information is?"

"You better believe I do - and know this, I know our bill is dead and we're just playing out the string right now... but if by some unforeseen circumstance I get through committee and I get to tell people how we currently break ties, our bill will pass. There's no way they can vote against this... and we're coming back next year with this information."

And here's the good part: Glenn thanked me for my time and my effort. He said that he could tell Kimber and I were positive people with true intentions and that we honestly wanted what was best for the citizens and the state of Arizona. We weren't carrying anyone's water and we conducted ourselves with professionalism and integrity. Which was nice of him to say, but it still didn't help our bill... this year.

The next day, I received a call from Rep. Adams' assistant Karen: "You're on Rep. Adams' calendar for Thursday, but he will not be hearing your bill. Did you still need to speak with him?"

"Yes, I do. I have found out some very important information that may clarify some of his concerns."

"But he's not going to hear your bill."

"But I'm on his calendar and I'd still like to talk with him."

"But he's not going to hear your bill."

"I will not cancel my appointment."

"Well, I'm sure you don't need the whole half-hour. We'll just scale it back to 10 or 15 minutes? Rep. Adams is extremely busy right now."

"I appreciate that and I will not waste his time, but I will take my full half-hour. I'll see you on Thursday."

I got to wait an hour for that half-hour. Good times... but it was worth it when Senator Waring escorted me back to Rep. Adams office and introduced me to the assistant: "Hello Karen, this is one of my constituents, Stacy Bertinelli. She has an appointment with Rep. Adams. I know you'll take good care of her."

Rep. Adams outlined his concerns: He feared that this bill would force out-of-state companies to underbid Arizona companies. My response: So what you're saying is, this bill would drive down prices - and how would that hurt the Arizona taxpayer? He then said he was concerned that out-of-state companies would not want to compete for bids in Arizona because of this provision. My response: 48 states and US territories, including Guam, have similar provisions - some that are much more protectionist - and yet, companies continue to submit bids in all of those states. We are merely trying to put Arizona businesses on a level playing field. ... Plus, this provision would come into play only a handful of times in a given year - our bill still requires companies to submit competitive bids and it still rewards the contract to the low bidder. This bill merely breaks a handful of ties in favor of Arizona companies... rather than leaving it up to a coin toss.

"Well, I appreciate that you want to help Arizona companies, I really do, and I appreciate that tie bids happen only a few times a year and I was unaware that we broke ties by drawing lots... but I understand economics and I think this bill will limit competition and I think this creates a slippery slope, and that's not a place I want to go."

I have a good friend who is an ethicist and he explained that "slippery slope" is the place where people go when they have no good arguments left. Small consolation, and with that, Rep. Adams refused to hear my bill... IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

SB 1233 was heard yesterday by the Government Committee - and it passed: BUT ONLY AFTER REP. ADAMS GUTTED IT WITH A STRIKE-EVERYTHING AMENDMENT AND USED THE HUSK OF MY BILL AS A MULLIGAN FOR HIS ARBITRATION MEASURE. @#$%&#&@!!!!!

If you've stayed with me for this long, you can stick around for the closing arguments - or, what I would've said to the Government Committee had my original bill been heard instead of eviscerated.

MY BILL IS NEITHER A KLANSMAN NOR A FELON. It ensures that our state agencies abide by their fiduciary responsibilities and seek the lowest possible bid. It requires a competitive, free-market approach to fulfilling our state contracts. It allows the in-state companies to give their best shot against the national corporations and their supposed 'lower prices.' But if there is a tie - in the handful of times that may occur in a given year - our bill will send three-times the revenue back to state coffers because it breaks that tie in favor of the home team... rather than leaving it up to a fateful piece of paper in the anonymous bottom of a hat. I defy you to vote FOR leaving this decision to chance because doing so is a vote AGAINST Arizona companies.

But I didn't get to say that. Instead, I got to send a thank you note to Rep. Adams. I got to make gumbo for Sen. Waring (who felt awful because he couldn't get our bill through) And I'll get to take my friend the Good Lobbyist out for a beer to thank him for his time and counsel. Plus, I'll get to start calling people again as soon as the session is over and find more friends and supporters for next year.

But that's not to say we didn't learn a lot this year: This may sound really corny, but I have a good friend serving right now in Iraq, and if anything, this experience made me realize that there are few places in the world where a regular citizen can just go to the legislature and try to get a law passed, and I've learned that though the process may be convoluted and confounding, it's something we shouldn't take for granted.

What else have we learned? We've learned to stand in the hurricane, rub dirt on our wounds and ask for one more round... we've learned who are friends are and how to approach our enemies... we've learned how to handle ourselves gracefully in defeat and graciously in victory... and we're coming back next year... and when we do, we're bringing our slingshots.