By Ronda Wiggers
Montana Coin Machine Operators Assoc.
The proper role of the lobbyist is a popular topic at the legislature this session. I spent the better part of a recent morning listening to a debate on banning most government employees from doing any lobbying.
The sponsor indicated in his opening that ordinary citizens are often intimidated by the government lobbyists. He said that it is just wrong for people to take time away from their paying jobs to come to Helena and testify only to find that their own tax dollars are often being spent to have someone from a state agency testifying on the other side of the issue.
Of course, the bill contained the usual list of exemptions: elected officials, those that the legislature requested to appear, etc. However it was the debate that I found interesting.
I remember the first time I ventured into the capitol to testify on behalf of an organization of which I was a member. I wasn't sure what to expect. I didn't know the rules and was fairly sure that I would do something wrong. It was truly the formality that made me nervous – ot knowing for sure what the rules were for addressing the committee or when it was proper to respond.
The biggest frustration for many novices is not being able to respond to testimony given after their own, or wanting to rebut testimony given during questioning.
After you have been there awhile you learn that is what you handle in the halls during personal conversations with the legislators. However, a newcomer often thinks the legislators are getting all of their information from only the testimony presented.
The recent debate included discussion stating that the chairman of the committee truly controls whether the public feels welcome or intimidated. I am pleased to say that almost all chairman do their very best to accommodate and treat cordially everyone that comes to testify.
I also remember a time when I probably would have suggested that state employees shouldn't be allowed to testify. If I remember correctly, one of the bills proposed new regulations and a particular department was obviously the proponent. The other was a tax change that we thought made sense. I saw no reason for the department to weigh in on policy decisions. They came anyway.
In retrospect, it is usually going to be a government entity that is requesting changes in regulation or procedures. It is to be expected. Over the years I have learned that it is easier to be involved in dialogue with those agencies when they are trying to solve administrative problems than to "go to battle" at the legislature. When agreement cannot be found, then it becomes a policy issue for the legislature.
intelligent people can debate whether the administrative arm of government should be taking a position on policy. They are, by definition, supposed to administer the law, not create it. But do they have legitimate ideas to offer the debate?
In some cases department officials can get so caught up in their proposals they seem to forget the public they are serving may not share their enthusiasm. These are the situations that were cited in testimony favoring the bill to ban them from lobbying.
However, most government agencies that lobby are working on administrative changes or offering information about existing programs. They truly are not there in a self-serving capacity.
The bill to prohibit state government staff from lobbying hasn't been decided as of this writing. It's been debated a number of times in past sessions and this probably won't be its last.
In the end, it's my opinion that anyone who has something to offer the debate ought to be included. Legislators get pretty adept at separating the wheat from the chaff.
Source: The Montana Tavern Times, Feb., 2007, published monthly by Continental Communications, 125 W. Granite St., Suite 102, Butte, MT 59701.