Posts Tagged ‘regulation alert’

NAAG MEETING: NIGHTMARE TO DREAM TRIP

June 12, 2014

By Steve Arthur, Vice President

parachute_hit_target_400_clr_14044My recent trip to the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Summer Meeting reminded me that state government relations professionals deal not only with weighty public policy issues, but also with the choices we make about whether to attend a conference and how we get there.

We sometimes do take for granted the nice places we enjoy while attending Groups meetings. However, for anyone who has ever attended a meeting on Mackinac Island, Michigan you know that getting there can be a challenge even when everything goes well. And last week, everything did not go well getting to the NAAG Summer Meeting.

My day began with a 3:00 AM wake-up call to be on the road from Santa Fe to Albuquerque at 4:00 for the 6:00 AM flight to Minneapolis to catch the flight to Detroit to catch the flight to Pellston, Michigan to catch the bus to the dock to catch the ferry to island to get on the horse drawn taxi to the hotel. Just in time for a 7:30 dinner. At least that was the plan.

Unfortunately, Mother Nature had other ideas. Due to severe weather, the Detroit to Pellston flight was cancelled, and some on the flight were told the first available seat would be two days later. In fact some meeting attendees seriously considered asking the airline to simply fly them back home. To their credit, NAAG staff quickly arranged a charter bus to make sure the Attorneys General, staff and the rest of us could arrive in time for the next day’s opening session.

So a 45 minute flight became a 360 minute bus ride after a two hour delay in leaving Detroit. That 7:30 dinner became an order of chicken fingers at the airport and a refreshment stop at a grocery store in Flint. Of course, the bus can only take you so far when your final destination is an ISLAND. Again, NAAG staff came through with a chartered ferry 5 hours later than the last regularly scheduled ferry.

Once the meeting started the next day, a couple of things became clear. First, while the number of Attorneys General and staff were down from previous meetings, over 30 states were still represented. The big change was the number of private sector attendees, which was well below normal. This made it much easier for those of us who were there to talk with everyone we needed to for business, and also allowed more casual discussions at the social events.

Second, the bus trip became the talk of the conference. While it was definitely not the best of travel days, it was a bit of a bonding experience for those on the bus, and it will likely be mentioned at future NAAG meetings for years to come. And this brings me to my point about how travel can impact our jobs. We all know that building relationships is an important aspect of our profession and when you spend six hours with people on an unscheduled bus ride, that can definitely be a long term relationship builder. We might even start a Facebook page.

The second, and just as important, lesson from this trip is to always attend the meetings that may be difficult to get to because your competitors might not be there. You persevered – they did not – you win. Imagine how you would feel if your competitor followed this advice and you did not?

State government relations is comprised of so many elements from Legislative Monitoring to Strategic Planning, Groups issue management and Lobbying. Until this meeting, I did not fully appreciate the value of the shared travel nightmare for building relationships.

###

Steve Arthur is Vice President and brings more than 20 years of public policy experience in both the public and private sector to his work at Stateside Associates. Mr. Arthur provides clients with hands on state government relations support from strategic planning and issue management to lobbyist management and direct lobbying. He is one of the leaders of Stateside’s Attorneys General practice, guiding clients through the process of working with, and lobbying, state Attorneys General.

Odds Are You Are Not Doing This

May 13, 2014

By Josh Fisher, Esq., Manager of State Issues

blog-silhouette-of-peopleEarlier this year, the Public Affairs Council (PAC) released its 2013 State Government Relations Benchmarking Report, which is filled with great information on the corporate and association state government relations (SGR) practices. In particular, the PAC report found that “SGR work is usually broad in scope and in territory covered, so those surveyed rely heavily upon external relationships and services for the fullest coverage and tracking of their particular public policy concerns.”

Examples of these external services include contract lobbyists and consultants. We are consultants at Stateside and much of our work involves helping clients hire and manage lobbyists. During the course of the year we provide dozens of qualified lobbyist referrals to our clients. Consequently, we know the importance of consultants and lobbyists to SGR professionals.

With that in mind, what really stood out in the report was the finding that about half of corporate and nearly three-quarters of association respondents have NO formal process for evaluating their contract lobbyists and consultants.

Let me cite some more figures to draw out why this is a surprising number. The PAC report found that for its corporate members the average SGR operating budget allocated 22% of its resources for contract lobbyists and 5% on consultants and vendors. Additionally, the ratio of contract lobbyists/consultants to total SGR staff is typically 2:1 according to the PAC report. Association respondents, on average, allocated 19% of their SGR operating budget to contract lobbyists and 9% on consultants and vendors. For associations, the typical staffing ratio is 1.8:1. These numbers demonstrate lobbyists and consultants outnumber your SGR staff nearly 2 to 1 and account for about a quarter of your budget. And there is no formal evaluation?

It is clear that a large portion of resources are devoted to contract lobbyists and consultants. And yet the report tells us that 54% of surveyed corporations and, even more striking, 73% of associations do not have a formal evaluation process. Both corporations and associations cited results as one of the top evaluation criteria for their contract lobbyists and consultants. It seems most people just want to know if the bill passed or failed. Bottom lines are impossible to avoid, but one day your bottom line may be in danger if you cannot justify the expense of a lobbyist or consultant you hired. To judge performance solely on outcome misses the mark.

In previous blog posts we have examined the importance of audits and the reasons you should use them. Let these numbers be a not-so-subtle reminder of the importance of being able to support your decision to hire a contract lobbyist or consultant beyond saying the bill passed. While the time for evaluations and audits is typically after sessions have ended and budgeting for the next year begins, now is a great time to gather the information you need as part of the audit process. Let’s be honest, how much of the whirlwind session will you remember come September?

###

Josh Fisher is Manager of State Issues. His work at Stateside Associates has given him an intimate knowledge of the legislative process in all 50 states. He works with clients on a wide range of state and local government affairs issues and was most recently Manager of the Legislative Information Division at Stateside Associates.

Why EPA Swarmed States’ Meeting

April 8, 2014

By Mark Anderson, Esq., Senior Vice President and Sarah Hunt, Esq., Manager State Issues and Ethics Officer

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy pledged to ECOS last fall that she will “listen to the states” during her tenure at the agency’s helm. If actions speak louder than words, McCarthy underscored this message by sending 30 EPA regional and headquarters staffers to the Spring 2014 Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) meeting held March 31-April 2 at the Cavallo Point Lodge in Sausalito, California. McCarthy’s EPA, in an unprecedented move, also co-sponsored the meeting.

The current commitment of McCarthy’s EPA to ECOS surpasses anything we have witnessed since we began attending ECOS meetings in 1996. As recently as 2012, EPA was all but absent at ECOS meetings, leaving state environmental regulators feeling marginalized by the federal agency and its previous administrators. Despite McCarthy’s promise last fall, EPA’s suddenly stepped-up engagement with ECOS left some states speculating that EPA was only present to promote the federal position on two new and controversial rulemakings, both Obama Administration priorities.

The federal agency recently sent its Clean Air Act 111d rule on carbon pollution standards for existing power plants to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for pre-publication review. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers also just jointly promulgated a draft rule on the definition of the Waters of the United States, a Clean Water Act rulemaking necessitated by a string of US Supreme Court cases that started with Rappanos v. United States (2006).

These two rulemakings are poised to reshape not only American environmental policy, but perhaps energy and land development policy as well. Given their significance, it is unsurprising that a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including many states, have loudly criticized both of these rules. The EPA did not reveal much about the new Clean Air Act 111d rulemaking at ECOS, but a large number of states fear the rule may result in the shuttering of numerous existing coal-fired utilities, resulting in job losses and energy cost spikes. The Waters of the United States rule, as drafted, has the potential to assert EPA jurisdiction over waters previously thought to be outside of federal regulatory authority. This rulemaking has serious implications for state water programs and land development.

At the Spring ECOS meeting, EPA staff held closed-door meetings with state regulators to discuss both of these rulemakings. The only clear outcome from these meetings is that EPA is determined to move forward with controversial aspects of both rulemakings, despite questions and concerns from several states. During the closed-door Clean Air Act 111d meeting, the EPA told states they will not use a state implementation plan (SIP) process to implement the forthcoming existing source rule, leaving states to wonder what mechanism EPA will use to enforce the rules. Interestingly, while EPA staff did discuss some details of the new 111d rule at this meeting, they did not mention to the states that the rule was complete and about to be sent to OMB that afternoon.

The limited public discussion on these important rulemakings at the conference was as unusual as EPA’s ramped-up involvement. Frank discussion of federal rulemakings in public sessions is an ECOS tradition. This time, however, the Air committee skipped over a scheduled 111d item on its public meeting agenda. There was also only one significant mention of the important water rulemaking during public sessions. EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Persciape told a public session that the new Waters of the United States rule “won’t be a big change” in actual EPA policy.

EPA staff made clear their interest in reaching out to state officials at ECOS last week. The question is why.  Many states quietly expressed doubt that this new dialogue will actually shape EPA policy. States welcomed this EPA engagement, but it remains to be seen whether EPA is working toward true collaborative dialogue or merely using this opportunity to inform itself about the coming opposition from some states. States will therefore be watching closely to see if EPA continues its ECOS engagement when these significant Air and Water rulemakings conclude. States will also notice if EPA listened to their concerns when the agency rolls out 111d new source final rule and the 111d existing source proposed rule later this year. If EPA has listened, it will be obvious, and a new era of state and federal collaboration will start on solid ground.

###

Mark Anderson, Esq. is Senior Vice President working at Stateside Associates managing the Regulatory Services Division. He advises clients on engagement strategy and directs educational and “grasstops” campaigns directed at governors and regulatory officials. Mr. Anderson also has created issue advocacy coalitions and facilitates work group meetings of state and federal stakeholders addressing environmental issues.

Sarah E. Hunt, Esq. is Manager, State Issues and Ethics Officer at Stateside Associates. She works with clients on a wide range of state and local government affairs issues. Sarah also helps Stateside and its clients navigate lobbying ethics, comply with campaign finance laws, and develop political giving strategies. She practiced campaign finance, election law, and non-profit management with a boutique political law firm for several years before her work at Stateside Associates.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers