The new fiscal year starts next week, and with it the newly approved state budget goes into effect.
The spending plan closes a roughly $1.4 billion shortfall for the rest of this fiscal year and the next one. It relies on cuts across state agencies, fund sweeps and delaying some capital projects, among other provisions.
And while the budget generated bipartisan support, it also generated bipartisan opposition — both for what’s in it and also for the way the process of voting on it happened. Lawmakers complained about not having input on the plan, or the ability to make changes to it — or not having enough time to read what was actually in it.
Kevin DeMenna is a longtime lobbyist at the state Capitol and observer of state government. He spoke with The Show about how the process played out this year, and he began with how similar or different it was to what he has witnessed in the past.
Full interview
KEVIN DEMENNA: Well, that’s a bit of an open ended measure. What I’ve witnessed in the past compared to today is troubling, and if you want to take a critical view, it’s maybe inspirational. The budget used to be an exercise that lasted year round.
It was a privilege to be appointed to a subcommittee — which we have some of those now — of the Appropriations Committee. And then you would deliberate over your portfolio almost the entire year before the budget was introduced.
The situation now is closer to speed dating, where the members are asked to swipe left or right on the document when it’s presented to them.
MARK BRODIE: What we heard from members on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, who expressed a lot of frustration that not only were they not involved in the process of crafting it but also that they were voting on it and didn’t necessarily have a great sense of what was in it.
DEMENNA: The low mark came when the Capitol community received a blizzard of texts. Some fine American, and some fine Arizonan, took photos of the document. I’m going to say 20-30 pages, that reflected that deal and shot it out to everyone. Now, what that did was first, questions of process and legitimacy aside, it set the place on fire.
The members, of course, don’t want to learn about this in that fashion. So that’s the first step. At this point, acknowledging the negotiation process, it always relates to three individuals: a speaker, a president and a governor or their designee. It’s always been thus.
In this case, they were it. You often bring in the appropriations chairman and your majority leaders and others.
BRODIE: Other people in leadership, yeah.
DEMENNA: The bigger the room, the better the buy-in. So the reality is that a protracted, open process eventually should lead to a product that has far more buy-in.
BRODE: I’m wondering if you think that the fact that members didn’t feel like they were consulted, didn’t feel like they had input, didn’t feel like they could make changes or ask for changes — do you think that really led to people voting against this, or at least saying they were going to vote against it?
DEMENNA: You know, ultimately it’s a transaction. Every vote, a member receives something of value. They’ve worked very hard to get that vote. Campaigns aren’t easy. So it’s a complex measure. It’s never done for one simple reason.
But what we witnessed was the minority leadership stepping up and engaging and really serving as an agent. where some felt the governor’s office hadn’t. The result was better deliverables for a handful of Democrats. In the 44 years I’ve been doing this, there is always a hard-right contingent that disavows the budget, and as a result they disavow their influence over the budget. Depending on how many Republicans there are in the majority, that empowers some or all of the minority. This year, that’s what happened from Tuesday to Saturday.
BRODIE: It seems like every year there is some amount of complaining about the budget process being rushed, lawmakers voting at 2 in the morning on a budget, things like that. It seems, though, that like the complaining this year is maybe louder and maybe a little more intense. And coming from more quarters than in the past. Is that a fair assessment, do you think?
DEMENNA: I think you’ve described a consensus at the Legislature. Happens occasionally. It’s serendipity. The term for this session and what these folks across the board — staff, political observers, and the members — facing information underload at every turn. If the process had slowed, documents had been produced, analysis performed. You get authentic buy-in. And what a wonderful motivation in that is to go to the floor with that.
BRODIE: Well, it’s interesting because we saw, for example, in one of the appropriations committees, members were not allowed to explain their votes. They voted on the package of bills as opposed to each individual. Budget committees in the past have run for hours and hours because there’s lots of stakeholders, lots of constituents who have their interests that are either funded or not funded in the budget.
This year did not seem that way. This year, the committee meetings were relatively quick. Debate was relatively quick. And as you pointed out, the timeline was also relatively quick.
DEMENNA: I’m not sure if you were designing this as a corporation that you would run it that way. So it’s important to remember, I want Arizona government to run like a business. So the necessity of gathering input is it leads directly and undeniably to a superior product. So this year, the low ebb of input is, I think, what’s catching the most attention.
Rule 14G was implemented in the House in the last few weeks, which, surprisingly to the members in the hearing, prohibited them from explaining their vote in committee. It’s not an accident. Arizona in law, arguably in the Constitution, exempts its Legislature from the open meeting law. For me, I think it’s time to do away with that.
The sunshine aspect of this, members should be able to access everything in the process. And the citizens, the folks that want to engage, shouldn’t have to come down from Holbrook to do that. We’re at a crossroads. I feel it, I think the others feel the pressure as well.
BRODIE: So let’s look ahead then to next year. We, of course, don’t know who’s going to control the Legislature, Democrats or Republicans. We know that Gov. (Katie) Hobbs will still be there. We know that House Speaker Ben Toma (R-Peoria) will not be there because he’s running for Congress. We assume that Senate President (Warren) Petersen (R-Gilbert) will at least be in the Legislature, if not Senate President. So do you have any measure of hope that things might be different next time?
DEMENNA: I’m a big believer in this sort of evolutionary change. This is a self-aware group in politics. They want to understand what they’re doing, and they want the public to understand. President Warren Petersen has a great deal of experience in this. I have every reason to believe he’ll come back as the Senate president.
BRODIE: Assuming Republicans control that chamber.
DEMENNA: Assuming Republicans control that chamber. Katie Hobbs isn’t going anywhere. The House — it’s going to be a reboot. But that dissatisfaction that we’ve been discussing, I think it’s strongest there. So the traction for these structural reforms is going to come with the next Legislature.
I like to use this little ditty, which is every now and then the hamster needs to get off the wheel, write a memo, evaluate the function of the wheel, get some new parts, then get back on and do better. We haven’t updated this process in decades. And in fact, if you equate public input with quality product — and by public I mean smart lawyers and schoolteachers from Snowflake.
If you equate those two things, we need a lot more sunshine and a lot more engagement, which will slow it down. It will open it up. But the product, the resulting law, it won’t just be better law, it will better reflect what the voters in these districts want.
