The Arizona Legislature has reached the part of the session in which committee work is largely done, the House and Senate are voting on bills and sending them to the governor, and talk starts to move to the state budget.
Already this year, though, one lawmaker has resigned and another stepped down from a leadership position. Kevin DeMenna, a longtime lobbyist with DeMenna Public Affairs, worries about what that trend means for the institution’s future.
DeMenna joined The Show to discuss if his concerns about the number of lawmakers who decide to leave office in the middle of their terms have diminished.
Full conversation
MARK BRODIE: Are you seeing anything now that's allaying your concerns?
KEVIN DEMENNA: I think what we are seeing, as they would say in Hollywood, is an existential crisis, not to be too dramatic. This session, we've seen one legislator depart, and one demote himself out of leadership, to spend more time with his family. Hard to argue with the balance in in that choice.
The last Legislature, we lost 12 members throughout the course of the two sessions. The turnover is going to, in shorter rather than longer terms, begin to produce a pretty straightforward effect where information is needed, it's going to be found. From what source? When you become a legislator, you don't really become an expert on taxes or on water. You must become an expert on trust. You need to identify the ideal water expert, one you can rely on, taxes. And it really creates the need for an individual who has life experience, attitude.
One of the most noteworthy things about becoming a legislator is if we expect these individuals to change, know what you are, you become more of when you're there. I can't stress this enough. This is a process where we're making law. Think about it in those terms, and, and you understand the weight of it.
BRODIE: How much do you think salary plays into this? And I ask because, you know, for example, Sen. Eva Burch, who resigned earlier this year, specifically cited the low salary, $24,000 a year as, as one of the reasons that she was deciding to leave this job.
How much do you think that really plays into it, considering that everybody who runs for the office knows what the salary is as they're running?
DEMENNA: What a great premise that they appreciate it and they understand what they're getting into. The reality of our Legislature is that we're still running a ‘60s, ‘70s model and per diem, that concept I thought went out with copier sales, but, and it needs to go out in, in one of the next rounds of reforms.
But until 1980, legislators were paid no more than $6,000. In 1980, the salary became $6,000. You move ahead through '98, $24,000. Since then, nothing. The per diem, for goodness sakes, we ought to get rid of it. It just complicates matters. But it's an effort to try to scratch out a little bit more compensation in a broken system.
BRODIE: Well, there are efforts this year to, to raise that for Maricopa County lawmakers.
DEMENNA: The salaries are set in the Constitution, much harder to change. Per diem and these other areas where you can nibble around the edges, those are accessible through changes in state law. All of this, these are authentic measures that these individuals need better compensation. The reality is we will get what we pay for.
BRODIE: So what does that do then for the lawmaking process? I mean, you and I've talked in the past about the influence of folks like yourself, of lobbyists, of, of paid staffers at the Legislature. Does all this just make them more influential?
DEMENNA: The short answer is, of course, the opportunity to make better law is right around the corner. The staffing ratio for the committees I worked with when I began in the Arizona Senate in 1980 are the same. The committee is still staffed by one individual and usually an assistant and an intern. In this modern age, we've got to get ahead of that.
The universities could play a critical role, but they have almost no presence staffing wise, at the Capitol. Workforce becomes the real issue here. There's nearly 2,000 bills every year at this point, and at some stage the wheels will come off. Something will happen. I'm not gonna predict what.
BRODIE: Do you think there's an appetite among the, especially among Republicans who control the Legislature and have for many years, of expanding the size of the Legislature, expanding the size of government, bringing more people on?
DEMENNA: Isn't that the paradox? In the past, divide this into two parts. One is the operational side more staff, largely invisible to the public, the appetite for that is developing. There's a pretty clear understanding that if you have the right people working hard, you're gonna get a better product.
The other side of it though is the facilities and that tends to stand out. So this is not exactly the cutting edge modern engagement that you should be able to get in the civic process. It's not.
BRODIE: I'm curious about the fact that state legislators, the entire Legislature is up for re-election every 2 years. In D.C., of course, the U.S. House is up for every two years, but the Senate, of course, senators have six-year terms.
Do you think it would make a difference if maybe the entire Legislature were longer terms, or maybe one body or it was staggered in some way, or basically it was done slightly differently in some way than the fact that all 90 members of the Legislature are up for election or re-election every two years?
DEMENNA: It, it speaks to the long-held view of the Arizona Legislature in the late ‘60s, up until that time, all the offices were two years, counties, the governor, Legislature, everybody served two years and in that election, which I think was Sam Goddard's, Gov. Goddard's last one, the entire state switched over to four-year terms, except the Legislature. And if you need a testimonial to how hard this is, what a hill this is to climb. That's a long-held perception, not going anywhere soon.
This has to be done on faith then, doesn't it? You have staff earning well into the six figures that advise individuals in complex aspects of Arizona law. What a powerful formula it would be if we're able to attract Arizona's best and brightest.
BRODIE: What is your level of optimism that any of these changes will take place? Either maybe the, the more longer term in terms of changing the terms versus perhaps a shorter term kind of thing like raising salaries for legislators.
DEMENNA: There's interest. Let's face it, teachers are underpaid, other, many other civil servants are, are in that.
BRODIE: Which kind of makes it a harder argument, right to, to give politicians more money.
DEMENNA: Exactly. So then the question becomes how do you break that dynamic, that vicious cycle? I don't know where to start. I don't think tying teacher salaries to legislative salaries, which is one idea that surfaced, is a very sensible one, but I see how it sort of bridges the two issues. Realistically without well-paid folks elected to the Legislature, we won't get the policy we need whether it's for teachers or utilities or any other Arizona voter.
We, I think just gotta look at the fundamentals. If there's interest in corporate Arizona, this would attract the kind of funding and the kind of campaign that it'll need. And if nobody steps forward, so be it., $24,000 a year with a confusing per diem system will be the package, comes with some benefits.
