Some lawmakers have voiced concern about a “lack of institutional knowledge” in the Legislature — 38 members just completed their first terms — and Governor Napolitano says it might be time to take a second look at term limits for state legislators.

As part of an interview about the first regular session of the 46th Legislature, the governor, who herself has been in office fewer than six months, discussed the effects of term limits and, when asked by Arizona Capitol Times to grade the Legislature, reluctantly issued a report card that ranged from above average to failure.

Here are highlights of the interview conducted by Phil Riske on June 25.

What kind of a grade would you give the Legislature in the following categories≠ Fiscal legislation.

I’d give the House a D and I’d give the Senate a B minus.

Why the D for the House≠

I think they made budget decisions with a lot of misinformation and distortion about what’s going on fiscally and were too inclined to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

And the Senate≠

For being bipartisan. I think that restoring some of the cuts in the House-passed budget was a step in the right direction and I think for the realization that we’ll never dig the state out of the hole it’s been in without investing in education. It’s the opposite of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Social legislation≠

I’d give them an incomplete on health care. Health care is one of the top issues facing us in our daily lives. Other than AHCCCS sunset [continuing the agency for 10 more years] at the very beginning of the session, there was no major piece of health legislation voted on or sent up to me. It was missing. I don’t even know where they are on health care.

How about the environment≠

I really don’t like grading the Legislature because every bill is different and there is a nuance to every issue. I was pleased they confirmed Steve Owens as head of the Department of Environmental Quality because he’s a very good and very balanced environmental law enforcer. There weren’t very many environmental bills I can recall. The major issue was protecting the Heritage Fund, and on that I’d have to give them an F because they didn’t, thus the line item veto. [Editor’s note: Heritage Fund monies come from Arizona Lottery games. Up to $20 million annually can be generated from the Lottery for the various programs split between Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona State Parks. One of the governor’s line-item vetoes eliminated a transfer of $1,800,000 from the Heritage Fund to the Arizona Commission on the Arts. Another line-item veto eliminated a $4 million transfer to the general fund from the Heritage Fund.]

One last grade: relationship with the governor≠

I think that some of the irritations of the last days of the session notwithstanding, we did much better than people expected we would. I would say we get an SE … for Surpassed Expectations. One of the attacks made on me during the election was that I’d never be able to get anything out of the Legislature, and ‘You’re not going to be able to get along,’ we’ll never get a budget, government will have to shut down, we’re going to have a constitutional crisis … As it was, we ended up the session — we didn’t have a big legislative agenda beyond the budget — but the things on our agenda got passed and signed, and the budgets for ’03 and ’04 worked out. My nominees were all confirmed, and the big three bills that I very much wanted, the university research bill, [Phoenix] civic plaza [funding] and the hospital bill [special taxing district for Maricopa County Medical Center] all passed.

Do you think you’ll be at the table right off the bat for the next budget process≠

What I would like to have happen is … this year unlike like last year, we have the summer and the fall to work, and what I’d like to do is spend some time with the leadership about what the ‘05 budget needs to look like and find some areas of agreement, so when the Legislature meets, we can zero in on areas where we have a divergence of opinion. It’s their choice: They can meet me at the beginning of the process, they can meet me during the process, they can just deliver me a fait accompli and let me do what I’m going to do. While I think it’s more efficient to negotiate with me from the start, it’s their choice.

Rep. Eddie Farnsworth says you’re going to start fiscal ’05 $600 million in the hole because of your line item vetoes and that you’ll want to spend even more money, and a proposal for tax increases will come out of this office next year.

He’s been saying stuff like that since before I was sworn in. He said my prediction for revenue for ’03 would throw us into a huge deficit for ’04. As it turned out, my revenue number was conservative. The statement that we somehow are going to have fiscal disarray next year — worse than what I inherited as governor — is without merit. [House conservatives] have a lot of axes to grind, and that’s too bad.

Of all the bills that crossed your desk, which one made your skin crawl the most≠

… Made my skin crawl the most≠ … voter ID. [Ms. Napolitano vetoed H2345 on June 26. Opponents of the bill, which required various forms of identification at the polls, said it discriminated against poor people and minorities and would discourage people from voting.]

Which one was the most pleasing or satisfying to sign≠

Those signatures are coming up [referring to funding of university research facilities and the county hospital taxing district]. I enjoyed the ‘03 budget [balancing through a special session]. I thought we did that in a very fair way, a very balanced way.

This past session was the seventh longest in the state’s history. Are 100 days long enough to do the state’s business≠

It’s harder to imagine one longer. Not to be critical, but just to be descriptive of our legislative colleagues, I think they spun their wheels for about two months after we finished the ‘03 budget. If we had turned directly to ’04 at that time, if they had decided they were not going to lock the Democrats out — that they were going to negotiate not only in their own chambers but with me — they would have saved an awful lot of time and a lot of line item vetoes because it wasn’t as though they were focused on major legislation during that period. I think the session could have been done in 100 days if they had been more proactive.

Some legislators who were in favor of term limits have changed their minds and are now complaining that the lack of institutional knowledge is really hurting the Legislature. Where do you strand on term limits≠

I think it is an experiment that now has had sufficient time. Perhaps the voters should have another crack at it because we know what the intended consequences are. And the unintended consequences include a lack of experience in the Legislature, which means staff and lobbyists have more influence. I think it also means that people know they’re not in it for the long term and when they get to their last term they can get as outrageous as they want. I’m not sure that’s healthy, either. I would not oppose putting that issue back on the ballot so the people can decide again whether they want it or not.

What kind of a grade would you give yourself in the legislative process≠

I’d give us a B. I thought overall we did pretty darn well. I’d give us a B in the sense we are still learning the personalities of the Legislature, and I’m a hard grader. In f
act, I really don’t want to grade ourselves.

You don’t want us to say you graded yourself with a B≠

No, you can say that. I hate grading myself.

Anything else≠

If you had told me in January that we were going to end up with this product [results of the first session], I would have been very skeptical. It was a messy process, but a good product. —

Phil Riske can be reached a priske@azcapitoltimes.com