Easily recognizable by his booming, deep voice or his height — he is one of the tallest lawmakers — Rep. Bob Robson chairs the Rules Committee and serves as speaker pro tem for the House. The latter position, he says, has evolved from merely symbolic into more or less a leadership position in the two terms he has held the post. Mr. Robson, a District 20 Republican, credits the change in philosophy to the current speaker, Jim Weiers, and his predecessor, Jake Flake, and says he is happy to be a fifth member of the majority leadership. He sat down for an interview March 13.

Why did you want to be Rules chairman and speaker pro tem?

Actually, it wasn’t a matter of wanting to be. In my first term, I was vice-chairman of Rules and stayed on Rules after, so it’s obviously a committee that I have great interest in. The other was, when I was speaker pro tem under the last speaker — Speaker Weiers and I have a good working relationship and it’s basically, if you look at the shape of that [Rules] committee, it’s a leadership committee. So, I think it just wound up to be a natural.

What makes a good Rules chairman?

My philosophy relative to Rules is, being in leadership, making somewhat of an effort to help people get their bills through. Yeah, there will be times that I have to say “no” to stuff, but for the most part, what I do is, with the Rules attorneys, we work it out. That’s pretty much been the hallmark of where we’ve been thus far.

What is your approach to being the final gatekeeper of the process and determining which bills ultimately do get through your committee?

It’s difficult at times, because sometimes you say, “Why do we need this legislation? Why are we doing this to ourselves again?” You know, things along those lines. There are things that just don’t fall within the value-set, so to speak. I try to separate myself from as much of that legislation as I possibly can and mainly try to see it from the person who’s sponsoring the bill’s side of it.

Again, be more helpful — there’s times where I’ve sat down with members and said, “If you do this, then I can see this coming out.” Just really work — and it’s a lot of work — really work toward solving problems, as opposed to creating them.

You seem to be the ambassador for the Speaker’s Office on the floor, often trying to smooth out difficulties that arise on the floor. How come?

By virtue of being speaker pro tem, I am an extension of his office.

The other is, the [Republican] leadership operation that we have down there, we all get along very well together. If you’ve watched the mechanics of the floor, we’re very mindful of each other’s roles and, in many cases, we’re all trying to help each other. There are times where things get a little bit testy and it might be better for me to go talk to somebody and there might be times where it’s better for the majority whip to go talk to somebody and then there’s times when the majority leader has got to talk to somebody.

I think we work hand in hand — mainly my role is to keep the operation on the floor moving, at least from a chair’s perspective, keeping it moving in a very fluid manner. I think we all complement each other in that regard.

You were one of the leading candidates for speaker leading up to the elections. Why did you drop out of the race and encourage your supporters to support Jim Weiers?

Really, I did it for a multitude of reasons. One is that there were enough votes to keep it moving — you know, the quest [of being speaker] — but at the same time, I recognized that it would be very divisive overall to the caucus and I wanted to make sure that the Republican caucus going into this legislative session was unified and maintain that unification.

Mr. Weiers and I had a history of working together. Ironically, in my first term, he put me on as vice-chairman of Rules and on appropriations. I worked with him hand-in-hand on a lot of stuff like I’m doing now, so I felt very comfortable with him as speaker and I know I expressed that to others who were supporting me and felt comfortable their concerns would also be addressed, and they have been.

Do you have any plans for leadership in the future?

I guess you always want to be thought of in something other than what you’re in. I’m very comfortable in the position I’m in. I think people are comfortable in the position I’m in. I enjoy being part of the overall process, but at the same time, working to help them get to where they need to get to.

How has the session run so far, compared to last session and the first time Mr. Weiers was speaker?

Well, in all fairness to Mr. Weiers, the first time he was speaker we were hit with a $1.2 billion deficit coming out of the box. The economy was in terrible shape based upon 9/11 and we were able to pull together. He was sort of left short-handed when his whip took the appointment over to the Senate and his majority leader wound up in the hospital, so we got to work really well together because I stepped up and said, hey, I know you need help and I want to help you out.

So, I guess that’s when our relationship really formed. His openness to really having the speaker’s door open to me in my first term I think helped me tremendously in understanding the process and also being part of it.

Back to your original question.

What about the session so far compared to last year?

I don’t think you can really compare session to session because there are variables that are thrown out at you. I can say that this leadership team is formulated in such a way that we work well, work cohesively, we know what’s going on, we talk to each other and really work through helping members.

We started out that way and will continue doing that.

You mentioned earlier that making sure the caucus was unified was really important this year. What steps have been taken to ensure that happened?

Well, I think by the very nature of all of us working together in leadership to support members — I think the new members don’t even realize it, they just think that’s how it always is.

But people have problems — they come through my door or the majority whip’s door or, basically, any leadership’s door, and we work on their problems and we try to resolve them the best way we can. You don’t see any people actively engaged in disliking each other.

What was your reaction when the governor vetoed to initial legislative budget, especially considering the manner in which she did so?

After shock? I think we put out a very responsible budget, a budget that dealt with many of the pressing issues relative to teachers. If you use education as an example, there’s $41 million dealing with teachers’ salaries. There’s a major concern there with respect to their retirement system and truly making efforts to shore that up so they have something for people that are going in on a day-to-day basis educating our children. The one comfort that anyone in that realm has always had is that they would have something at the end of the rainbow and, with all retirement systems throughout the nation going down, we’re working on shoring that up and recognizing that there’s an issue there. A modest salary issue for the teachers to at least take something home or at least be neutralized to the spiraling cost of health care.

Looking at state employees and the benefits there and making sure we can take care of them.

It’s not an overly generous package because we’re still within the throes of a half a billion-dollar deficit. So, working through those things but still being
mindful of what I call the infrastructure needs without taking on any new projects.

What are your expectations for the rest of the session — when will it be done, what will the next budget look like?

Well, I think we’re going to proceed with using the original budget as the base budget, addressing some of the concerns that the executive put forward and sending up another responsible budget.

Since no agreement was reached with the governor during negotiations—

I wouldn’t use the term negotiations — dialogue. Dialogue is probably a better word, and you get a lot of dialogue on both sides and I think she was able to lay forward what her concerns and desires were. I think the speaker and the president of the Senate have come back and been working and communicating through the leadership mechanism with all of us what those are, and I think the budget that comes out, the next budget that comes out will be a responsible budget.

Since there was nothing brought back to caucus for approval from the budget dialogue to take back to the governor for negotiating, what next?

I think that moves forward. Now it’s got to go through the process one more time. How do you have a process in the beginning and then abandon it when you come back. In her situation, she has one person, herself.

In our situation, in my mindset, I have 59 other members in the House. If I don’t get the 59, I know I at least have to get 31.

On the Senate side, you hope that you get the majority or the whole body, but if that doesn’t work, you have to get 16. So, you start working through those mechanisms to get there.

What big issues do you see on the horizon for either next session or for special session in the near future?

In my mind, I have vision issues. I think we need to look proactively at — I think maybe we’re doing some of that in this budget cycle — what will generate new business or further escalate the businesses that are in our state.

I think higher education is still a major issue and I think a lot of it relates to vision there. I see some things turning within the legislative process now. They may all or may not get there. What’s good is that we’re engaged in that, making sure that future students in the state receive an education that’s commensurate with the national economy and that the value of the degree that comes out is valuable.

Key most, I think we need to plan a little bit more and be more strategic and continually homing in on those strategic areas that utilize state resources and energy and talents and see how it can further the economy to best serve the citizens of the state. —