Meet Ken Strobeck, executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, the representative face at the Capitol for 90 local governments in Arizona. The Oregon native brings a wide range of experience to the League as a former state representative, radio and television broadcaster and corporate communications manager for BlueCross BlueShield. Not to mention, he held same post for the Oregon League for almost four years.
The organization can try the nerves of lawmakers, according to insiders. Its common goal is to secure state funding for local governments while preserving the autonomy of their 90 members.
And needless to say, friction between the Legislature and cities and towns exists on a philosophical and practical basis. Some legislators remain concerned that appropriated funds to cities and towns contribute to an increasingly large obtrusive government. Others might hold resentment that state lawmakers receive the political heat for taxing citizens while local governments benefit without suffering the same treatment.
Either way, the checks from state shared revenues, which last year totaled about $550 million, aren’t always handed over with a smile. In fact, sometimes it comes from a direct fear of the league’s ability to communicate directly with voters on the district level.
“You have to respect them,” says a former lawmaker of the league “They’re very formidable.”
Such is the scenario Mr. Strobeck, a father of three, hopes to change. The self-described music lover that could name entire presidential cabinet members as a child sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to present the case of local governments.
What is the most important thing the League of Arizona Cities and Towns does for its members?
I think what we do is really bring visibility to the state Legislature about what the role is for cities and towns and how important they are to the success of the overall economy and quality of life to our citizens. Our primary job is to make legislators aware of the role of cities and towns and the importance of keeping them strong and viable.
You are a former Oregon state legislator and now you are leading an influential lobbying organization. What are your favorite aspects of both jobs?
In order to be successful in either one of those fields you have to have an appreciation for the legislative process and I really do believe our legislative governmental process is the best way to make policy. I really don’t care for the direct democracy route of the ballot propositions. I think that generally when you have to find consensus, 16-31 votes, you usually end up with better policy by the end of the day.
Your organization had some problems with Prop. 207 (eminent domain), which would probably exemplify your distaste for the ballot initiative process. Any thoughts or further complaints on that system?
When you discover there is something that needs to be amended or there is an error in how something is written you don’t have the ability to take it back to committee to work on it. Once it’s written and filed, it’s pretty much set in stone, mistakes and all. Just like, is it eight-tenths of a cent or eight-tenths of a dollar? (Note: he was referring to a drafting error by First Things First ballot committee). There is an inherent flaw in trusting that everybody is going to get it right the first time.
On the other side, somebody can say the elected bodies aren’t responding to the will of the people — maybe tackling hard issues that are a lot easier for politicians to avoid all together.
I would say if that was the case then the people should go out and collect the signatures and pass something on the grass roots effort rather than have ballot propositions bought and paid for by special interests.
How is your group funded?
We’re principally funded by dues by our member cities and towns — all 90 in the league. We have a per capita dues scale and it’s capped at an amount for the larger cities. We also produce an annual conference that attracts over 900 delegates and we usually get some proceeds from that. Those are our two main sources of funding.
This is going to be your second session working as executive director and at least one local city lobbyist thinks you are a good fit to help the league and its members overcome an existing “anti-city sentiment” among some legislators. How deep is this problem and how do you plan to fix it?
I think cities and towns need to approach the Legislature not as adversaries but as partners in government. We need to recognize that each of us depends on the other for parts of the total system that neither one us could provide on our own, separately. We need to find common ground and we need to figure out ways to appeal to legislators on the basis of what is good for their districts and the cities in their districts. Arizona is one of the most urbanized states in the nation. The vast majority of people live in an incorporated city. And so I think it’s really vitally important for legislators to recognize that we are the ones that provide good communities and an environment for businesses to be successful, and in turn helps makes the state successful.
Has Clean Elections made legislators more or less approachable for the league?
I think it’s a matter of the individual legislator and what kind of basis you have to try to appeal to them. I think if we come in with a heavy-handed message that says “you must do things our way,” that’s not a good approach no matter how they are funded. Because we don’t have the ability to make individual contributions to candidates, the impact isn’t a central issue.
Democrats have gained seven seats in the Arizona Legislature. What effect will this have on the goals of the league?
It’s a little hard to know. I think Democrats and Republicans see cities in a different light. Some things appeal to one party and other elements of what we do appeal to the other party. I hope that it will make people more willing to listen and to find that common ground, and because there is a more even balance between the parties we’ll be able to make our case on the basis of merit, not on appealing to one or the other political party.
Which party would it be easier for you to accomplish your aims?
Like I said, I think there are different appeals. I think Republicans support cities because we are close to the people. We are the lowest level of government and we’re the most accessible and we represent smaller governments and bureaucracies. Democrats should like what we do because we provide the basic services — public safety and those types of quality-of-life issues like parks and streets and garbage pickups. At the end of the day, I think divided government probably works best so it’s not all controlled by one or the other.
One former legislator says the league is one of the “most powerful institutions at the Legislature” — well-financed, politically astute and “very adept at rallying people in their districts” when it comes down to influencing legislative races. When is it time to resort to that option?
I think it always should be a practice for mayors and local elected officials in every city to have a good working relationship with their legislators because the state does have the constitutional authority to make changes in the way we can conduct our business. There needs to be a dialogue there and an understanding of the activities and services that cities in their districts can provide. And it’s always best when you can have somebody from the hometown make that kind of contact.
We would activate that kind of political base when we have the huge issues at the Legislature, usually involving things such as a threat to shared revenue and local decision-making authority.
Are you expecting more threats to the shared revenue process this session?
I think there are some individual legislators who really focus on that, but the majority understands the value of strong cities and the role we play in the state overall. My hope is that we won’t have to fight a battle over shared revenue, and for the long term my hope is we can come up with some methodology so this isn’t a political football every session.
Is the Arizona Legislature more combative in this area than the Legislature in Oregon?
In Oregon there is very little shared revenue other than the gas tax and highway funds. I think the lesson I have from Oregon is that when you rely on a very narrow revenue base it creates huge problems. I think the tax structure in Arizona is much more balanced between the three legs of the stool — sales, property and income tax — and it doesn’t put any pressure on any one of the three to be unreasonably high. Generally tax policy folks believe a broad tax structure at the lowest possible rates is the best solution.
Is it politically difficult being viewed as a group that can come out as against tax cuts?
I think it’s not a matter of coming out against tax cuts, it’s a matter of education to say these are the services and programs we think are important for quality communities and how should we pay for those? It’s a matter instead of focusing on the tax side, focus on the service side.
The league also dabbles in social areas such as the methamphetamine problem and growth of high interest — and highly criticized — loan businesses. Outside of providing money, what can the Legislature do to have a positive social impact?
Well I think both of those issues are the ones we have said require a statewide solution. Cities individually have chosen to regulate meth precursors and also pay day loan operations, but when you have a very fluid public that can move from one area to another, unless you have some statewide standards those kinds issues are hard to address. We are asking in our legislative agenda for some standards that we would support.
Some big news concerning the league these days is the passing of Prop. 207 relating to eminent domain and regulatory takings. One day after the election, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a written opinion regarding its earlier decision to refuse a league request to remove the prop from the ballot. The league was intrigued with the timing of the release of the opinion. How come?
It was interesting if you read the court language, it was clearly written prior to the election so I’m not sure what the thinking was waiting until after the election to have it issued publicly. It’s something we believe the court should have considered as a pre-election issue as it was something that would have helped educate voters rather than something that’s simply discussed after the election occurs. We disagree with the interpretation that it’s only a post-election challenge issue.
The opinion also hinted the proposition might be constitutional because government spending would probably fall on local governments and not the state’s general fund. Is this a proposition that can be lived with? What must local governments consider before implementing land use changes?
We just issued some guidelines for cities and towns to be aware of when they have an issue that relates to land use change or zoning change or anything that could trigger a 207 claim. I think it’s going to take some time to learn what the impacts of this proposition are because I really do believe that the idea that it was harmless was incorrect. I think it’s going to have a fundamental effect on a lot of our day-to-day business, and people want protection from activities they deem to be harmful. This measure is going to restrict our ability to respond to citizens. I think it’s going to take some time to go through the courts and to litigate definitions and the exclusions and it has the potential to be expensive in terms of compensation or regulatory labors.
A reason Prop. 207 was created was a lot of people felt as result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New Haven local governments had become emboldened and willing to make these decisions to declare an area blighted or to seize property or attempt to seize property. What is your response to that accusation of the supporters?
I think you have to go back and look at the facts. There were a couple of high profile cases in Arizona and they ruled in favor of the property owners. And so that was our position during the session in the Legislature; that the laws were already there defending property rights and we didn’t need additional eminent domain restrictions. However, I think what Prop. 207 does that is much more potentially harmful is the other part of the measure — the regulatory takings, which could really harm the planning and zoning and any other number of activities that creative lawyers will use to file claims under the proposition.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.