All’s well that ends House Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger enjoys a lighter moment in the Senate, where members – in the closing hours – showed less rancor than their House counterparts. Photo by Bill Coates

Insiders say that the success of the budget negotiations was due to the good relationship between the Senate’s top two lieutenants. Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger and Senate President Tim Bee both hail from southern Arizona; portions of their districts adjoin. While on the opposite sides of the aisle, they are said to see eye to eye on many issues affecting rural areas. In fact, the Democrat leader says during negotiations one of them would interject to ask how an item under discussion is going to affect southern Arizona. Their territorial roots tell part of the story. Another part of the story is that both joined the Legislature at the same time. They were members of the split Senate of 2001-2002, when lawmakers were in a way forced to coalesce to pass a bill because none had the majority. Like Bee, the Willcox rancher is termed out next year.
Arzberger spoke with ~Arizona Capitol Times~ on what she considers her most important achievements this year.
When you say you had to learn a process in negotiating a budget, what’s that process≠
We began with a business model. If you were, for example, negotiating a business contract, you bring your people. The opposite side brings their people. You develop a method of discussing first the details — and that’s what we did. First we discussed the details. Then, your side goes out of the room, discusses it and brings back a written proposal. Their side goes out of the room, discusses it, and brings back a counter proposal. Now in our case, we were also acting as agent of the executive. So we took a third step when we went out of the room, meeting with and asking for additional information and getting responses back from the executive which we incorporated into our proposal, and took it back. The confidence began building in the Republican team, in their negotiation team, that the executive was fully engaged and fully involved, and the trust grew that those decisions would be backed and would be accepted by the executive later. That made our meetings very productive, once we worked to that point.
Because now they knew exactly what the governor was going to sign and was not going to sign≠
That’s right. At first there wasn’t that trust there and at first, I noticed that particularly with the staff, there had been comments that they had been involved in many earlier negotiations and staff would say, “OK, they said that but what are they really planning≠” (Laughs) I’d say all three staff would say that… So there was a lack of trust. That trust built as we went along. Now let tell me you something else we did. In our business-like model, when a negotiation was reached and a handshake was taken, we were firmly committed. There was no moving off of it. That’s probably the key to the success.
Once it’s agreed upon, you would not move≠
We will not move. We are committed. We have given our word.
Besides the budget, you told me that probably one of your biggest achievements, if not your biggest achievement this year, is water legislation. And I think one of them is your proposal, signed by the governor, to tie development to water adequacy in rural areas. That bill was criticized by Sen. Tom O’Halleran, who has also been involved in water legislation, because of the provision that would make the adoption of that requirement — hinging that on a unanimous vote of the county board of supervisors.
And that problem was in one county that O’Halleran represents. Their board of supervisors is divided and so it is a one-county situation. Now we don’t know about other counties. Possibly there may be divisions. But in the critical areas I suspect that the people will demand a unanimous vote. Supervisors are elected by the people. So I knew that that was a problem in his particular county, but I think that people are going to grow into understanding that in the places where it is needed, they need to tell their supervisors to come up with a unanimous vote.
The problem that he was spelling it out was that you would be giving too much power to one individual. One person could stall the adoption of this requirement, this important change. Giving that power to one person he said is going down a very bad path. He said it was a half-solution.
Supervisors run for re-election. I think the voters could take care of that problem. Now I know in my county they would. If that were a problem in my county, voters would take care of it.
At the beginning of the session you came in with one extra member. That gave you 13 votes vis-a-vis the Republicans’ 17 votes. And the theories and speculations were that if you had O’Halleran and Allen voting with the Democrats that would give you a tie, a 15-15 vote. How did that you think that came to influence Bee’s decision to negotiate with the Democrats≠
I think he made that based on the fact that past budget negotiations had been so miserable. He and I came at the same time in 2001 so we had six years of watching budget negotiations. And he wanted to try something new. Now where that did influence was on particular issues, because he was well aware that there was not a majority feeling in his caucus, that there was a difference between his caucus members. And he had to take that into consideration in different items in the budget.
At the end of the session, you produced a $10.6 billion budget that included $10.6 million in tax cuts, a far cry from the House’s $63 million. How did the final version hew closely to the Senate’s $7 million in tax cuts≠
Well, first of all the Senate leadership recognized that the House Republican caucus would want some tax cuts. They took that into consideration. That was a very tight negotiation on the $7 million in tax cuts… I don’t think all the members of the Republican caucus in the Senate were happy with tax cuts. So that was negotiated on behalf of some members of the Senate and the House leadership’s request for tax cuts. This was not a year for tax cuts. Earliest documents I got this year from JLBC showed the reduction of revenue due to the tax cuts that had been passed last year and then went into effect this year and it is a huge reduction. So I don’t know why some legislators say we have to have a tax cut because we are Republicans and I did hear that statement. No, you don’t. You have tax cuts when you have adequate revenue and when it’s possible to do so in a way that helps the people of the state.
You don’t take a caucus stand. You’ve said that. On immigration, on the employer sanctions bill there were four Democrats who voted against it on the final version. (Arzberger opposed the bill). So you have majority of your members voting against leadership on this issue. Why did you oppose it, and why, in this case, many of your members voted against you≠
I opposed that bill strongly and I will continue to do so. I think that the sponsor has a fixation — I wish I could think of a better word — a compulsion to try to pass a bill that has to do with illegal immigration and I think this is totally the improper time to do it when a full solution is being discussed in Congress.
Comments have been made about how this would potentially scare away business and how this would be a burden on business. Do you agree with that≠
They have told me “I’m going out of business. This would put me out of business.” They have said “now what do we do≠ We can’t meet our construction deadlines because our workers are not going to be there≠” My farmers tell me “I’m not planning tillage this year because I’m afraid I won’t be able to have any crews to harvest them.” My neighbor said “I only planted 60 percent of the onions that I had planned to plant because I was afraid I couldn’t get the crews to harvest them.” Those were all businesses. And in addition my husband can’t even hire part-time help because there is no help available.
And if they did, they would have to get on the computer and do whatever it is that they have to do in this pilot program, which you know we are not familiar with.
You have session where both leaders of caucuses are from rural Arizona. Do you think you were able to push for measures, successfully, measures that are important to your district≠
Yes. I saw many times in discussions because we were there, the question was asked: Wait the minute: How does that affect rural issues, rural areas≠ Wait the minute: Are you including rural areas in that program≠ Well, if you are not, then add some more words and include a provision for the rural areas. What about rural businesses≠ How do they take advantage of this program≠ Those questions came up and there were several changes in the budget programs to accommodate them.
What for you is a lawmaker≠ What do you try to achieve here≠
Try to make a difference. Try to make something better. Of course I like solving problems so I like to solve a few problems too. Try to make things better.