Meet Tara Jackson, president of the Arizona Town Hall, an organization formed in the 1960s to promote policy dialogue among government officials and business leaders. A commercial and employment law attorney by trade, Jackson has played a hand in the group since 1994, when she began serving as its recorder. Later, she rose to serve on the group’s training and corporate development committees and succeeded long-time president Shirley Agnos, who retired this year.
Arizona Capitol Times sat down with the matriarch of a five-child, self-described “Brady Bunch family” to discuss her work, the state and the effects of the Arizona Town Hall.
For the newcomers, what is the Arizona Town Hall≠
It’s similar to a think tank for Arizona’s leaders. It’s a way of creating solutions for Arizona’s problems by drawing on the vast resources within the state.
What are our resources≠
We have great universities. We have wonderful human capital, leaders with different creative thoughts and perspectives from all over the state. Arizona has a history of being at the forefront of creative solutions for problems.
You’re succeeding Shirley Agnos, who retired in July after serving with the Town Hall for almost 50 years. What are your feelings about taking over and what do you hope to do≠
Well, Shirley Agnos is an important icon in this state who has accomplished a lot. I never felt I could replace Shirley and I don’t think anyone could. What I do hope is to build on the legacy that she has created at the Arizona Town Hall and to continue with that legacy and to create more partnerships and to develop more solutions to the state’s issues that have become more complicated as the state has grown so quickly.
You’re a lawyer by trade. Why did you leave your job to pursue this≠
I started out as a volunteer for the Town Hall. I served on their training committee. I have always believed passionately in what the Town Hall stands for and what they’ve accomplished. Shirley Agnos surprised me one day when I felt we were meeting for a different reason. She told me that she wanted to retire and that she felt I was the person to fill her shoes. So, I didn’t seek this role out and I had not thought about it ahead of time. I loved my law practice. I had the best partners in the world. But what I saw with the Town Hall opportunity to really make even more of a positive difference for Arizona with my life.
What degree of impact do you feel the Arizona Town Hall has made≠
You mean in its entire history≠
Right.
It’s had a tremendous impact. At the time she announced she was going to retire, The Arizona Republic, which of course has covered the Town Hall since its existence, wrote an editorial and said it has been an enormously influential in this state — even though it is largely unknown, it’s influence is not as well-known as it should be. The conversations that have started at Town Halls have led to many of the important features of our state, including institutions that have helped us govern and regulate water, that have allowed us to grow, the merit selection system that exists in Maricopa and Pima counties for our judges; and as a lawyer I know is one of the reasons that we are considered to have some of the best state court judges in the nation. Those are just a few of the ideas that have come out of the Town Hall.
Do any others come to mind≠
Let me give a more specific, small one that comes to mind to show our range: the license plates that you see on the back of vehicles that have the children’s handprints. There were several participants at a Town Hall dealing with youth issues, children’s issues and the lack of funding. At that Town Hall those people said, ‘Here’s what we can do to make sure there is consistent funding for that program.’ Now we have that program here today, so the impacts that come out of Town Hall range from what a few individuals can do together in the community, to statewide laws and policies like our highway system that impact all of us.
Your group makes no secret that individuals wishing to participate in Town Hall discussions are selected upon their ability to disseminate points covered during your events and their influence to help recommendations get enacted. In the interests of public discourse, is this unfair≠
Well, it depends on what you are trying to accomplish out of each Town Hall. With respect to an Arizona Town Hall, because we don’t have the resources to engage in the follow-up activities to make those very well-reasoned recommendations happen, we need to have leaders in the group and people who can take charge and take the recommendations and move them forward. We helped the city of Scottsdale and the Tucson region put on town halls and, in both of those instances, there were some resources to engage in follow-up actions. For the city of Scottsdale, for example, we selected participants based on trying to get a range of representation for the area — not based on who were the leaders in the community. In Tucson we had a little mix. I would like nothing better than to be able to have a variety of different types of town halls where we have a broader range of perspectives and hopefully we’ll be able to continue to be able to have different types of town halls to make that happen. What we have started to do in the last year is an effort to get more local communities’ input on the issues and their input on our programs that happen after our Town Halls. We’re looking at additional methods to get input from as many parts of the community as we can — a much more full range of citizen representation, not just the community leaders, not just the business CEOs, but a much broader voice.
Is it hard to get citizens to participate in this type of thing, to fire them up and get interested in political debates≠
Sometimes. I think the real challenge for an organization like ours is that our focus is on bringing different perspectives together, finding common ground and building solutions. Everyone talks about how much they want that out of the politicians, but the negative campaigning is what gets all of the attention so it is not perhaps as interesting for people to watch a civil discussion and a reasoned debate than two politicians tearing each other apart. Yet, that’s the better way to go — the process of the Town Hall. That’s why I’m there. I’m a former litigation attorney. I know what happens in a trial and when people battle in a way of trying to destroy the other side; where you have one winner and one loser. What really happens is both people lose and the whole community loses, compared to trying to take the different voices and bring them together to build solutions. Is it hard to find people to participate in the Town Hall process≠ An Arizona Town Hall is about a three-and-a-half day commitment. We do have a lot of community and business and government leaders that want to participate because it is such a rich experience once you have been through it. But it is still difficult, in this day and age where everybody has their Blackberries and their cell phones and other commitments, to get as much participation as we like, but we usually don’t have a shortage.
The most recent Arizona Town Hall pertained to land use issues for Arizona and the following report repeatedly called for improved cooperation
among government agencies to address the state’s growth. Is it realistic to expect small local governments to welcome larger entities into the mix≠
I don’t see why it wouldn’t be. To not try to have greater regional and statewide cooperation when the state is going to double in population in 40 years and when people live in one community and work in another and basically traverse constantly between the two is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. We don’t have a choice as a state with our projected growth except to start engaging in more regional cooperation.
Do you think the budget shortfall will affect the recommendations in your report≠
It doesn’t have to. State trust land reform is one of the key recommendations and an action that really needs to happen for this state. Very little of this reform has to do with the budget. Having more communication and planning between different levels of governments and different governments doesn’t require additional funding. Almost all the recommendations that are in the land use report can happen without additional funding through creative thinking, through private-public partnerships and through a lot of other groups and organizations that are interested and seeing our state grow in a much smarter and more planned fashion.
What sort of recommendations do you think will be taken to the Legislature besides state trust land reform≠
Well, that’s the big one. I understand that there are negotiations already underway on a package to go before the Legislature to the extent that people are informed about the issue and want to see change happen. As for the other recommendations, I’m not certain whether there will be legislative discussion on those during this next session.
Why is that≠ The report covered a variety of issues — transportation, property rights, conservation and other matters.
Many of those recommendations don’t require immediate legislative attention.
The report also cites the need for additional taxing — gas taxes, sales taxes, impact fees, and possibly toll roads to help improve transportation in the state. Are these politically impossible considering the makeup of the Legislature≠
Currently I don’t see a lot of movement in changing the tax structure in the state. That’s unfortunate. We have a real problem with the imbalance of how we receive governmental revenues in our state. We have a heavy reliance on sales taxes compared to property taxes. What that means is that we have huge fluctuations of revenue depending on how our economy is doing. Most states do not have the kind of imbalance that we have with property and sales taxes, so most states don’t run into the cycle of either huge deficits or large resources coming in based on how the economy is doing. The reason we have such a huge deficit right now is the housing slowdown. Realistically, the smart but very hard decision is to change that framework so it is more balanced. I don’t know at this time if the Legislature or the citizens of Arizona who are suffering from the decline in real estate values; if that combination is going to allow what all tax revenue experts would say needs to be balanced in a better fashion.
The Arizona Town Hall report addresses Prop. 207, which strengthened property owners’ protections against eminent domain and regulatory takings, and raises the possibility of asking voters to repeal or narrow the law. What makes this new law so harmful≠
Many of the participants were people who supported Prop. 207, so that needs to be kept in mind when reading the recommendations. A lot of laws can be passed where at the time the intent was good and you think you’ve covered all the bases, but it’s not until it’s passed where you realize there may be some problems. Specifically, it was the regulatory takings provision of Prop. 207 that the participants of the Town Hall expressed a particular concern about. It is having a strong impact on the ability of governments to plan and creating many more expenses in the way of legal fees. It is creating a lot of hurdles and expense in planning for future development because of the fear of the litigation involving Prop. 207. It is really getting in the way of good planning mechanisms for a state that is the fastest growing in the nation.
Thank you.
You’re welcome.