A freshman Republican from Tucson, Rep Vic Williams seems somewhat overwhelmed by the budget process. He says he didn’t fully understand the technical aspects leading up to a special session to fix the unbalanced fiscal 2009 state budget.
Williams, owner of a real estate investment firm, says he campaigned on three issues — quality education, illegal immigration and handling the budget crisis. So far, the budget has taken center stage.   
When you talk to people, constituents or lobbyists, about the budget compromises, do you worry they don’t understand the gravity of the deficit?
Every single agency I have talked to comes to the table understanding it is not a matter of if they will be cut but by how much they will be cut.
I think that our leadership is doing a fantastic job of allowing ownership on this; it is all of us together. Especially when it comes to (Rep.) Rich Crandall on education. He has done a tremendous job.
We want to go hands off and eliminate regulations for the next five months as we finish off the year. We need to allow them to run our school districts without us interfering. If they want to continue all-day kindergarten or if their needs are in transportation or soft capital, let them make those decisions.
That is very much the type of Republicanism I support, local control.    
While campaigning, you advocated for an overhaul of the state’s tax system.
I am going to put it this way: We need regulatory and tax consistency, as well as an overhaul. I strongly believe that. Currently, our tax structure is predicated on corporate income tax and personal income tax, and we need to get away from that. We need to develop an environment where we attract business to the state. We need to be regulatory- and tax-competitive with our surrounding states.
What changes to the state’s corporate and personal income taxes would that require?
Well, we should look at other states and see how they are structuring their tax codes and regulatory systems and make sure we are competitive with them.
Moving into something a little bit different, as a freshman legislator — what I am going to call Gordian Knots of legislation that has been built upon layer by layer needs to be streamlined. I can tell, at this point in time, that we have very complicated funding systems for all of our agencies. In our regulatory respects as well, these policies need to be streamlined. That will certainly make our state more receptive for larger businesses to be here.
Are there any taxes in particular you think need to be altered?
One tax in particular would be the personal property tax we have on business. I believe the number comes in at $100,000 in capital assets you have in your corporation that you have to start paying a personal property tax.
To me, what that does is encourage small business to not go out and invest in brick and mortar. It promotes people to work out of their houses. It doesn’t encourage people to go out and open up a welding shop, a plumbing supply company or some kind of other brick-and-mortar facility because once you get over $100,000, you start paying on your filing cabinets, your computer system, your palate racking or your storage materials.
I think this is something you find in many states around the country, that it is so complex once you transition from a sole proprietor to actually hiring individuals that we need to make an effort to streamline and make it simpler for people to employ others.
As we all know, 50 to 60 percent of all employment is done through smaller companies. And the catalyst to develop larger companies is through smaller companies. As we continue to over-regulate industry in a way that makes it more and more complicated to get into business and employ others, it ultimately affects the long-term outcome of our state’s economy.
Can we afford to make adjustments to taxes, the state’s revenue source?
No. We need overall regulatory reform on a long-term basis, but right now we have to address our budget crisis. That is an entirely different subject. We have to do today and tomorrow whatever it takes to get through this immediate problem.
So the tax overhaul you are suggesting should be placed on the back burner?
Yes, we need to look at taxes for the long term. For example, and this is not something I am advocating, but we bring in so little revenue to our general fund from corporate income tax. The last time I saw a JLBC report, it was $800 million that came from the tax to our fund. Once we stabilize our budget crisis, maybe let’s take a look at our corporate income tax. If it is contributing such a small fraction to our overall general fund, maybe that is something we take a look at first when doing an overhaul.
If we went from receiving $600 million to $300 million from tax, but it made us attractive to companies from other states — I know our regulations are a tapestry. I know you can’t just go in and change one area of policy and not affect everything else.
I also have a concern of the institutional knowledge we have now with term limits. I worry that we will never be able to effectively overhaul the systems because of term limits and not having that institutional knowledge within the Legislature. That institutional knowledge now lies within agency heads, staff and the special interest community. Those who actually have the ability to craft and make the decision on the floor of the House of Representatives will never have that ongoing knowledge. 
Do you advocate for the removal of term limits?
I am not saying I would advocate against term limits at this time, but I would certainly strongly consider allowing legislation that would allow term limits to be considered again at the ballot box.
I think term limits are negatively impacting the people of Arizona.
On the campaign trail you also advocated for the introduction of market principles to health care. What in particular do you think should be altered in the way the state distributes health care?
We need to take a look at health care in general. We have gotten to the point where the relationship between the doctor and the patient is completely devoid of any market principles.
When you or I go in to see our doctor, we just go in for treatment. We are all familiar with the horror story of people getting billed for $15 aspirins or $800 ankle boots you could easily get on your own.
There is none of that negotiation or a relationship between the doctor and patient anymore where market principles are brought up. I think we need to somehow reinstall that. Now, I am not talking about people going out and having to barter with their doctor to get a flu shot or to get a physical. But I know if you are going to get your house painted or some other service, you at least have an idea of what those services will cost you. We have gone away from that in the health care business.
Do you think the state should require doctors to inform patients of the cost of procedures?
Possibly. I think we can take a look at having the doctors put up a menu list so people can shop and rate the lists out as they go about looking for services. I am sure that I, looking at it at that level is naive, but I would like to hear why we can’t do that. 
Another thing that I think is a problem is that because of medical malpractice, doctors over-test to ensure they are not held
liable. That is something we can look at to try to bring down the cost of health care in the state of Arizona.
Are you advocating the relaxing the state’s medical liability laws?
That is not my level of expertise. But we need to take a look at everything. There are a lot of things that need to be overhauled. Until I came to work here at the Capitol, I was on a private health care system. As a single individual, I paid over $5,000 a year for my health. That is just huge.
What should the state do to lower the costs of insurance?
Obviously for smaller groups and individuals we need to make sure they have access to risk pools to help bring the cost down. We certainly need to modify the type of high-risk pools we have here in the state also.
With the budget being the primary issue this session, do you think these other places for change you are presenting will ever be discussed?
I don’t see it happening. I don’t see it happening this session. The budget deficit is so big at this point in time that I just don’t see it happening.
From what I am getting from the people who have been here for a couple of terms, is that the 2010 budget is going to go all the way into May or June. We are not going to finish it until the end of the session. Considering the size and severity of the budget, I don’t think we will have the opportunity to talk about other issues.
Does that lessen the quality of representation the citizens of the state and your district are receiving?
No. There are three things I campaigned on: quality education, illegal immigration and handling our budget crisis. In many ways we are handling some of our education problems through the budget. Illegal immigration has certainly turned into a back burner item at this point in time.
And do you think that is something your constituents are aware of and support?
I am not hearing from them right now either way. Where are they at this moment? Are they willing to accept the budget crisis overriding, say, illegal immigration concerns? I haven’t heard from my constituents.
Out of all the e-mails I have had, not a single one has been about illegal immigration. I am not hearing people saying, “Hey Vic, the budget is important, but don’t forget about the illegal immigration problems we have here in the state.”
If I start to hear that, I will certainly address those concerns. 

Were it not for the brisk air outside, one might think it was sine die night, as lawmakers hung around the Capitol until well after sunset, waiting for word that each chamber had agreed on budget provisions before they returned triumphantly to the floor for a late-night session.
In reality, it was the third week of the legislative calendar — only 17 days after legislators took the oath of office — and neither the House nor the Senate had debated a single bill on their respective floors.
But on Jan. 28, there were 31 representatives and 16 senators who waited until almost 9:30 p.m. for Gov. Jan Brewer to call the Legislature into a special session to close a $1.58 billion budget deficit in the current fiscal year.
The announcement that there would be a special session is really the beginning of the end of a process that began the day the Legislature returned to the Capitol and was kicked into overdrive this week.
By the end of the first week of legislative work, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees had released a list of options for bridging the budget gap. It included $758 million in cuts to state spending, transferring $668 million from dedicated funding sources and banking on $400 million in stimulus money from the federal government.
Among the possible cuts outlined by the GOP budget leaders were $103 million to K-12 education, $175 million to the three state universities, $160 million to the public health care system and $110 million from social welfare programs. Additionally, the chairmen recommended a 4.2-percent reduction in salary expenses that agencies could achieve through layoffs, furloughs or salary cuts.
The final week of January began with House Democrats offering an alternative budget package to the list of options for solving the deficit proposed earlier in the month by the GOP budget leaders.
Rather than cutting a wide swath in state spending, an idea supported by many Republicans who touted cutting spending as the only way to financial stability, the Democrats’ plan deferred some government spending on higher education and health care to next year and protected the jobs of all state employees.
Democratic leaders said they hoped their proposal could help foster discussion with Republicans. Their plan called for $702 million in funds transfers, $202 million in specific agency cuts and $77 million in lump sum reductions, as well as a $75 million university rollover and $167 million in deferred payments.
Later that day, the Senate announced it would use the chairmen’s options as the basis for their budget proposal. Senate President Bob Burns laid out the plan for the rest of the week: Craft a budget that would get enough votes in the House and Senate to pass, bring the package to the governor who, upon agreeing to the budget fix, would call a special session.
Lawmakers needed to act swiftly, he said, in order to pass the budget changes before Feb. 1, after which point the deficit would increase by $160 million. He and House Speaker Kirk Adams were aiming to vote on the bills by the end of the week.
But on Jan. 27, the House budget proposal was announced. Unlike the Senate proposal Burns spoke about a day earlier, the House package was not based on the options list. It cut $552 million from state spending, swept $591 million from dedicated funds — including $130 million from the state's rainy day fund — and predicted $500 million in federal stimulus money.
The House proposal would take only $129 million from the universities, $44 million from public health care and $97 million from the welfare programs.
“We need to cut government, but not to the degree that it damages institutions. We need to responsibly get government back into a fiscally sound state,” said House Appropriations Chairman John Kavanagh.
Republican legislative leaders continued meeting, with each other and with their members, in an attempt to come to an agreement on a budget. By Jan. 28, they were close to a deal, with the largest differences between the two plans being how much federal stimulus would be expected and how large the cuts would be to the university system.
That afternoon, Adams announced on the House floor that there would be a special session called later that day — within “the next few hours,” he said — and the budget bills would be introduced and the process of passing them would begin in earnest.
After he made the announcement, Adams, Burns and other Republican leaders met for hours, trying to bring the House and Senate plans in line. A little after 7 p.m., shortly after a brief meeting with the governor, the leaders had the framework of a deal in place and they dispersed to ensure they could get the needed votes within their caucuses.
Brewer had made it clear to Burns and Adams that she would not call a special session absent the support of 16 senators and 31 representatives for the budget. She wanted to avoid a protracted special session in which the two legislative chambers haggle over the minutiae of a budget fix while the days go by and the state continues to hemorrhage money.
Once she was informed the legislative leaders had the needed votes in hand, Brewer agreed to call the 49th Legislature into special session; she signed a proclamation to that effect at 9:26 p.m. Within the hour, the House and Senate had completed the first day of the special session, introduced six budget bills in each chamber and assigned them to the Appropriations committees.
The deal House and Senate leaders struck called for $583 million in spending cuts, $584 million in fund sweeps and $500 million in federal assistance. The cuts were sizeable, but attempts were made to mitigate the damage to programs, GOP leaders said.
Universities would be cut $141 million, but about $70 million in maintenance projects that were held up in a legislative oversight committee would be released. Public schools would be cut $133 million, but would be allowed to use money for soft capital — things like books and supplies — to offset cuts to maintenance and operations.
On Jan. 29, those committees heard the budget bills and approved them by a party-line vote and. At press time, lawmakers were preparing to debate them on the floor. A formal vote on the budget was tentatively scheduled for Friday, Jan. 30. As of press time, no floor action had been taken place.?

Before a budget is brought to the full Senate for a vote, it would have to pass through a floor debate called Committee of the Whole.

Lawmakers and Capitol observers simply call it by the acronym COW. 

On most days, COWs are a dull, routine part of the legislative process.

But on other days, the meetings can become explosive, acrimonious, or even downright nasty.

The source of the contention is that COW is the last stop before legislation gets voted up or down. It is during COW that all lawmakers have the chance to debate and offer amendments to specific legislation. Perhaps more significantly, it is the one avenue available to critics to try to stop measures that actually have enough votes to pass. 

For the most part, decorum is maintained. But at times, the debate teeters on the edge of civility – and sometimes, lines are crossed. 

Much really depends on the subject, but sometimes, it also depends on the lawmaker with the gavel sitting in the dais, calling the shots.

That person is called a COW chair. He or she manages the flow of debate, ensures that the business at hand is finished, and sees to it that everyone behaves.

But that's when things get complicated. Lawmakers can offer floor amendments to a bill, propose amendments to the amendments, verbally divide the amendments or try to amend the COW report to reflect that an amendment has passed or failed – even after the debates have concluded. In between, lawmakers may challenge the "germaneness" of the amendments and raise a flurry of points of order.   

That's just the technical side of COW. Then there is the debate itself.

And then there is the filibuster, a parliamentary maneuver meant to derail passage of legislation.

During the past few weeks, the Senate has been holding a "COW camp," a one-hour instruction on Senate rules, procedures and motions. Senate President Bob Burns sent out an invitation to lawmakers to attend one. Several new members and veterans have since participated in the COW camp.

What have lawmakers learned?

"Don't turn off the microphones," said Sen. John Huppenthal, a veteran lawmaker.

Rewind to June 27, 2008, the final night session: A Republican chairing COW cut off two Democrats in the middle of what amounted to a filibuster to try to stop a proposal to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in Arizona.

The Democrats, senators Paula Aboud and Ken Cheuvront, actually discussed a different subject – excise taxes – to stall. It was getting late, lawmakers had worked through the previous night, and the pair of Democrats knew the Republicans had the 16 votes needed to pass a so-called marriage amendment.

The showdown began when another lawmaker offered a floor amendment on counties and excise taxes. Sen. Jack Harper, then the chair of COW, recognized Cheuvront, who voiced his concerns against the amendment. At that point, Cheuvront already achieved half of the Democrats' goal – which was to take control of the floor. Under Senate rules, a senator who has the floor during a COW debate can talk as long as he wants and as long as he stays on topic.

Soon Cheuvront engaged Aboud in discussion. Only then it became clear to everyone that the two Democrats had just begun a filibuster.

Harper interrupted the Democrats by clearing the microphones and handing the floor to a Republican, who made a motion that effectively ended the debate.

The ballot referendum, now known as Proposition 102, was eventually passed. Democrats protested that Senate rules were violated. Cheuvront later charged Harper with an ethics violation.

After investigation, Harper was cleared of the charge. Harper admitted he intentionally turned off the microphones and apologized for his part in the divisiveness that ensued. But he said the tone had been set by his "more liberal" colleagues, particularly during the earlier debate to pass the state's fiscal 2009 budget.

Lingering pains

On the first day of the current session, there were indications that the wounds from last session lingered on – or at least they remained unforgotten.

Immediately after the Senate adopted rules, a pro-forma action made at the beginning of each session, Sen. Meg Burton Cahill, a Democrat from Tempe, stood up to say she had pressed her "speak" button because she wanted a roll-call vote on the adoption of rules.

She said she wanted to make a point: "When we have an instance where things go by and there is an error, there is, at least to the best of my knowledge, no procedure in our rules to accommodate going back."

She wanted a roll-call vote because of what happened last year, she said.

Senate President Bob Burns told the body that the rules adopted were temporary and there would be an opportunity to change them at a later date.

"My point," Burton Cahill later told the Arizona Capitol Times, "is just that if we have a rule that has no consequence, do we really have a rule?" She added she could not vote for the adoption of rules that has no mechanism to go back to an error if one were made.

Asked if the hard feelings still linger, Aboud said, "Nothing has changed. Only time has passed. Time doesn't heal, contrary to popular opinion."

Even Sen. Ron Gould, a Republican from Lake Havasu City, noticed people are not exhibiting that "warm, fuzzy feeling."

"It's nothing that is spoken," he said. "I think people were cordial. And people are still cordial, but you could just kind of tell."

He doesn't harbor any hard feelings, even though his rights were stomped on as hard as anybody's, he said.

Open to rules revision

Republicans appear open to the revision of rules.   

Sen. Thayer Verschoor, a Republican from Gilbert, said he thinks the current rules pretty much cover everything, but added he is not necessarily opposed to the idea of a mechanism to go back to correct an error.

"Now is an opportunity to have that discussion and see if there is anything that can be worked out," he said.

Gould, who is adept at using Senate rules to his advantage and has pulled out some of the rarest parliamentary maneuvers in recent years, said he would have objected himself to the adoption of "final" rules.

"We need to actually sit down and take a look at our rules because there is some stuff that we need to work on," he said.

Gould said for one, he wants to look at the rule about "calling for the previous question," which has the effect of immediately stopping debate to vote on the motion at hand.

"It ends all debate," Gould said, adding he disagrees with it because the business of the chamber is to debate. But there would be plenty of time to look at the Senate's rules later, he said. After all, committees would not be hearing non-budget bills any time soon, because Burns has announced he won't be assigning bills to committees until after the budget is fixed.

Asked if the hard feelings have lingered, Verschoor said June "wasn't too long ago."

He said he would have preferred to take care of controversial business, such as the marriage amendment or the equalization property tax, early in the session, in February, for example. These are issues that ought to be brought to the floor and dispensed with quickly one way or the other so they can get on with the rest of the Senate business, Verschoor said.

"And I think that's the smartest way to do it – not to hold them off, basically not to really let them sit in the pot and stew and stew and stew because I think it just makes it worse," he said.

Verschoor said it doesn't surprise him that what happened in the final days of last session still lingers a little bit.
"I think for the most part that the process is a good process and right now, from what I have been able to see, most of the members are ready to move forward with the business at hand, which is how do we deal with this deficit."

Sen. Pamela Gorman, the majority whip, said she and a legislative staff had actually started talking about the idea of a COW camp when both were in the House. Through the course of term limits, they have seen the understanding of rules, proper procedures and motions getting "harder and harder." Members were starting to stumble with fewer examples to follow, she said. 

"I said maybe we need to start regularly training people each term before we put them on the spotlight and put them on the line and expect them to be running a room," she said.

"But that," Gorman said, referring to what happened last year, "certainly prompted a surge of effort" to push for changes.

They don't want to put anyone in that kind of situation again, she said.

 "It wasn't just the person in the chair," Gorman said. "There were people making improper motions not understanding when a motion was appropriate, when it wasn't (and) people shouting ‘Point of order.'"

Maybe things could have been handled differently, she said.

Senate Secretary Charmion Billington and Rules Attorney Joni Hoffman conducted the COW training. Melissa Taylor of the majority office organized the camp.

Billington said they discussed how to deal with points of order, motions to divide amendments and the difference between retaining a bill on the calendar and retaining it in place. They talked about making sure that motions are proper. They discussed debate, such as the concept of "yielding the floor." They touched on what to do when a bill fails during debate and on the use of the request-to-speak system. And they even held mock COW debates. 

One of those who attended the COW training was freshman Sen. Al Melvin, a Republican from Tucson.

One of the things emphasized was to refer to members by their district instead of their names when discussions get really heated, according to Melvin.

Gould sat in the class with Melvin.

Gould said he also gave Melvin some instructions "on the black arts of Senate rules."

Just pause

Gould is adept at practicing parliamentary maneuvers. He has, for example, refused to vote while remaining on the floor, which effectively stalled Senate business, since all members on the floor have to vote unless excused. The move can actually be countered. But when he did it a few years back, he got what he wanted.

What's his advice to the COW chair? Just follow the rules, he said.

At times, the body, through what he called "creative motions," may get into places it has not gone before. When that happens, Gould said the chair needs to just pause.

"Pause and wait until you get some instructions from the secretary, her staff and the rules attorney to figure out how to proceed," he said.

One lawmaker won't be chairing any COW this year – Harper, the Surprise Republican.

"I will not be chairing Committee of the Whole even if asked," Harper said.

"I came to that conclusion when I saw that even if you follow the Senate rules you can be dragged to the Senate Ethics Committee for the purpose of politics, during election, when you put yourself in that situation by chairing Committee of the Whole."

The exodus of Arizona Democrats to Washington, D.C., continued as state party spokeswoman Emily DeRose announced that she is leaving her post. Another high-profile Democrat, former Gov. Janet Napolitano’s spokeswoman, Jeanine L’Ecuyer, is staying in Arizona, and announced that she is joining Ziemba Waid Public Affairs as the firm’s director of communications.
DeRose, who has served as communications director for the Arizona Democratic Party since August 2007, is taking the same position with the Democratic Governors Association. She said the job is an extraordinary opportunity to help Democrats win the many gubernatorial seats that are up for grabs in 2010.
“The governors’ races in 2010 are going to be incredibly critical to not only what’s happening in the states, but also what happens in Congress. There are three dozen races in 2010, and I think that it will be an enormous challenge and is incredibly important to work to elect common-sense Democrats all over the country,” she said.
L’Ecuyer, who spent five years as Napolitano’s press secretary and deputy chief of staff for communications, said her work at Ziemba Waid will be similar to her work in the Governor’s Office, and will include handling strategic communications, risk assessment and planning. The firm’s client list includes the city of Phoenix, Arizona State University, Service Employees International Union and United Healthcare Group, as well as numerous political campaigns.
“I’m looking forward to it. I’m really grateful to them, Tom Ziemba and David Waid, for giving me the opportunity. I’m really looking forward to working with both those guys. They’re both very, very good at what they do, and have terrific resumes,” L’Ecuyer said. “I’m really excited, especially as we’re coming into another election cycle and it will be, as usual, great fun to see what happens in Arizona, and always great fun to participate in that.”
Though she will no longer be in Arizona, DeRose is also looking ahead to the state’s next election cycle, when Democrats will attempt to retake a Ninth Floor that was ceded to Republican Jan Brewer when former Gov. Janet Napolitano resigned to head the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“It means that I get to continue to work where my heart is,” she said of the 2010 gubernatorial race.
DeRose, a former reporter for ~The Arizona Republic~ and Bloomberg news service, said she starts at her new job immediately and will move to Washington as soon as she finds a place to live. Her husband, Chris DeRose, a Valley attorney and active Republican, will continue to live in Phoenix.
“It looks like we will have a commuter marriage,” she said.
L’Ecuyer spent more than 20 years in broadcast news, including as the top manager of the KPNX-TV news division. She also worked as a spokeswoman for Sky Harbor International Airport and project manager for the Phoenix Fire Department before joining Napolitano’s administration.
In a press release, Ziemba Waid stated, “We are thrilled to have Jeanine on board. Her vast experience and expertise will be an invaluable asset to our team and our clients.”
DeRose’s announcement continues a recent trend of Democrats leaving Arizona for Washington that started when Napolitano accepted a position in President Barack Obama’s Cabinet. That L’Ecuyer bucked that trend by not going to DHS and continuing her work for Napolitano was a surprise to some observers.
“I’ve heard some people ask why I didn’t (go to Washington), and I have some very personal reasons for making the decision to stay here,” L’Ecuyer said. “I’m really grateful to Governor Napolitano for all the opportunities that she’s given me. … Our professional relationship will continue in some form or fashion, I’m sure.”
Working for Napolitano, L’Ecuyer said, was the “greatest experience of my life, without a doubt.”
DeRose said her work with the party over the past two years was a rewarding experience, and said she is confident about the future of the Arizona Democratic Party. The Minnesota-raised DeRose added that “Arizona is my home, my adopted home, and I fully expect to find myself back here sometime in the future.”
L’Ecuyer will replace director of communications Katie Paquet, who will step into a new role as Ziemba Waid’s director of operations.
DeRose said she did not know who might replace her as communications director for the state party.