After trying for four years, Al Melvin, a university teacher and retired Naval reservist, finally won the District 26 Senate seat last November. Democrat Charlene Pesquiera previously held the seat, but she decided not to seek re-election in 2008.
Melvin’s victory changed the equation of the Senate. Instead of 17 members, the GOP caucus now has 18, which means the Republicans have a two-vote cushion to push their agenda. Partly because of his victory, Melvin joined a more conservative chamber than the one last year.
While running for the seat, critics had painted Melvin as an “ideological extremist.” But the bills he has introduced indicate he is far from being an extreme right-winger. Consider three of the bills: One bans texting while driving. Another penalizes smoking while in a car with a minor. The third bill prohibits driving a pickup truck with someone riding in the bed.
Last year, Democrat Rep. Steve Farley unsuccessfully pushed legislation to ban text-messaging while driving. Melvin’s bill goes a little further; it includes a ban on calling without a hands-free device, in addition to text-messaging, while operating a vehicle. The senator himself acknowledged that these are bills that typically a Democrat would introduce.
In this March 9 interview, Melvin talked about the genesis of these bills and his love for teaching.
Senator, how do you like the job so far?
Of course, the budget is difficult, but frankly with 40 years of business and 30 years of a parallel Naval Reserve career, I feel very comfortable here. I see a lot of similarity between a major military command (like) the Pentagon or the corporate suite of a corporation. It’s very similar—the quiet halls, the individual offices, and the dynamics are the same, too. And, you know, I’m trying to make this physical office as accessible to anyone, and rarely if ever do we ever turn down a request for someone to come in to see us. The one thing is, we’re learning now to put an hour or an hour-and-a-half aside each day for constituent services to be able to respond to e-mails and phone calls and letters. I feel very comfortable and I’m honored. Frankly, I’m also enjoying it.
But, you know, there is an expression that at some point in one’s life, especially if you are my age, 64, (you should) follow your gut. I’ve got 64 years of experience here. And frankly speaking, most of the issues that come up — it’s not a struggle for me. I have the Republican platform. I have the Bible. I have 64 years of life’s experience. So I pretty much know where I stand on most of the issues.
Everybody had his or her priorities in the fiscal year 2009 budget fix. I was wondering if you could cite one or two things that you really fought for in the budget.
I think it’s interesting that we need to protect all of Arizona and there was one part, a hold harmless item of about $5 million, that affected Pima County and all of the counties other than Maricopa. I, myself, Senator Steve Pierce and others, we said, “hey, you got to protect us on these issues.”
(Another is) the poison lab in Tucson. And you know, with Sen. Steve Pierce and myself here, we make the difference in having a conservative majority in the Senate. A lot of people say that, well, you know, the state of Maricopa — they are controlling everything with an iron fist. But in reality, politically, people know that they have to satisfy all the counties if they want to keep this conservative majority. And I think the fact that Sen. Russell Pearce chose me by name to be the vice chair of Appropriations — he acknowledged my key role in this majority and gave me that position, of which I feel honored to have.
And one related point (is) NAU is very critical to Flagstaff because of the small size of the city and having the university. After that, the UofA it could be argued is more critical to Tucson than ASU is to Phoenix just by the size of the cities that they are located in. So we have an obligation to look after the UofA in the overall scheme of things.
I’m sure you’re aware of this ongoing debate about the role of colleges and universities in public life. One group says we should veer away from the humanities — how to be a complete individual, that argument — and that universities and colleges should be institutions to give practical knowledge so that when you get out you actually have a skill that you can use in the real world… I was wondering where you stand on that.
One thing that I have been discussing with friends and students and fellow teachers of late is the proposition that 80 percent of success in life is one’s people skills and only 20 percent is your given profession, whether it’s a brain surgeon, a rocket scientist, a jet-fighter pilot.
My first reaction was that couldn’t be true. But most people, when they think about it, they say yeah, that actually is true.
How you get along with people — that is something away from the hard sciences. But I think most people I talk to say that’s true — getting along with people, public speaking. What do they say? The biggest fear known to man other than death is public speaking. And the second is death while public speaking.
What you’re saying is there’s really a need for those humanities (classes) because they shape you?
Part of this that I would add, and I mention this often… is one of the reasons we must get our K-12 system better is to improve ourselves in math and science. Even though we spend more than any country in the world in our public education system, we rank very low — 18th or 20th — in math and science.
So the end result is we are graduating 15 lawyers for every engineer, which is the opposite of India and China. So you need the hard sciences too. But I think these life skills — public speaking, one’s understanding of financial responsibility, and people skills — you got to have them. That’s why I enjoy teaching because I have a lot of fun and satisfaction in trying to pass some of that along to my students.
How do you use your professorial skills — how you deal with things in the classroom — in the way that you deal with things in the Senate?
Well, some thoughts: One is when I’m teaching — and I’m a big believer of this — I leave politics at the door. Probably by the end of the course people just through osmosis have some indication of where I’m coming from, but I do not impose my political beliefs on my students. I think that’s extremely unethical and immoral and some teachers do. But they shouldn’t.
Well, two things that make a teacher an outstanding teacher I believe is one, you have to know your subject. The students will find out very quickly if you do or you don’t. And number two is, the students have to be convinced that you, the teacher, have their best interest at heart. And that’s what I’m trying to do here. I’m trying to know the subjects to the best of my ability, to be conversant with them, to vote intelligently. And I have my constituents’ best interest at heart.
What do you teach?
At the UofA I teach transportation and logistics, which is tied to my 40 years in international shipping. At the University of Phoenix, I teach management, and at WIU (Western International University), I teach economics and international business online. As a matter of fact I intend to start teaching right here probably
next month.
Is there scenario in which you coul support a tax increase in combination with things that you may be in favor of?
I just can’t do it. I ran on the tax-relief platform, and you know a lot of people are talking about the Republican brand and what is it. I hear the governor of South Carolina talking on the radio today. (He said) when you buy a John Deere tractor or a Caterpillar bulldozer you know what the brand is and you know what the product is. And I think we have to get back to basics here.
So there’s no scenario (where you’d) support a package that would include a tax increase and at the same time maybe get your equalization tax repeal?
No, but I did mention the one exception in the press conference, which I think is a good example of something that would come along. And really, to tell you the truth, I hate class warfare — the rich versus the poor or the races, you know, the whites versus the blacks. We are all Americans. We are all Arizonans. And when we do the right thing, we all benefit.
And yet people will say, Phoenix versus the other counties. I have had heard people in Tucson (ask) why do we have these lousy roads compared to Phoenix with those great roads? Well, for 20 years the voters voted down a road-improvement package four times. The fifth one passed. I was in favor of it. That’s why I didn’t sign the no new tax pledge this time because there are some exceptions that come down the road.
You have introduced legislation that is not typically part of the Republican platform. That struck some as interesting because, for one, you were painted as an ultra-conservative during last year’s election.
Well, some tried to do that. But I’m not. I’m a Reagan Republican.
But frankly, there are two reasons for those bills. One, I think they’re the right thing to do — the no-kill animal shelter, the hands-free cell phone, the no-people in the back of a pickup truck. The latter two I know will save lives, so I believe in those bills. And it breaks my heart to see thousands of animals euthanized all the time.
But, on the other hand, I thought it would be kind of fun to see how the votes go and see how the press covers it because these are bills that typically a Democrat would sponsor and not a Republican. But I think it shows that I’m kind of a multifaceted kind of guy.
Let’s flesh them out a bit. Senate Bill 1443 would ban texting and restrict cell phone use while driving. Last year, Representative Steve Farley introduced a bill to ban texting while driving. Yours actually would expand it to include (banning) making calls without a handset while driving. Did you ever work with Representative Farley on this legislation?
No. But one related point is I’m in the majority. He’s in the minority. I think I stand a better chance probably of my bill being heard and hopefully voted on. But having said that, I think I’m going to need a lot of Democratic votes to get it passed.
You mentioned that you strongly feel that this would save lives. That’s the reason why you introduced the bill. But isn’t this something better left to individuals to discern? That is, (leave it to) individual responsibility and common sense?
But I’m sure you’ve heard of these sad incidents where a whole carload of teenagers is killed and then they go back and find out that the driver was text messaging. Logically, it just makes sense to me. And I know that it would save lives. The Highway Patrol likes it and has statistics that show that lives will be saved.
Your other bill has something to do with prohibiting smoking in a car with a minor. Same question: Doesn’t this limit individual liberty?
To tell you the truth, I remember as a kid growing up, my father was a smoker. Obviously, I lived to tell about it. But I think we’re getting wiser now, too, and he died of lung cancer, and I just don’t think it’s right that young children would be there confined in a car with a parent who is smoking.
You know, we don’t smoke in our buildings. We smoke outside. The parent can smoke before the drive starts and after they get there. But why subject the children to it? I’m not trying to have draconian measures in people’s personal lives. It’s just it passes the logic test for me. ?