Background:
- Professional lobbyist for 24 years (knows how the system works)
- fought against the grandparents car-seat law, but the Republicans told the Democrats they could have one law and they chose the car-seat issue.
- Has lobbied for businesses ranging from tobacco to billboards
- Says that the Constitution requires highway patrol, police and education only and that all other state spending has been the result of somebody’s “big idea”
- Wants to streamline education to make sure more money gets to the students (cut overhead)
- We need more effort on energy
- use natural gas resources
- there is 40,000 barrels per day worth of oil in the basin that could be developed (she worked as a lobbyist for an oil development company
- Supports greater efficiency in the delivery of higher education
- Supports public employees and teachers and wants to make our support systems for these workers more modern
Pros:
- As a lobbyist, she knows her way around the system
Cons:
- As a lobbyist, she’s certain to bring some of her professional priorities to the state legislature (for better or for worse)
- Long on talk about finding ‘efficiencies’ and cutting ‘overhead’ but short on specific recommendations to accomplish the goal.
Questions:
- What companies has she lobbied for (important to make sure priorities align)
- When she says she supports teachers and public employees, does that means the supports the people or the unions? That’s a big distinction because of course the unions tried to block pension reform at the risk of bankrupting the state.
- What specific recommendations would she propose to cut overhead and find efficiencies in higher education?