LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN

There were a number of strategies that were important to success. Most of these were keyed to the way that the legislature operated and the way committees worked. The lobbyist had a clear understanding of the important players. Since the bill’s greatest hurdle was going to be getting through the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, the lobbyist and a landscape architect met with the chair of that committee and discussed the bill. The chair, Senator Tim Kelley, was familiar with the bill from the last two attempts and was sympathetic. He was instrumental in finding a strong legislator on the majority side to move the bill forward and orchestrated that effort. He was also important in keeping the committee referrals to a minimal level, which saved a tremendous amount of time in moving the bill. The sponsor Senator Jerry Mackie, and his staff, were then educated as to the all of the bill’s issues and how to address them and he served as an extraordinary advocate once educated.

Another key issue was shaping the chapter to respond with the appropriate level of effort to the need at any given time. A group of three landscape architects, Dwayne Adams, FASLA, Linda Cyra Korsgaard, ASLA, and Elise Huggins, FASLA, were responsible for moving quickly and answering questions as they arose. They had quick and easy access to the lobbyist and worked very closely to iron out language. This small group became the key people that were at the fingertips of the bill’s sponsor, the State Division of Occupational Licensing, and the lobbyist, and at times had minute-by-minute updates with the key interests.

One thing that was found very early is that the committees were not interested in lengthy testimony by numerous people. They were interested in hearing about key issues for which they had concerns. To address this, the key people identified issues of concern prior to the committee meetings by having the lobbyist contact the members prior to the meeting. Time before the committee was then spent addressing issues of concern head-on. Also, the groundwork was laid and education was provided to the individual legislators before the meeting so that there was an understanding of the concerns that each might have.

The larger membership was involved by developing a phone tree organized by Ken Pendleton, ASLA to act tactically as the bill moved. Just as the bill moved to a new committee, the phone tree ensured a deluge of messages that illustrated strong support. This timely outpouring of support insured that if a legislator did not have a strong position on the bill, he or she was at least able to say for the record that they had received a number of letters and messages in support of the legislation. Another important strategy was in aligning constituents to the individual legislators. Where possible, landscape architects were matched to their legislators and made personal contact with them. Still, this was quite difficult since there were only 35 ASLA members in Alaska and not many more landscape architects. This again is where the use of the Alaska Professional Design Council (APDC) came in handy.

APDC hosted roundtables just prior to elections to allow candidates to respond APDC positions. These meetings were held on a regional basis and legislators had to respond directly to local constituents on issues brought forward by APDC. Since licensure had been adopted as an issue by APDC, candidates were asked to take a position on landscape architecture licensure. Since at that time licensure was not an issue that any legislators saw problems with (many not being sure), they generally went on the record as supporting it. This then paved the way for the position they would later take. If they did have concerns, they would preface their concerns by saying they “supported it,” but just wanted to make sure everything was addressed.

Interestingly enough, one of the key turning points occurred as a result of the APDC roundtable in Fairbanks. Though no landscape architects were even at that roundtable meeting (there were only two landscape architects in the city), the allied professions took the role of stating that licensure was one of the agenda items they wanted moved forward. The Senate Finance Committee Chair listened to the presentation and immediately moved the bill out of his committee and to the floor at the beginning of the next session (the second year of the bill’s progress), which cleared all remaining hurdles in the Senate. This allowed the bill to quickly move into the House where it progressed rapidly.

One effort that was very helpful was the use of interdisciplinary offices to support the bill. Interdisciplinary offices that hired landscape architects exhibited strong support for licensure. They generally saw that licensure would only improve the image of the firm and generally understood the value of landscape architectural services. These leaders of key firms were often board members of the sister organizations and provided a strong voice both on their boards, before APDC, and before the legislature. Again, the relationship with the allied professionals was an important ingredient.

Fundamental to selling the idea was the tailoring of the message to the audience. The legislature exhibited two distinct leanings when it came to whether they considered supporting the bill. These two issues were founded first on the public safety and health (we avoided the use of the word “welfare”) and secondly whether it was good for business. In general, the minority Democratic legislators were concerned about health/safety issues while the majority Republican legislators were focused on business issues.

The public health and safety issue was relatively easy to demonstrate. There had been a strong debate before the public concerning playground safety. It had become an editorial issue in the local Anchorage media and members provided editorial input to the “letters to the editor” and in “community voices” pieces. This helped keep the public safety issue up front and made the argument before the legislature relatively easy.

The business issue was relatively easy to address as well. Since much of Alaska is in federal ownership, significant amounts of work are provided by federal agencies. Working with landscape architects in the public sector such as Steve Hennig, ASLA, and Nora Laughlin, ASLA, the chapter was able to document the amount of work that went to non-Alaskan firms, and the amount was significant. The chapter made the argument that much of this resulted from the selection by federal agencies of persons that were licensed and that this presented an unfair advantage to these outside firms. Further, these firms often had little understanding of heat transfer, freeze/thaw issues, or injuries relative to various sidewalk texture treatments. Landscape architects then pointed to the special qualifications for arctic engineering that would be a part of licensure and would ensure that out-of-state landscape architects would have a fundamental understanding of arctic/sub-arctic issues. Thus while providing for the business interests of Alaskans, it also insured that if outside firms practiced in the state, they would be required to have appropriate qualifications to do so.

The issue of grandfathering was addressed by simply not allowing anyone to be grandfathered. While this was somewhat painful to some older, established practitioners, it laid moot the argument about whether some unqualified individuals might be allowed to practice through loopholes. This was important to head off yet one more reason for anyone to deny licensure.

While the relationship to the allied professions was good, there remained individuals that had concerns and compromises had to be made. The most significant of these was for board representation on the Architect/Engineer/Land Surveyor Board (AELS Board). This was an issue for two reasons. First, adding one landscape architect would produce an even number of board members. Second, expanding the board would increase the fiscal note (cost). Since other professions such as petroleum engineers and chemical engineers (with more professionals in the state than landscape architects) have no representation, some were loathe to allowing 35-50 landscape architects to have representation. Also, legislators found that if they had a concern, it was for any increase in the operating budget.

This was addressed by agreeing to a non-paid, non-voting landscape architect who would provide input to the board during the formative time of landscape architecture licensing. Given the relationship of landscape architects to the other professions, this has not proven to be problematic and the position is now funded through more recent legislation. It is hoped that the position will at some point be a full voting position and legislators have indicated some interest in allowing such a thing after the passage of some time.