By Phil Riske, managing editor
Always judging a bill as to whether it’s good public policy, Sen. Robert Blendu, R-12, also is a stickler for parliamentary procedure and civility on the Senate floor, wrote Arizona Capitol Times in 2006.
Blendu served 10 years in the Legislature including as majority whip in the House and in the Senate as Rules Committee chairman, parliamentarian and president pro tem.
Today, the 71-year-old father of nine is a first vice president with Morgan Stanley and the Litchfield resident looks back on the Legislature in an e-mail interview with Rose Law Group Reporter (RLGR).
RLGR: What are your observations of the Arizona Legislature’s actions and directions since you were a member?
Blendu: I served for ten years in the Legislature and every year I watched us do collectively, what none of us would do individually. Being critical isn’t hard.
I have a test for YOU. Let’s see how YOU will do.
Imagine this: There are 60 House Members, 30 Senate Members, and the Governor. A total of 91 people. It takes 31 votes in the House and 16 votes in the Senate to pass a bill to the Governor to be signed into law.
Now, YOU are taking everyone to 31 flavors.
As soon as YOU can get 31House members, 16 Senate members to agree on what flavor EVERYONE has to eat, then YOU must convince the Governor to eat the same flavor, or you start over.
If you have ever taken kids to 31 flavors, how’d that go for you?
You often sought a middle ground on issues as a senator, so what are your thoughts on the so-called tea party movement?
My understanding of the Tea Party is they believe in defending our Constitution, The Supreme Law of the Land. They have gone by other names in the past. In 1789 they were called Our Founding Fathers and Patriots .
You argue in a letter to The Arizona Republic—which was rejected—the Constitution is literal; its wording is not to be twisted for whatever reason. You write playing loose with the wording has led to invasion of our privacy by the federal government. What do you have to say about the Arizona Constitution? Have lawmakers maneuvered its mandates for political reasons?
Our Founding Fathers argued over every word and punctuation mark creating our Constitution. They wanted it to be meaningful, they meant what they said.
Their words are meant to be applied not interpreted. What’s the difference? If words are elastic, what can they mean? I notice the words of The Supreme Court don’t seem to be elastic, or are they? Why one and not the other?
My challenge to all who believe the words in our Constitution were meant to be “interpreted” instead of “applied” is;
Let’s play a game of poker using the rules of Hoyle, but I get to “interpret” the rules instead of “applying” them. Wanna hazard a guess on who’s gonna win?
There will always be people in power who want to bend and pervert the rules. They should be rooted out. If you find our Constitution flawed, our Founding Fathers created a process to change it.
Should the electorate be concerned incumbents with money tend to win elections?
Incumbents tend to win because your voting record automatically attracts a certain group of supporters. And supporters, support. How many of your neighbors know anything about governing, or who their Representative and Senator is?
Supporters know, because it’s important to them and their issue. How many people do you know that have worked on a campaign, without pay?
Money/Politics? No one corrupts anyone, you do that to yourself.
No matter how many laws are created there will never be a substitute for honesty and integrity.
Does institutional knowledge outweigh fresh blood?
Institutional knowledge is invaluable. Year after year there are people who peddle the same good “sounding” ideas to the Legislature.
These are terrible ideas for the taxpayer. THAT’S when you can lean back in your chair and remember “I have seen this before, they are not disclosing the ramifications of this idea.” Then you start asking questions that THEY must answer to expose’s the “real” effects of their proposal. Institutional knowledge in the budget process is another example.
Fresh blood? I have served with “bad fresh blood”, “good fresh blood”, “good blood gone bad” and “bad blood gone good”. Once again, there will never be a substitute for honesty and integrity.
Would you change anything about the legislative process?
No, it works flawlessly until the “rule benders” show up. They are the people who are unable to get what they want the proper way. They argue the words that have worked since Statehood don’t mean what you thought they did.
I was Parliamentarian my entire tenure in the Arizona Senate. I have always defended our process, any perversion of our process is done by the members themselves.
Might you run again?
Never say never.
Whom do you support for governor?
Doug Ducey. Doug understands what a great leader can accomplish by doing the right thing for the people, if he is not afraid to lead, as opposed to consensus building.
