As an Advocate for
Quaker Voice
By Jacob Squirrel
What follows are my reflections on my first legislative session as an advocate. I will include at the end a summary of the key points I picked up on the advocacy process. My reflective practice involves a series of queries, and while designed for a more specific instance, I find it still useful for longer engagements.
- As objectively as possible what happened?
- What emotions did I notice in myself?
- What emotions did I notice in others?
- What mental models were at play on my part?
- What mental models may have been at play for others?
- What questions arise from this reflection?
- What might I do differently next time and why?
As objectively as possible what happened?
During February and March I acted as a legislative advocate for QV, Environmental Stewardship work-group. Traveling by bus and on foot to the capital on average 4 times a week, meeting with Paul Benz twice a week, and meeting every week for the Friday Huddle with the team. I sat in on many of the house Environment and Energy Committee sessions. None of the three primary bills I was working on made it out of Committee, however I continued to advocate for the secondary bills to learn as much as I could during this session.
What emotions did I notice in myself?
- Unsure: The Legislature is a big, old, and complex system. How much can any one person affect the process, particularly a newcomer like myself.
- Awkward: Outside the capitol, I was self-aware of the economic class signifiers of my professional attire, particularly on public transport and walking through downtown.
- Energetic: There were a lot of firsts for me. New places, people, and processes! So much to observe.
- Grateful: For the support and understanding of Paul, Susan, and all the QV volunteers. I really felt like this was a space where I could learn from my mistakes.
- Creative: A wonderful opportunity for my organizing and writing skills to be put to good work.
- Inspired: Observing Paul “work the doors” performing shuttle mediation between legislators and “opposition” lobbyists (more on this later).
- Belonging: As I got to know other progressive advocates, I began to feel more at home in the process.
What emotions did I notice in others?
Remarkably, I noticed very little dismissiveness amongst legislators. I had expected to see something similar to what I have seen on the national level. While I witnessed some of the same viewpoints expressed on the national stage, WA legislators appear far more civil. (Not quite an emotion but still interesting: I notice very little physical contact between legislators, contrasted with far more amongst advocates.)
What mental models were at play on my part?
Mediation has provided me with a set of mental models I observed the legislative process through. Mutualism and good faith, key factors in mediation, were two approaches that I paid attentions to. Good faith is the willingness to share all pertinent information, and be open to different ways of seeing a situation. I saw them alive and well in the House Human Services, Youth, & Early Learning.
Generally, I assume “good faith” in others. This is also not true, but it is an image of myself I hold. I have surrounded myself with people I trust. I count myself blessed that my life experiences that I have very few interpersonal instances where I came to doubt good faith. I came to doubt the industry lobbyists’ testimony against the R2R and the Gas ban bill. How much is the profit motive distorting this conversation? There may be another set of models I need to brush off and examine more closely in this respect: negotiation and conflict engagement, which does not necessitate good faith, and includes power analysis and strategic escalation.
My personal philosophy when working with a new human system is to observe and serve. Similar to the environmental principle I practice: protracted and thoughtful observation over transient and thoughtless labor. Observe and serve differs in that humans are more overtly relational; one’s trust and reputation cannot be underestimated. To help where help is asked for. And this was challenging for me in this instance as I am usually used to much greater apparent effectiveness: if I repair a thing it stays fixed, if I help a group with a process, I hear from them how things have improved. I guess that’s part of it. Not seeing improvement, simply speaking for our values. We are Quaker Voice and not Quaker Hands, I suppose.
Lastly, transparency has been on my mind recently, stemming from work of the ad hoc restructuring committee at Olympia Friends Meeting. So, while I was greatly impressed with the amount of legislative material, bill tracking that was available on line, and the open/televised hearings on bills in various committees, I was puzzled at the caucuses. Is it one thing to have a discussion closed to public input, but closed to public observation? Still curious…
What mental models may have been at play for others?
I suspect the pressure to perform as a lobbyist may be different for monied interest’s vs progressive interests.
What questions arise from this reflection?
Can I track campaign contributions and predict legislators’ votes?
Is someone already tracking at the state level?
How might this information be useful or harmful as an advocate?
Why are caucuses closed to the public?
Could the Dispute Resolution Center provide mediation/facilitation services for bill stakeholders?
What might I do differently next time and why?
From my reflections here are a few things I might try during the next session as well as the interim.
- Track campaign finance, particularly around environmental and consumer protection committee work.
- Broach the topic of DRC facilitation during negotiations/bill design with legislators/advocates.
- Inquire about caucus closed doors, with advocates.
- Reach out to other environmental advocates for coffee, lunch, etc.
Moving into the intersession I will try and organize my leanings from QV’s senior advocate and volunteers.
- For the primary bills that don’t make it into law, continue working with coalitions/primary sponsors during intersession.
- Study committee chairs.
- Start work early on coalitions.
- Identify Opposition advocates when in good faith.
- Identify Opposition advocates otherwise.
Continue developing relationships with …
- Party caucus staff on environmental/consumer protection portfolio.
- Continue to develop relationships with other advocates such as ZeroWaste WA and Environment WA.
Closing
I would like to close with an event I observed while shadowing Paul at the doors, which I find inspiring. Working pro bono for a client whose child had been traumatized in the public school system, Paul perform shuttle mediation between the bill sponsor and the advocate for the Teacher’s Union who were opposing the bill. I don’t know which bill it was, uncertain if it passed. The bill had a code of ethics outlined for teachers, meant only to be “aspirational” by the sponsor. For the union, anything written into law could be used against teachers in a lawsuit. The sponsor saw the concern and agreed. At least in that moment there was agreement, that I can only assume hadn’t been found because of the immense workload of the sponsors. And here comes Paul, connecting three points in a sea of chaos to find agreement.