Chris Beutler: The NNN Interview - Part II

Continuing from Tuesday's installment, here is the second half of the New Nebraska Network's interview with long-time State Senator and 2007 Lincoln mayoral candidate Chris Beutler.

For readers outside Nebraska's capital city, Beutler here proves ready and willing to look beyond Lincoln's borders - speaking about his vision for a greater Omaha-Lincoln metropolitan area, as well as his two decades of leadership in the state legislature.

********
Michaelis: On the economic development front, Lincoln has been pretty slow in developing towards Omaha along the I-80 corridor even though so much untapped potential for this community and for the entire state seems to lie in that 45 to 55 mile expanse. Instead, most residential and economic development has been to the south, as if Lincoln were almost scared of the future and of losing its individual identity. In your vision, how closely tied are the futures of Lincoln and Omaha?

Beutler: Well, I think we need to be logical about what’s happening. And, the fact of the matter is that Lincoln and Omaha in that corridor with Council Bluffs are all developing into one large, metropolitan area. That’s the way the future will be. And, the question is do we acknowledge that and do those things that create the best environment and the best relationships and the best planning? Or, do we assume that we’re not all together in this but going our separate ways? That’s kind of a fundamentally different way of looking at the area.

But, I believe [in] developing the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, developing the University of Nebraska at Omaha, working together with Omaha. Not becoming like Omaha - we can still be very different on this west end of what will be in the future the metropolitan area - but it’s to our best interests to figure out how we can best work together with Omaha.

Do you foresee that relationship - if you were mayor, with the city of Omaha – as one of competition, cooperation, or kind of a friendly mix of both?

I kind of like your terminology – a “friendly mix of both.” Again, I don’t personally want Lincoln to become like Omaha, and I don’t think most people in Lincoln want to become just like Omaha. We want to develop our own destiny and have our own unique sense of place that’s separate and apart from Omaha. But…there are just so many kinds of cooperative relationships that can develop that we should look to because they’re to our economic best interests and our best interests altogether.

So, I would like us to develop a more flexible attitude with regard to Omaha and be more accepting of the possibilities of cooperation. And be a little less suspicious. Learn what we can from Omaha and teach them what they need to learn.

Now, I hope you don’t mind, I’d love to change gears just a little and talk about your experience in the Nebraska legislature and – hopefully - get your views on some of the major issues being faced this session. Having stepped away from state government after so many years of being right there at the heart of it all, how difficult has that been for you?

Well, I have to say, every once in a while, when I pick up the paper, there’s certainly something I’d like to get my two cents worth in on. But, I’ve turned my mind so completely to the future and to the problems at the local level that – honestly – I haven’t paid nearly as much attention to things as in prior days.

But, leadership in the city of Lincoln – good leadership in the city of Lincoln – requires that I need to pay attention to a number of the issues at the state level. So, I continue to do that – the issues that are most relevant to Lincoln and to municipal government. But, I’m trying to focus on the state issues that relate to local government and the local issues – and not get too far a field and misspend my time on things that I can no longer change.

And, of course, right now you have a campaign to win.

Right.

While running for mayor…you have been quite vocal with promises that you will NOT raise property taxes to balance the city’s budget. Do you believe the state should play any substantial role in providing property tax relief even though they are collected at the local level?

The state does need to play a very strong role in diminishing the burden of property taxes. I might start out by pointing out that has been the history of state government – in terms of shifting the overall state and local tax burden away from property taxes and more onto sales and income tax. If you look at the history of this state from the beginning of the modern tax system in the late 1960s when the sales and income and property tax all came into existence together for the first time, at that point in time about 60% of the total taxes spent were property taxes. Now, it’s down to a little over 40%.

So, over time – mainly through the vehicle of state aid to education but through other state aid programs and through budget limitations and tax levy limitations - even though people still find the property tax the most burdensome and even though we still have a ways to go, the legislature has been and must continue to help us shift away from property taxes.

At the legislative level, I think I voted – it’s hard to remember over 23 years – but I know that I voted almost 100% in favor of homestead exemptions, state aid to education, all those programs that go out to the reduction of property taxes.

The tax plan Gov. Dave Heineman has put forward – LB331 – would eliminate the estate tax and cut income taxes, targeting a majority of its benefits to those currently in Nebraska’s highest tax bracket. Do you feel very strongly one way or another as to how well Heineman’s plan would serve our state – let alone the city of Lincoln?

I don’t want to get involved because I don’t currently, now, have inside information – all the budget details and revenue details that were once available to me. But, I would just say this – I think, in the minds of most people, the property tax is still considered the most burdensome tax, and tax relief should continue to be focused towards property tax relief.

Sen. Beutler - as a life-long Nebraskan - I want to thank you for the 15 years of leadership and dedication you showed in the legislature on the issue of campaign finance reform. In particular, thank you for the important role you played in holding former Regent David Hergert accountable and eventually even seeing his impeachment for his intentional violation of the state’s laws last year. Also, last session you were finally able to overcome years of quite vigorous opposition to get some long overdue reforms to the campaign finance system enacted. Tell me - how confident are you in the system and its disclosure requirements as they currently stand?

Well, you’re asking very complex questions and good questions. The campaign finance situation is another one of those complex and tough situations that I’ve taken on because it was an area that needed leadership.

I think Nebraska has the best campaign finance law in the country. Now, having said that, you also have to acknowledge immediately that the United States Supreme Court has not yet loosened its views on free speech to the extent that would be required in order to get your arms all the way around the subject of campaigns. Right now, independent expenditures are allowed under the law and can not be prohibited by state law. So, even though our mechanism works well for campaign committees, it doesn’t preclude such things as independent committees doing their own thing independently and once again making the influence of money such that a fair fight doesn’t occur.

What we’re seeing in Nebraska is a ballooning of independent expenditures, and we’ll just have to wait and see whether the court allows us to deal with that.

Would you feel comfortable claiming campaign finance reform as your greatest legacy as a State Senator?

I don’t know if I would call it my greatest legacy, but I would say that I think it’s one of the most creative things I’ve done. It’s a unique system that’s looked at all the time nationally. Elements of it I think are being picked-up elsewhere. That we managed to politically get it in place somehow – I’m not sure how we were able to do that actually. [laughter]

But, it’s a unique system and it’s a very good system if we could just be allowed to get our arms around independent expenditures.

Getting back to your campaign for mayor in the time that we have left, longtime legislators often learn that their voting records prove quite the liability in seeking higher office. You’ve had to make choices that are easily taken out of context and spun for whatever purposes an opponent might imagine. How do you overcome these attacks?

I think – how can I put this – over a period of 23 years in the legislature, I’ve made the tough decisions. And, the tough decisions are not necessarily [on] the same side of the ideological divide in each instance. There have been times when I thought the University of Nebraska was being too destructively cut - when state employees were being treated unfairly. In those instances, with two very important groups to the economy of the state and the city of Lincoln, sometimes you have to do things that involve increasing revenues.

I will make that tough decision if that’s what’s the most intelligent thing to do. And that will create a problem for me in terms of campaign rhetoric. But, I think the people want to know that you’re thoughtfully looking at things and doing what is - in a common sense way - the best thing to do.

I’m proud of all the decisions I’ve made in the legislature. I don’t have any regrets. I think I’ve been very balanced and very protective of Lincoln’s interests. So, I look forward to that discussion.

Finally, on the same day you announced your intentions to run for Mayor last September, the Lancaster County Republican Party already issued a press release attacking you as “another recycled liberal” who would be “the most liberal mayor in the history of the city.” Now, with many of my readers, you probably just scored a lot of points, but what do you say to ease the concerns of the average voter who just wants good government, not a government serving first and foremost as an ideological battleground?

First of all, the release was most interesting because it assumed that they had researched every mayor back to the beginning of Lincoln to determine that I was the most liberal. Obviously, they had not done that. But, people who know me know that I’m very pragmatic and not ideological. That I’m interested in a broad and strong middle-class. That I’m interested in fairness - a reasonable and fair distribution in the economic system because I think that’s what has made a strong America and will continue to make a strong America....

Basically, that’s where I stand.

The headline of that first press release was, “If you liked Terry Werner, you’ll love Chris Beutler” – referring to a former Councilman who local Republicans smeared in rather unprecedented fashion during the last city elections. That year, the GOP County chair even went so far as bragging about hiring a private investigator to follow and to intimidate Werner. The Lincoln Journal-Star then said of the Republican Party, “They're not focused on finding the best way to deal with the challenges facing the city. All they care about [is] scoring an election victory.” The Journal-Star also warned, “If the attack ads succeed, they'll multiply in the next election.”

Well, here we are. Considering that Werner was defeated, do you expect and is your campaign prepared for a repeat of these same sorts of ugly and quite vicious attacks?

I think the campaign is prepared for anything and everything. We’re trying to anticipate all eventualities. I’m not sure my wife is so entirely prepared, but we’ll see.

Have you seen any black cars following you around?

No. [humoring his interviewer with a hearty laugh]

Anyone going through your trash?

No. So far, I don’t think they’ve gone to that extent. But, hopefully it won’t devolve down to that level because I do think the people of this city really are interested in ideas – real ideas - about the future of Lincoln. And I think we’ve done very well in that regard, in supplying those ideas.

********
The New Nebraska Network thanks Sen. Beutler for his time and wishes him well in both the April 3rd primary and the May 1st general election. We hope readers enjoyed this peek into the mind and the vision of a true Nebraska progressive who's been paving the way for better government and a brighter future throughout his impressive but unfinished career in public service.

Again, this is THE election of 2007 in Nebraska politics. To learn more about Chris Beutler and his campaign to become Lincoln's next Mayor, please see www.ChrisBeutler.com and consider contributing in any way possible.

Go to full text...

Chris Beutler: The NNN Interview - Part 1

The biggest election in Nebraska in 2007 is the race for mayor of Lincoln, the state's capital city and its second-largest population center. The race will be decided in a May 1st election after an April 3rd primary whittles the field down to two challengers.

Last week, the New Nebraska Network enjoyed the opportunity to sit down with longtime State Sen. Chris Beutler - a proven visionary and a personal favorite in Nebraska politics - who is seeking the mayor's office after serving the city of Lincoln for almost a quarter century in the state legislature. What follows is the first in a two-part interview:

********
Michaelis: Sen. Beutler, I want to thank you for your time this morning. For a local race, I think it’s safe to say that your campaign is really breaking some new ground in Nebraska politics with its use of technology and new media. There’s the video content on your website. There’s your profile on MySpace. And, let’s face it, here you are doing an interview for a blog like the New Nebraska Network. What do you think it says about you and your campaign that you’re trying these new avenues of connecting with voters?

Beutler: I hope it’s a new way of saying the same thing about myself. I want to be accessible to people. When I ran for the legislature, I went out door-to-door because you could do that in a legislative-sized race. I went to every door in the district. I’ve always used every means possible to contact people and to give them the opportunity to express their opinions. And, these are new ways of contacting people.

I think you need to go to where people live, and some people live on the Internet now. They live on MySpace. They live on the various websites – go to your blog. Communication is extremely important to leadership, and to the extent that I can take that leadership and try to communicate on every level with every possible person by every means possible, I think that’s the way to go.

For the last decade, Lincoln has a history of being pretty hard on its mayors. When sitting mayor Mike Johanns first ran for Governor, he did not win the city of Lincoln. He was followed in office by Don Weseley and then Coleen Seng – both of whom had significant problems with the local press and just in public opinion in general. Now, there’s a lot of talk about Lincoln needing new leadership with a new attitude in city government. But, do you have any concerns that the attitude of the community itself might be a part of the problem?

I do have a lot of concerns with the negativism in Lincoln right now. It seems to be building on itself and feeding itself. It’s becoming destructive. When you have a city council person that’s putting in a national magazine language to the effect that this is not a good place to do business, that’s not helpful.

Lincoln is – I think - a hard city to govern. You have some political elements that are maybe unique in the sense that you have a large number of neighborhood associations that are active politically. You have neighborhood associations in other cities but leadership in this city requires incorporating them into the political dialogue.

Instead of having one strong business association, you have two in this city. You have the Chamber of Commerce and you have LIBA [Lincoln Independent Business Association]. They don’t always agree with each other. They take different attitudes toward city government – one, a very critical attitude toward city government. Then, you have...all of the independent thinkers over at the University. Other cities have Universities but still most cities do not on the scale that we have. That’s another part of the political dialogue in this city.

So, it is…a hard city to govern. For that reason, I’ve suggested – you may have seen on our website – this MOVE Council. We have not heretofore brought all those political elements together at one table and asked them to sit around and make some compromises on some of the priorities of the city and to work on a strategic plan that we can call the city’s strategic plan. To devise the necessary compromises on prioritization - on public contribution to projects. We haven’t gotten together in the most meaningful political sense all of the elements to move forward on an economic development plan or a vision for the city. Whether that vision incorporates elements in addition to economic development…in today’s world, everything you do in a city relates to economic development….

But, one of the very most important things to me is changing the tenor of the debate in this city. Changing it from constant bickering and negativism to something much more positive.

The lack of leadership in city government is a pretty consistent theme in all the campaigns for mayor. In this regard, what most seems to distinguish you from your chief opponent, City Councilman Ken Svoboda, is that he wants to lay that blame squarely at the Mayor’s door – as if everything else is perfectly fine. How deep would you say the problems in city government run, and is a new mayor really going to be enough to change the way things get done in Lincoln?

Well, I think the problem is not only in the mayor’s office, but it’s also in the city council. And, I don’t think people on the city council escape responsibility by claiming to be in the minority. You know, for example, I was always in the minority in the legislature. I was never in the majority. Yet, I could get things done. I could work with people and change visions to realities at the legislative level. And, at the city council level, they’re a legislative body. They have the power to offer amendments, to offer ordinances, to change policies, to change this city’s direction. And they have not done that.

They have not come to grips with the major problems of the city…..the lack of roads infrastructure financing money, the failure to come to grips with the budget problems in a long-term meaningful way, and the failure to come to grips with quality management problems of one type or another that have been persistent in our current city culture. All of those things are both the responsibility of the city council and the mayor and - in my opinion - they have sat around and waited - and waited - and hesitated on these major questions and not come to grips with them.

So, a major theme in my campaign is strong leadership and strong leadership means coming to grips with these major problems and moving ahead.

There seems to be a certain perception that the winner of this race will be the candidate who best succeeds at separating himself from Mayor Seng and the perceived failures in city government under her watch. Now, Councilman Svoboda seems to be relying on your being a Democrat - like Mayor Seng - to position you as closest to her record in the eyes of voters. Yet…Svoboda has been in office throughout Seng’s entire term – even serving as Chair of the City Council. If voters really are unhappy with the way things are being done in the city, which do you think they’re more likely to pursue – a change in party or a change in personnel?

I think the voters of the city of Lincoln are a very independent sort. And, frankly, I don’t think they give much weight to party labels. At least, not the vast majority of them. I think they’re going to look to the individual leadership characteristics of the candidates who are offered to them, and I think they’re going to choose the person that they think will provide the strongest leadership and who is offering the best opportunities to solve these on-going problems and restore confidence in city government.

I don’t think there’s been a time in recent history in this city when people have more wanted city government to be restored to a positive system in their minds. I think, right now, they see one unhappy circumstance after another – whether its fire trucks or Verizon or complaints from businesses that they can’t get through the permitting processes. There’s just a number of things that cry out for quality management. I think people want to know that their city government is operating again in an intelligent, efficient manner before they’re going to be willing to go ahead and look at things like strategic plans and visions and to consider city involvement in those kinds of bigger, futuristic items.

I see the movement in the next two years as a kind of two-step process: one, restoring competence in city government and, then, from that point, working with a broad community strategic plan to move forward to new things and better things and a broader vision of the community. Again - I’m repeating myself, but it’s so important that competence in government be restored first.

Now, on the campaign trail, you’ve often talked about Lincoln’s need for a leader “with vision and grit who comes from outside city politics.” What makes these qualities the most important for Lincoln’s next mayor, and why are you that leader?

Those qualities are important because we’re going to be faced with a number of tough decisions. Solving the infrastructure financing problem will involve tough decisions. Solving the budget problem will involve – in the short term - expenditure cuts, and those will be tough decisions. I vow – I promise - to set the budget straight next year without increasing property taxes because I don’t think any mayor can take office and solve a problem by increasing property taxes and have any credibility for the future. So, those will be hard decisions for me because…most of the services we provide are good services. I would be reluctant to [cut them], but I will do it if it’s necessary to – again - restore credibility in government…..

Working with directors and middle-level managers to get going with some performance standards and benchmarks and changing the way they do things so that processes can move ahead more efficiently and effectively, that will also be hard work and some hard decision-making. So - in the short term - a number of the decisions that need to be made are just difficult decisions by any standard.

My history has been one of being willing to make tough decisions at the legislative level. You’ve worked statewide. You know about the water issue. You know how tough that is. And, you know that I spoke up on that issue. My history in the legislature has been taking up those issues that other people don’t want to deal with and dealing with them – whether it’s campaign finance reform or restructuring the court system….

Many of the tough, tough decisions at the legislative level I’ve taken on because other people didn’t want to do it. And, that’s okay because what I get satisfaction out of is solving the hard problems. I enjoy working with public policy and complex problems. I enjoy that part of it a lot more than I enjoy campaigning.

The only element [you didn’t address] is “the new beginning” – bringing in someone from outside city politics. Is that absolutely essential in this election year in the mayor’s office?

I think that it is – especially in the context of this particular election because the main competition is Ken Svoboda. Ken Svoboda has sat on the city council and has watched all these things happening and has not taken initiative. The city is either going to choose Ken or myself, and I think there’s a significant contrast in the way that Ken and I look at things.

I believe in limited government. I believe in tight, disciplined, focused government. But, having said that, I believe in positive government. I believe that government needs to be responsibly responsive to the community and represent the community. And, government is responsible for seeing that economic development goes forward – seeing that there is a strong relationship, a partnership with business. But, not only with business – with the neighborhoods, with the non-profits, with all of the elements of a community. It’s the government that needs to see that we’re moving forward in all these different areas. I believe in positive government.

Ken, on the other hand, I think is philosophically and psychologically handicapped by his notion that government should be diminished. That government should “get out of the way,” as he frames it. That government shouldn’t take the leadership on economic development. That government shouldn’t be going to the legislature to solve the State Fair Park problem. That government shouldn’t get involved with the cable franchise. I don’t think he’s going to be able to effectively use the tool of government to move the city ahead because he doesn’t really believe in it. It’s a fundamental difference between the way we look at things.

********
Stay tuned. The interview with Chris Beutler will continue later this week (click here for Part II) - exclusively at the New Nebraska Network.

Go to full text...