Timber Lobbyists Seek to Axe Legislative Reforms

Their efforts can include everything from testifying before committees and meeting with officials to treating legislators to dinner or a round of golf. It can also include some very large sums of money.

Lobbyists and their employers are required to file several financial disclosure forms with the Public Disclosure Commission each year. Of them, the L-2 is where the real action is. Filed monthly, it details how much the lobbyist was paid, how much money was spent for travel, entertainment, gifts, contributions, and the like, as well as some expense itemization.

One can learn, for example, where WFPA Executive Director William C. Jacobs and Public Relations Director Timothy S. Boyd had dinner on Jan. 24 of this year (Genoa's) and with whom (Public Lands Commissioner Jennifer Belcher).

Lobbyists must also list items such as gifts, Seahawks tickets, theater tickets and rounds of golf at the Olympia Country Club; but the most important information appears in item 11, where lobbyists record which issues they work on each month.

For Jan. 1994, Jacobs focused on Timber-Fish-Wildlife, Forest Practices/Spotted Owl and DNR legislative issues. The agencies and legislators that received his attentions included the Department of Ecology, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Wildlife, the Governor's office and, most importantly, the Forest Practices Board (FPB).

This agency is charged by state law with "establishing rules to protect the state's natural resources while maintaining a viable timber industry." The rules are intended to "specifically consider what effects various forest practices have on fish, wildlife and water quality, as well as on capital improvements," according to FPB literature.

The commissioner of public lands chairs the FPB as well as overseeing DNR; and the two agencies are closely aligned. The DNR administers the board's rules and provides office support.

In addition to the chair, the 11-member board includes the directors of the departments of Trade and Economics, Ecology and Agriculture (or a designee); an elected county commissioner or council member appointed by the governor and six members of the general public, also appointed by the governor. At least two of the last group are required to have a financial stake in the timber industry, with the aim of providing a balanced board.

One area of contention currently involving the board is the level of regulation. Many in the industry argue that there are simply too many regulations.

Tim Rascho, Trillium Corp.'s manager of forest resources, said, "I think the most important issue is regulatory stability. What we really need is a set of regulations that will be set for some period of time so people can make plans."

He adds that the concern about possible new rules is "causing small landowners to panic and harvest their land prematurely." Instead, he argues, the DNR should focus on "enforcing the existing rules."

Audubon wildlife biologist Tim Cullinan is familiar with that reasoning.

"The fundamental argument they use for not passing new rules is 'We already have enough rules on the books. The problem is we're just not enforcing [them].' And they use that as a defense, as a weapon to prevent the passing of any new regulation. But then they turn around and don't even follow those [existing regulations] themselves."

The DNR's forest practices specialist Dan Bigger agrees that there is insufficient enforcement. "I wish it were better." Because of shortages of both money and staff, he says, they are forced to "rely mainly on voluntary compliance." DNR's solution is to "try to educate" the foresters but, Bigger admits, "We have bad apples."

The industry likely saw a potential solution to some of their problems when the position of Public Lands Commissioner came up for election in 1992. The WFPA and its member companies were acutely aware of the importance of this race. The commissioner chairs the FPB, as well as heading the DNR, which are responsible for making and enforcing rules for forest practices in Washington state.

The industry spent a great deal of energy and money in its efforts to drive their candidate to victory. They certainly had reason to hope for success: with incumbent Brian Boyle declining to seek re-election, the field was wide open.

The two main contenders were Democrat Jennifer Belcher and Republican Ann Anderson. It was a close and uncertain race to the end. A Seattle Times editorial published just a few days before the election read, "When last we checked, Washington's five million acres of public lands were not for sale. But the timber industry is bidding high for the land commissioner's office."

By the time the race was over, Anderson had raised $804,941 to Belcher's $292,375 - far more than had been spent in pursuit of this office before.

The source of the Times' concern is easily apparent. The list of contributors to Anderson's campaign reads like a Who's Who of timber industry interests. Weyerhaeuser and Trillium both gave more than $50,000 each, with Plum Creek at almost $49,000. Several other timber companies gave more than $10,000 each. The WFPA itself gave Anderson $3,000, more than three times its next largest single donation.

Belcher's list of contributors was much more modest. Without Big Business behind her, she relied on a range of environmental, political, labor and other organizations, as well as individual citizens, to help build her campaign fund. The only two donors contributing more than $10,000 were the Washington Environmental Political Action Committee and philanthropist Harriet Bullitt.

The Times didn't seem optimistic about Belcher's chances. "The moral is obvious: Money talks. With no state limits on campaign contributions, the timber industry is free to buy its way into the lands office. If Anderson wins next week, she will owe her job largely to those deep pockets."

While candidates for Insurance Commissioner, for example, are legally prohibited from accepting money from the insurance industry, there is no such rule for the Public Lands Commissioner.

Belcher's victory (52 percent of the final vote to Anderson's 44.4 percent) in the face of such tremendous industry opposition was impressive. The timber industry, however, has not slowed its lobbying efforts. Nor, apparently, has it been much deterred.

In their 1993 annual report, the WFPA describes a very strong involvement: "We disagreed [about some provisions in a bill] and it took some tough negotiations to develop compromise language and an acceptable bill ... We turned back fee bills early in the session... We managed to dramatically trim back the original fee structure proposed... We compromised on fees...," and so on.

Lobbying is certainly an integral part of the legislative process. DNR's Bigger says that while it is not a "hand-in-glove operation, we work with [WFPA] in drafting rules if there's a concerted lobbying effort."

If nothing else, industry lobbyists demand attention by their numbers. "Every time there is a meeting of the Forest Practices Board they are out in force," says Alan Copsey, a forestry expert with the Washington Environmental Council. "They are there lobbying; they are there observing; they are there trying to influence what's going on."

At a meeting earlier this year that Copsey attended, "half-a-dozen environmentalists were there" on a volunteer basis.

"We were surrounded by 60 to 80 of these foresters or their lawyers or their public relations people all dressed in suits, all sitting there paid to monitor what's going on at the FPB," Copsey said. "We can't compete in numbers with that, so the FPB is swayed by the testimony that these paid representatives present."

Copsey said while "most of the members [of the FPB] work very hard to be fair and impartial, you can't help but be swayed when you've got 80 people sitting in one room all saying the same thing with one voice."

Sen. Pam Roach seems to have a lot of confidence in the lobbying system. The Auburn Republican said she feels that "most lobbyists try to be very truthful to the best of their ability." In fact, many lawmakers seem to think of lobbyists as a resource.

As Sen. Brad Owen, chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, explains, "Their job is to provide information. [They can be] an excellent resource." Of the WFPA lobbyists specifically, the Democrat from Shelton says, "I have a lot of respect for their knowledge."

Owen admits the system is "dramatically affected" by lobbying. That influence, however, is "because they are representing a certain segment of the community" that has a right to be heard. He says that the key is to "step aside" once the lobbyists have done their work. "You've got to lock the lobbyists out sometimes once you've got the information [and] sort out what is overly biased."

Owen and Roach both stress that, as Owen puts it, "There's no better lobbyist than a constituent." Roach adds, "We need to have more citizens involved where they can be 'lobbyists' themselves."

When an issue becomes heated with a great deal of lobbyist involvement, Bigger says, "Sometimes the noise is so loud we can't hear the message."

"The balance then," says Roach, "comes from the people."

[Home] [This Issue's Directory] [WFP Index] [WFP Back Issues] [E-Mail WFP]

---

Contents on this page were published in the April/May, 1994 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1994 WFP Collective, Inc.