Lawmakers allocate $5.5 million for Norfork Probate & Family Courthouse
From the December 09, 2002 Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Stacey A. Ober is one of those attorneys who followed the advice that there's a lot one can do with a law degree besides practicing law. As a lobbyist, Ober is still advocating on behalf of her clients, but her forum is on Beacon Hill rather than in a courtroom. The one-time nurse says that she went to law school "with an eye on influencing public policy," and that's exactly what she is doing. This past year, Ober has been instrumental in the passage of a number of bills that have affected lawyers directly. Most notably, she helped secure funding for the temporary relocation of the Norfolk Probate & Family Court so that the employees' victory would not be a "hollow" one. She also helped push through a bill that toughens the laws on repeat drunk drivers. Ober recently sat down with Lawyers Weekly's Jason Scally to discuss her legislative advocacy efforts and how the poor public perception of lobbyists is unfounded.
Born: March 22, 1963; Medfield
Education: Suffolk University Law School, 1997; University of
Massachusetts-Amherst, 1985
Bar admission: 1997
Professional experience: Craven & Ober (2000-present); associate director for legislation and government affairs, Massachusetts Nurses Association (1997-2000); practicing nurse (1986-1997)
Professional affiliations: Boston and Worcester County bar associations
Outside interests: Skiing, scuba diving, boating
Q. We hear the word "lobbying" all the time, but what exactly does that entail?
A. Essentially you are a registered legislative agent on behalf of clients who have a piece of public policy or some legislative initiative that's being debated here in the state Legislature. Your role is to get the right information to the right person at the right time as the legislative process unfolds. It requires an understanding of the process, an understanding of politics, and also the ability to make credible arguments to the Legislature as to why this particular aspect of the legislation may or may not be sound public policy, and why.
Q. When you hear criticism railing against lobbyists and "special interests," what is your response?
A. It's a recognized frustration that money is part of politics here in the United States, so I just take it as an acknowledgement of people's frustration about wanting to influence the process. I would say to those who are disenchanted with our process that, in fact, it does work, and we do have the ability to influence and shape the debate. Our system of government relies upon that active involvement. They say that politics abhors a vacuum, and I think that's very much true.
Q. How do you help the political process?
A. It's important to keep in mind that more than 7,000 bills are filed every on "the Hill." For example, we had a meeting with [Mothers Against Drunk Driving] in a legislative office where we presented a number of staggering statistics about the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities in Massachusetts. It's about 50 percent. The national average hasn't been 50 percent since 1988, so we are more than a decade behind the rest of the nation in terms of the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Their response to us was: "If you weren't here advocating on behalf of MADD, I can't think of anyone who would be up here providing us with that information, compiling those statistics and putting it before us." So that's really our role. If we weren't advocating on behalf of these issues, I think there might be a void.
Q. How did you get involved in the Norfolk Probate & Family Court case?
A. [The plaintiffs' attorney] Chris Milne approached us with an understanding of our background, specifically in relation to health and safety issues, because the case was about the health and safety of these courthouse workers. He knew we would have an intimate understanding of what issues were faced by those court workers.
Q. Why was it important for you to get involved?
A. Our role was in the interest of avoiding a hollow decision in the case where the judge might agree with attorney Milne's case, but the decision would not have any funding associated with it. Attorney Milne was facing a climate where there were politically connected individuals who believed that the modular unit plan was the best route to go, and they were engaged in their own information campaign with the state Legislature about the benefits about the modular unit plan. Our role was about changing the tide, garnering bi-partisan support for the relocation plan, and how to build that support and arrive at that consensus that what he was putting forward really was the best and most reasonable approach in terms of the health and safety of those court workers.
Q. So how did you convince the Legislature to provide the funding?
A. We conducted research around the courthouse bond bill that the Legislature had passed a number of years ago that gave more than $600 million in capital improvement funding to the courthouses. We had to research that, because there was a question as to whether or not capital bond money could be used for a short-term, temporary lease project. That language was not specifically included in the capital bond bill that had passed. The commonwealth had to argue that the cap bond money could not be used to fund relocation on a temporary lease, and it was our challenge to show that there was factual evidence that [the Division of Capital Asset Management] had used money in the past on other projects for short-term lease arrangements. It really was the result of some political strategizing and a lot of legislative representatives in support of our goal in funding the court's decision.
Q. Does your legal background help you in your lobbying efforts?
A. It does. Our style is a little different than other lobbyists. We use a team approach with our clients. You'll frequently see my business partner [Gloria T.A. Craven] and I working on an issue together, and it's because we bring different skill sets to the table. She really is the political animal in terms of knowing who to go to, who to talk to and recognizing folks that would be interested in an issue. My skill set is as the issue spotter. I anticipate what legal arguments might come before us as obstacles. So the skills I learned in law school have benefited us tremendously — not only for the ability to spot issues and anticipate what those issues are, but also in terms of doing legal research, drafting legislation, reviewing an amendment and analyzing what that might mean for the client.
Q. Do lawyers, in general, have an advantage as lobbyists?
A. The purpose of lobbying is influencing the enactment of legislation that becomes law, so I think there is a natural nexus there. It does entail legal skills frequently in crafting a solution that works and makes sense spotting what the issue is and then proposing a solution. It's a logical fit.
Q. How can other lawyers get started in this business, and is it worth it for those seeking an alternative to traditional practice of law?
A. A common route is to work on "the Hill" or to work as staff through a membership organization as a legislative agent. Get experience while being mentored by others in terms of the legislative process, and build a reputation. Begin to develop some relationships with those who are working up at the State House. Those relationships frequently mean access to various policy makers and the ability to make your case. So get involved politically, and develop some relationships.
